======================================================================== THE LETTERS OF JOHN WESLEY by John Wesley ======================================================================== The standard edition of John Wesley's correspondence, compiled from sources across many years. These letters reveal Wesley's pastoral heart, organizational genius, and theological convictions as he guided the growing Methodist movement. Chapters: 97 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 00.3. Preface 2. 00.4. Introduction 3. 01. Volume 1 Events 4. 02. THE GEORGIA LETTERS 5. 03. THE GEORGIA MISSION 6. 04. THE FIRST YEARS OF THE REVIVAL 7. 05. 1721 8. 06. 1723 9. 07. 1724 10. 08. 1725 11. 09. 1726 12. 10. 1727 13. 11. 1728 14. 12. 1729 15. 13. 1730 16. 14. 1731 17. 15. 1732 18. 16. 1733 19. 17. 1734 20. 18. 1735 21. 19. 1736 22. 20. 1737 23. 21. 1738 24. 22. 1739 25. 23. 1740 26. 24. 1741 27. 25. Volume 2 Events 28. 26. 1742 29. 27. 1743 30. 28. 1744 31. 29. 1745 32. 30. 1746 33. 31. 1747 34. 32. 1748 35. 33. 1749 36. 34. Volume 3 Events 37. 35. 1749 38. 36. 1750 39. 37. 1751 40. 38. 1752 41. 39. 1753 42. 40. 1754 43. 41. 1755 44. 42. 1756 45. 43. 1756 46. 44. 1757 47. 45. 1758 48. 46. Volume 4 Events 49. 47. 1758 50. 48. 1759 51. 49. 1760 52. 50. 1761 53. 51. 1762 54. 52. 1763 55. 53. 1764 56. 54. 1765 57. 55. 1766 58. 56. Volume 5 Events 59. 57. 1766 60. 58. 1767 61. 59. 1768 62. 60. 1769 63. 61. 1770 64. 62. 1771 65. 63. 1772 66. 64. Volume 6 Events 67. 65. 1772 68. 66. 1773 69. 67. 1774 70. 68. 1775 71. 69. 1776 72. 70. 1777 73. 71. 1779 74. 72. 1778 75. 73. Volume 7 Events 76. 74. 1780 77. 75. 1781 78. 76. 1781 79. 77. 1782 80. 78. 1782 81. 79. 1783 82. 80. 1783 83. 81. 1784 84. 82. 1784 85. 83. 1785 86. 84. 1785 87. 85. 1786 88. 86. 1786 89. 87. Volume 8 Events 90. 88. 1787 91. 89. 1788 92. 90. 1788 93. 91. 1789 94. 92. 1789 95. 93. 1790 96. 94. 1790 97. 95. 1791 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 00.3. PREFACE ======================================================================== Preface MANY Methodist experts have shared in the labor which has at last taken shape in this Standard Edition of John Wesley’s Letters. No pains have been spared to make it complete; but the way in which letters have recently come in from all parts of the world makes it probable that others may yet be added. No letters, save some that may be styled controversial, are given in the edition of his Works which Wesley published in thirty-two duodecimo volumes in 1771—4. The second edition of the Works, for which Joseph Benson was responsible, appeared in sixteen volumes in 1809—13, and contained about 400 letters. Thomas Jackson, in his edition of the Works in fourteen volumes (1829—31), was able by well-directed effort to bring the number up to 900 [See his Recollections, p. 236.]; and the latest reprint (the fifth edition) increased the total, including a few added letters, to 955. The number available for this Standard Edition has mounted up to 2,670. Dr. Priestley published in 1791 Original Letters by the Rev. John Wesley and his Friends, which had been given him by the Rev. Samuel Badcock, who received them from the granddaughter of Samuel Wesley, jun. Eleven letters from Wesley to his brother Samuel and one to his father are included. Dr. Priestley says Wesley was ‘very desirous of getting these letters into his possession,’ and it was ‘taken for granted that he would have suppressed them.’ We may be sure, from the way Wesley printed similar letters in the Arminian Magazine, that he would not have taken such a course; for the letters throw a flood of light on his own life at Oxford, and have much to say about the mysterious noises in Epworth Rectory. The letters soon made their impression; and in 1816 appeared A Collection of Letters, Pastoral and Familiar, by the late Rev. John Wesley, A.M.; Extracted from the Sixteenth Volume of his Works in octavo, lately published in London. (Dublin: Printed for the Methodist Book-Room, 13 Whitefriars Styeet.) The volume had 385 pages, and was sold in calf at 5s.’ It has an address ‘To the Reader: Such a volume as the present, where Mr. Wesley is seen in his private and retired hours, was much wanted; and will, we have little doubt, become a very profitable and pleasing companion to the numerous admirers of that truly great and eminent man.’ Another compilation (Select Letters, Chiefly on Personal Religion, by the Rev. John Wesley, A.M.: with a Sketch of his Character by the Rev. Samuel Bradburn; and a short Preface by the editor, Thomas Jackson) is dated May 15, 1837. This contained 207 letters selected from the Works and the Methodist Magazine, and ran to 264 pages. A correspondent of the Methodist Recorder in 1869 suggested that the time had come to issue the unpublished letters in a volume for the use of the Methodist and general public. The Rev. Richard Green, who was one of the founders of the Wesley Historical Society, set himself to gather together Wesley’s letters from his Works, from serial publications, and from unpublished sources. In 1906 he told the Rev. Thomas E. Brigden, who shared his labours for some years, that he had secured 1,600, which were ready ‘for the printer.’ He had traced above 500 original manuscript letters besides those in the Colman Collection. [W.H.S. Proceedings, xi. 13.] The Rev. Dr. Watkinson, into whose care this Collection passed after Mr. Green’s death, took the keenest interest in the work. He was not able to undertake the burdensome task of editing them himself; but he was constantly watching for any opportunity to add to the Collection. In 1915 this had grown to 2,120 letters. The time was not then ripe for publication; but that event was never allowed to drop out of sight. Thomas Jackson notes in his Recollections (p. 230) that he secured important family papers from Charles Wesley the musician; but Mr. Mason, the Book Steward, ‘being in doubt as to the real value of these documents, declined to advance any money towards the purchase.’ The Conference, however, gladly endorsed the purchase. Mr. Mason’s successors have been awake to the importance of Wesley’s letters; and large additions were made to the Collection by the Revs. Charles H. Kelly and Robert Culley, and especially by the Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Sharp, whose far-sighted and liberal policy in securing autograph letters has materially increased the riches of these volumes. In 1915 appeared Letters of John Wesley: A Selection of Important and New Letters, with Introductions and Biographical Notes, by George Eayrs (Hodder & Stoughton). The new or little known. letters number 70, and the volume contains a portrait and some effective facsimiles. That collection found much favor; and Dr. Eayrs freely placed all his stores and experience at the service of the present editor, though he was not spared to see the publication of this Standard Edition. The Rev. Nehemiah Curnock’s experience in editing the Standard Edition of Wesley’s Journal enabled him to make valuable additions both to the number of the letters and to the completeness of many which had previously been published with significant omissions. Additions have also been made by purchase of original autographs; and friends and public institutions in Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States, have sent copies of originals in their hands. We have been much encouraged by leading collectors in the United States. Dr. Bimey, Dean of the School of Theology in Boston University, wrote: ‘The idea you have in mind is certainly a splendid one, and would be of great value on both sides of the Atlantic.’ Bishop Candler, of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, in sending copies preserved at Atlanta, says: ‘Every study of Wesley reveals some new and striking characteristic. It seems to me not too much to say that no man has surpassed him since apostolic times.’ Dr. James, of Wesleyan University, Middletown, secured us photostat copies of nine letters in their library; others were supplied by Mr. G. S. Goddard, of the Connecticut State Library. President Tipple, of Drew Theological Seminary, gave us copies of various originals in his fine collection. Dr. Faulkner, of Drew, has constantly helped us by calling attention to letters and securing copies, notably of those in the Pierpont Morgan Library at New York. Two letters to Mrs. Barton were presented to Trinity College, Auckland, by Dr. Cleary, the Roman Catholic Bishop, who purchased them from Frank Denton, to whose grandfather Mrs. Barton gave them when he was a lodger in her house. The invaluable Colman Collection (which largely represents the diaries and letters once in the hands of Wesley’s literary executor, the Rev. Henry Moore) has been freely placed at our service by the kindness of Mr. Russell J. Colman. The Rev. Dr. Edward H. Sugden, Master of Queen’s College, University of Melbourne, has been a constant ally; while to Mr. George Stampe of Grimsby, to Mr. Edmund S. Lamplough (into whose hands a large part of Mr. Stampe’s Collection passed), to the Moravian authorities in Fetter Lane and at Herrnhut, and to friends whom it is impossible to name individually, our debt is greater than we can express. Some of them have graciously given the originals to add to the store at City Road. We wish also to acknowledge the special kindness of Messrs. Maggs Brothers and the late Mr. Tregaskis in allowing us to make copies of some originals that have passed through their hands. There are, no doubt, letters which we have not been able to include, and some to which reference is made may perhaps even yet be traced; but the Collection is as complete as unceasing effort and liberal outlay could make it. The chief owners of autograph letters so far as can be ascertained are—The Methodist Publishing House in London, which has above 330; Mr. Edmund S. Lamplough, 162; Headingley College, Leeds, 55; the Wesley Museum, City Road, London, 75, including those bequeathed to it by Mrs. Alfred Hall, of Bristol; Dr. Tipple, formerly President of Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, New Jersey, 50; Emory University, Atlanta, 48; the Everett Collection, United Methodist College, Manchester, 44; the Moravian Archives, 44; Mr. Russell J. Colman, 39, and the invaluable set of Wesley Diaries and transcripts of letters; the Methodist Mission House, London, 34; Mr. G. Vanner Rowe, 23; the Pierpont Morgan College, New York, 21; Vincent Thompson, Esq., 17; the Misses Gamlen, 10; the John Rylands Library, 9; and Drew Theological Seminary, 9. All these Collections have been placed unreservedly at our service for this edition. A full list of owners is kept at the Methodist Publishing House. The most valuable assistance in gathering together Wesley’s letters has been obtained from the Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society. Up to 1918 there had appeared in its pages ninety-five letters which had not been printed elsewhere. The number grows continually, and valuable notes are added which have often been of service in the preparation of this Collection. We are under deep obligation to the officers of that Society, who have freely put all their resources at our disposal; and to individual members, among whom the late Rev. Marmaduke Riggall was a constant and most helpful correspondent. To the Rev. Thomas E. Brigden, senior editor of the Society’s Proceedings, our debt is very great. He has supplied notes which light up the Oxford and Georgia letters, and has put his unrivalled knowledge of Wesley’s life and times at our service. Mr. Wallington did much to gather material from many sources. A heavy part of the preparation of the volumes for the press fell on the late Mr. G. A. Bartlett, my faithful Assistant at the Publishing House for twenty-five years; to whose technical skill and unwearying vigilance the accuracy and completeness of the work owe more than it is easy to express. His death, on June 20, 1930, robbed me of my chief helper. Special thanks are due to the British Museum and the Guildhall Library for valuable assistance and to the printers for their vigilance and helpfulness. The letters are arranged in chronological order [A few discovered later appear at the end of vol. viii.]; so that after the Oxford period, for which they possess unique value, they march with events as recorded in the Journal. The controversial letters are sometimes of such length that it has been found more convenient to place them at the end of the volumes. In afl such cases the chronological position is indicated in its proper place. Special information is given in the headings concerning the correspondent and the circumstances under which a letter was written, and no pains have been spared to explain difficult or obscure allusions. Some of these still baffle us; but further light will no doubt be thrown on not a few. The letters are printed without the slightest omission. Many passages omitted in the Works have now been inserted, and wherever possible names which could not be printed at that time have been given. Any additions needed have been placed within square brackets. Throughout the Letters the Standard Edition of Wesley’s Journal and the fifth edition of his Works (14 volumes octavo) are those used for reference. The letters are divided into sections with a few principal dates prefixed and a tablet calling attention to some leading features of the letters. W.H.S. is Wesley Historical Society and its Proceedings. A list of persons to whom the letters in it are addressed follows the Contents in each volume. In such a work as this errors are almost unavoidable, and the editor will be grateful for any corrections or additional information that may be sent to him for later use. DORKING, 1931. Edited by Michael Mattei (2001). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 00.4. INTRODUCTION ======================================================================== Introduction THE earliest Wesley letter that has been preserved links him to the famous school he loved so well and to which he owed so much. He was eighteen when he wrote to the Treasurer of Charterhouse; but his style is as clear and direct as in his maturity, and his moral scrupulousness shows with what high ideals he started life. The last letter is that to William Wilberforce, a trumpet-blast from the veteran who is putting off his armor to the noble philanthropist engaged in a mighty war against one of the most horrible wrongs suffered by mankind. Wesley knew his correspondent, and was heart and soul with him in his great crusade. Such a letter must have been an inspiration to the heroic soldier of Christ who received it. The fact that age and youth were joined together in Thomas Sutton’s foundation must have been very impressive to a boy like John Wesley. In his letter of December 3, 1774, to Christopher Hopper, one of his foremost preachers, we catch a manifest allusion to the eighty pensioners who shared Charterhouse with the schoolboys: ’We are really a company of poor gentlemen. But we have food and raiment and content.’ That is a striking picture of the itinerant brotherhood of which Wesley was both founder and leader. The letters begin in 1721, and end in 1791. Every year between is represented in this Collection save 1722 and 1728. The number preserved in 1731 reaches 21 and in the years of Wesley’s conversion and first field-preaching runs up to 30 and 33. For 1768 there are 68 letters; and the number gradually rises, with some exceptions, till the highest totals are reached, 138 in 1788, 144 in 1789. The roll of 2,670 letters may be compared with the more than 800 letters of Cicero that have come down to us, of which 400 were written to his friend Atticus. In her fourteen volumes of Horace Walpole’s Letters, Mrs. Paget Toynbee was able to include 2,801 in whole or in part and the number was brought up to 3,060 in the two supplementary volumes edited by her husband. Dr. Johnson felt’ the cool of leisure, the stillness of solitude’ were necessary to the production of a good letter. Such conditions were not often granted to Wesley. He did manage, when an important answer had to be written to a controversialist, to secure a day or two at Lewisham, or in some other congenial retreat, where he could grapple with a difficult subject; but his Diary shows that his letter-writing was carried on in moments snatched from other engagements. The Letters give many glimpses into the financial burden that rested on the head of a growing communion. On January 14, 1779, he is struggling with his London building scheme, and writes to Miss Warren: ’ We are here at our wit’s end how to pay for the new chapel, as many of our workmen are unpaid still. For riches the Calvinists beat us altogether.’ See also letter of June 30, 1743. In Wesley’s letter to Samuel Furly on July 15, 1764, an interesting light is thrown on his method of composition: ’ I never think of my style at all; but just set down the words that come first. Only when I transcribe anything for the press, then I think it my duty to see that every phrase be clear, pure, and proper. Conciseness (which is now, as it were, natural to me) brings quantum sufficit of strength. If, after all, I observe any stiff expression, I throw it out, neck and shoulders.’ On March 3I, I787, he tells Miss Cooke (who afterwards married Adam Clarke), ’Considering that I am usually obliged to write in haste, I often doubt whether my correspondence is worth having’; and in the following July to Lady Maxwell he says, ’Our correspondence, I hope, will never be broken off, till one of us be removed into a better world. It is true I have often wondered that you were not weary of so useless a correspondent; for I am very sensible the writing of letters is my brother’s talent rather than mine. Yet I really love to write to you, as I love to think of you.’ He says to Richard Tompson on February 5, 1756, ’ I am a very slow, you seem to be a very swift, writer ’; the next month he tells Dr. Dodd, ’ We are both of us rapid writers.’ His penmanship was deliberate, but his mind moved quickly. Leslie Stephen says Wesley ’shows remarkable literary power; but we feel that his writings are means to a direct practical end, rather than valuable in themselves, either in form or substance. It would be difficult to find any letters more direct, forcible, and pithy in expression. He goes straight to the mark, without one superfluous flourish. He writes as a man confined within the narrowest limits of time and space, whose thoughts are so well in hand that he can say everything needful within these limits. The compression gives emphasis, and never causes confusion. The letters, in other words, are the work of one who for more than half a century was accustomed to turn to account every minute of his eighteen working hours.’ [History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, ii. 409.] The devotional and spiritual significance of the Letters grows upon us as we study them. Wesley’s best writing is here, the most direct, most pungent, most ’practical. His whole heart and mind were absorbed in his work as an evangelist. The letters bear witness that it was no narrow view of religion which he cherished. It covered every side of life. It sought to make good citizens and true patriots, as well as honorable men of business and good fathers and mothers. It included true culture; for Wesley said that the work of grace would die out in one generation if the Methodists were not a reading people. His letters were part of the great mission to which he had consecrated himself, and must have sent a thrill through the minds and hearts of his correspondents, not a few of whom were young friends who coveted his smile and were eager to help him in his work. The Rev. Nehemiah Curhock wrote long ago that one never saw a Wesley autograph without wanting to know what it said. ’Invariably and inevitably it says something that is worth reading. The manuscript letter or memorandum is sure to be short, clear, neat, orderly, pithy, in pure English, containing something practical put into vigorous form, and not without a dash of imperiousness, loving-kindness, or raciness. Read ever so small a fragment in a company of intelligent Methodists, and someone is almost sure to cry out, "That’s John Wesley’s!" The style of thought and expression never varies, any more than does the handwriting. Wesley was not in any sense a double-minded man. He was the same all the way round, and all. through, and in all circumstances. The definite regularity and persistent consistency of his character, to which even handwriting bears testimony, was one among the many causes of his power. Constitutionally he was a method-ist; and the discipline both of early and of later life, together with divine grace working upon that personal characteristic, at once developed and inspired it. His methodism he carried out consistently in all things to which he put his hand. In the construction of a sermon, in the organization of a new in the framing of a letter, and in everything else, great and small, he was emphatically a method-ist.’ He gives a little, note, which may refer, as Dr. Stamp suggested, to the garden of the Newcastlw Orphan House, or more probably to that at Kingswood School: I desire 1. That the gate may be hung. 2. That the hinge of the garden door may be mended. 3. That the door may be kept locked. 4. That the garden may be made and kept as neat as the adjoining garden. 5. That gooseberries and currants may be planted down the middle walk and strawberries under them. 6. That the rest of the ground may be sown with whatever it will bear. 7. That a part of it be planted with raspberries (sic), part with flowers. J.W. Between 1721 and 1791 lay nearly seventy years of service such as few men have ever rendered to the cause of religion. Wesley was both scholar and gentleman, and he lifted the tone of every circle he entered. He owed much to his mother, as the earlier letters prove. The deepest subjects are discussed with her on an equal footing. She was the greatest formative influence on his character in its most impressionable stage, and he never ceased to turn to her as his wisest counselor. How much his father influenced the Holy Club comes out in his heart-stirring counsels. Epworth at this stage was more influential than Oxford, and projected itself into that little circle of students and workers who were preparing for such service to their generation and to all generations that followed it. The letters to Mrs. Pendarves and her sister are now for the first time given in their fullness, through the kindness of Mr. Russell J. Colman. They introduce us to a lady who was greatly esteemed in Court circles, known to us best as Mrs. Delany. Her estimate of Wesley helps us to see him as an Oxford don, a master of refined courtesy, and a lover of such choice society as he found among the Granvilles and Kirkhams. The letters show how Wesley, who was to spend most of his life among lowly folk, bore himself in such aristocratic surroundings. No one who reads these Letters can regard Wesley as lacking in the tenderer graces. He was essentially human, made to love and to be loved. His sisters were devoted to him. He tells his mother on November 1, 1724, that he recalls Wroot with more pleasure than Epworth; ’so true it is, at least to me, that the persons not the place make home so pleasant.’ He has no sympathy with a morbid distaste for innocent pleasure. He writes to his mother on May 28, 1725: ’I can’t think that when God sent us into the world He had irreversibly decreed that we should be perpetually miserable in it.... What are become of all the innocent comforts and pleasures of life, if it is the intent of our Creator that we should never taste them If our taking up the cross implies our bidding adieu to all joy and satisfaction, how is it reconcilable with what Solomon so expressly affirms of religion--that her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths peace ’ Amid the quaint stories and amusing bits of gossip in the Oxford letters are many pathetic touches which reveal a warm and eager spirit. He tells his brother Samuel on June 17, 1724: ’ I have been so very frequently disappointed when I had set my heart on any pleasure, that I will never again depend on any before it comes.’ The more serious side of his thinking appears in the discussion with his mother of the deep things of philosophy and religion. Nor is it less interesting to watch him champion his sister Hetty. He tells Samuel on December 5, 1726: ’My sister Hetty’s behavior has, for aught I have heard, been innocent enough since her marriage. Most of my disputes on Charity with my father were on her account, he inconceivably exasperated against her. ’Tis likely enough he would not see her when at Wroot: he has disowned her long ago, and never spoke of her in my hearing but with the utmost detestation. Both he, my mother, and several of my sisters were persuaded her penitence was but feigned.’ Wesley stands out there against the family; and though he has asked his father’s and his brother’s pardon ’for any real or supposed slight I have put upon you,’ he is careful to state: ‘I have said all that I can say, I have professed my sincerity and integrity, more perhaps than it became me to profess them.’ You feel, as you read such words, that you are in the presence of no common man; and the impression is deepened when he declines to become his father’s successor at Epworth. That was probably the most difficult refusal of his life. His father pleaded that his son should preserve the fruit of his forty years’ labor; the people longed for him; it meant a home for his mother in her last years: but he resolutely declined to give up Oxford for Epworth; and who can doubt that he was right Providence certainly never meant to limit him to a country parish. His final consent came too late to change the course of events, and there is no doubt that it was forced on him by circumstances. The mission to Georgia led to that intimate association with the Moravians which had so large a part in Wesley’s evangelical conversion. The letters describe his visit to Herrnhut, and also show how closely connected he was with the London Moravians in 1738 and 1739. The Letters are an invaluable introduction and supplement to Wesley’s Journal. They are less known, and therefore have a freshness all their own, and bring us into close touch with the men and women who labored with Wesley in all parts of the kingdom and in America. They form the most intimate portrait of Wesley we possess. As Maud Diver (in But Yesterday) puts it, ’In their letters, at least, the dead are alive for evermore.’ Wesley is here in his habit as he lived. The Letters really form the marching orders of the Evangelical Revival, and fill up many gaps in our knowledge of the events of that great awakening. Wesley had to keep the fires burning in three kingdoms, and much of this had to be done through his correspondence. He was, indeed, a true psp,. The letters were an extension of his cure of souls and of his oversight of the scattered Societies. In one of them to a lay friend he waxes indignant. It is dated November 7, 1788: ’I am constrained to tell you you use me ill. Be you ever so great a man, and I ever so little, you owe it to me to give me an account at the stated times of those souls I have entrusted you with, for whom I am to give an account to God.’ That is one reason why so many of his letters were written to godly women who had their hearts in the work and had leisure to devote to the care of the young and the spiritual interests of the members. On January 15, 1773, he asks Miss Bolton: ’ Let me know, not more seldom than once a month (unless something extraordinary prevent), how you are yourself, both as to your bodily health and with regard to your better part; and how the work of God goes on among your neighbors, particularly in any remarkable instance. Consider I am not likely to trouble you long; my day is far spent. I am therefore the more desirous to help you forward who are in the morning of life.’ He urges Mrs. Freeman of Dublin on March 2, 1764: ’ See that you strengthen your brethren, particularly those who are tempted to give up their confidence. O lift up the hands that hang down! Help those especially who did once taste of pure love.’ In his Remarks on the Life and Character of John Wesley Alexander Knox says: ’It is certain that Mr. Wesley had a predilection for the female character; partly because he had a mind ever alive to amiability, and partly from his generally finding in females a quicker and fuller responsiveness to his own ideas of interior piety and affectionate devotion. To his female correspondents, therefore (as it strikes me), he writes with peculiar effluence of thought and frankness of communication. ’He, in fact, unbosoms himself, on every topic which occurs to him, as to kindred spirits, in whose sympathies he confided, and from whose re-communications he hoped for additional light on those internal concerns which were ever uppermost in his mind and nearest to his heart. Accordingly in those prompt effusions all Mr. Wesley’s peculiarities are in fullest display: his confident conclusions from scanty or fallacious premises; his unwarrantable value for sudden revolutions of the mind; his proneness to attribute to the Spirit of God what might more reasonably be resolved into natural emotions or illusive impressions;--these and such-like evidences of his intellectual frailty are poured forth without reserve; in strange union, however, with observations on persons and things, replete with acuteness and sagacity.’ Mr. Knox adds that, amid what he calls ’ this anomaly of mind, there is no anomaly of heart: the point aimed at is consummate virtue in every temper and in every action.’ He also considers that the letters ’are in the strictest harmony with each other, and indeed with everything else which proceeded from him.’ It is the same John Wesley, whether he addresses individuals or addresses thousands; ’he wrote as he spoke. Their unstudied simplicity must give this impression; and I myself, who often heard him speak, can attest its justness.’ He ’literally talks upon paper.’ The Letters show Wesley’s power to lift the load of discouragement from the minds of his fellow workers. One of the preachers wrote to resign his position, as he thought he was not in his right place. Wesley replied: ’Dear Brother, you are not. in your right place, for you are doubting when you ought to be praying.’ His letters were written to men who were often lonely, suffering hardship and sometimes sharp persecution; and they never failed to cheer and inspire them. Sometimes he has to speak very plainly. He tells Thomas Wride on February 24, 1775: ’ Beware of your own spirit ! You bite like a bull-dog. When you seize, you never let go.’ He has to use more sharpness a few months later; for on July 22 he writes, after an outburst in one of Wride’s letters, which had given great offence to the preachers in Ireland: ’Such base language is too bad for the fishwives of Billingsgate. It is such as an archangel would not use to the devil! You must have done with it for ever, if you desire to have any farther fellowship with John Wesley.’ His tenderness and patience with this troublesome preacher are extraordinary. Wesley made himself felt everywhere. Joseph Benson, in his Manuscript Life, by his son, tells a friend on July 24, 1774: ’ There is great preparation-making for the College Anniversary [at Trevecca]. I wish Mr. Wesley might be at the helm of those unwieldy affairs. He is to be at Brecon on that day.’ He had been at a Conference where Wesley evidently presided. ’ We had a blessed time indeed. Love and truth were among us. Christ was there.’ How firmly he kept his hand on the work even in his extreme old age is seen by the letter of February 8, 1790. It was written to William Horner, then Assistant at Oxford. There were three preachers and a supernumerary in the circuit, and Mr. Horner probably felt the need of another helper. Wesley writes: ’ Dear Billy, I am determined there shall be no circuits in England with more than four preachers whilst I live. Four are too many if I could help it.’ He gives his judgment as to the chapel in the city: ’ I should have no objection to have pews at Oxford under the gallery, but not elsewhere. I wish to have our preaching-houses different from all others.’ He ends with a brief charge: ’ Do not ask to be honorable; be content to be despised.’ We have been able to put a name to the correspondent of May 14, 1765; and many questions arise as to what would have been the result had John Newton seen his way to become one of Wesley’s colleagues. It shows how closely Wesley was in touch with the evangelicals of the time, and how eager he was to welcome any of them who were ready to share the burden of his expanding parish. The letters are in almost every case written by Wesley’s own hand, though they were sometimes copied out by others, and were occasionally written to his dictation. Michael Fenwick and Samuel Bradburn learnt to imitate his handwriting very closely. We also find Thomas Tennant, who was then in the London Circuit, writing for Wesley on November 12, 1783, and February 12, 1785. It should not be overlooked that Wesley sometimes dated a letter from London, though it was written whilst he was on his journeys. The answer would naturally find him most quickly at headquarters. On June 30, 1788, he wrote one letter as from Grimsby and another as from London. His usual signature is ’J. Wesley,’ though he sometimes signed ’John’ in full. Wesley wrote with a quill pen on paper which folded into a sheet 6 by 4 or 8 by 6 inches and was sealed or fastened with wafer. He often made contractions such as ye yr, wch. He drew up a long list of these contractions, which is still preserved. The shortest letter is that of June 1, 1784, which has only eight words--’ Dear Simon, You shall be in Oxfordshire. Adieu’; but he never spared time or space when his correspondent needed guidance or encouragement, or when he had to answer such a critic as Bishop Warburton. His letters to the young are full of tender and fatherly counsel. We have been able to put names to some not hitherto identified. Philothea Briggs (granddaughter of Vincent Perronet, the Vicar of Shoreham, daughter of William Briggs, and wife of the first Missionary Treasurer, William Thompson, the Hull banker and Member of Parliament) is a ’Young Disciple.’ Dr. Buckley, the famous editor of the Christian Advocate, New York, said to Dr. John F. Goucher: ’I am amazed at the versatility of John Wesley. I am reading again his letters to a score of young women, and I find them remarkable for common sense and refreshing piety.’ He added that he ’ felt much refreshed by the crystal stream of Christian perfection that flowed through these little letters without sandbar or mud.’ [Christian Advocate, Aug. 26, 1926.] Wesley tells one correspondent: ’ When I speak or write to you, I have you before my eyes; but, generally speaking, I do not think of myself at all. I see you aiming at glory and immortality, and say just what I hope may direct your goings in the way and prevent your being weary or faint in your mind.’ His power to help his friends in their perplexities was drawn largely from his own experience. He tells Miss Bolton on January 20, 1774: ’You in your little station, as I in mine, have abundance of trouble and care and hurry. And I too have often thought, Had I not better throw off some part at least of the burden But I think again, Is it my burden Did I choose it for myself Is it not the cup which my Father hath given me And do I bear it for my own sake, or for the profit of many that they may be saved ’ Wesley’s wandering life and his unhappy marriage made him turn much to his friends for sympathy and kindly feeling. His brother Charles lived in Bristol after his marriage; and when he removed to Marylebone in 1771, he was so far from City Road that intercourse was difficult for one burdened so heavily as Wesley. He had always longed for congenial company. If we compare his letter to Miss Furly on January 16, 1761, with that to his mother on November 1, 1724, we see the same spirit: ’ I am so immeasurably apt to pour out all my soul into any that loves me.’ She and her family were old London friends; and he writes freely to her, and expects like freedom in return. He tells her on September 25, 1757: ’ It is a rule with me to take nothing ill that is well meant; therefore you have no need ever to be afraid of my putting an ill construction on anything you say.’ Miss Elizabeth Briggs was another family friend of the third generation, and he writes on December 28, 1774: ’ I love that you should tell me both what you feel and what you do, for I take part in all.’ His letters to Peggy Dale are beautifully tender and sympathetic. He welcomed every opportunity of seeing her, and says on June 18, 1767, ’ By conversing with you I should be overpaid for coming two or three hundred miles round about.’ The letters to Samuel Furly, Joseph Benson, John Valton,’ Adam Clarke, and Henry Moore prove how they looked up to him and loved him, as did the members of the Holy Club at Oxford. Nor are those to young Alexander Knox less tender and fatherly. The sympathy with his physical weakness and spiritual troubles is unfailing; the old man’s wisdom is all at the young Irishman’s service. He kept his friendships in repair wherever possible by letters and visits. We find him writing to Samuel Bradburn on November 9, 1782,’ But do not, to please any of your new friends, forsake your true old friend.’ He was always eager to hear from them: ’ Never be afraid that I should think your letters troublesome; I am never so busy as to forget my friends.’ ’ I love to think of you and hear from you. I want you to be always holy and happy.’ How he comforted sorrowing friends his letter to Mr. Arthur Keane of Dublin will show. Mr. Keane’s child was dying; and on July 24 Wesley writes: ’You will have all need of patience while you hear every day that poor little maid bemoaning herself.’ When the blow fell, he sent him a touching message from Manchester on August 5, 1787: My Dear Brother, We may see the mercy of God in removing your little one into a better world. It was a mercy for you, as well as for her. I was afraid she would have continued in pain long enough to have taken her mother with her. But God does all things well. You must now take care that she may have more air and exercise than she has lately had. Otherwise she may find many ill effects of her late confinement.’ Wesley kept an eye on the Press, to avoid misunderstanding and remove prejudice; and editors eagerly welcomed his communications. We find, from a letter to Arthur Keane on August 5, 1787, that they actually increased the sales. ’ I do not wonder,’ he says, ’that your Dublin newsvendors were afraid of stirring up a nest of hornets. Ours in England are not so fearful; they are glad to have anything from me. They know how it increases the sale of their paper.’ He shrank from controversial writing, though he could not escape that manifest obligation; but the less the better was his rule. He tells Joseph Benson, July 31 1773: ’There will always be men deˆ pste [Titus i. II, ‘whose mouths must be stopped.’] --Antinomians and Calvinists in particular. By our long silence we have done much hurt, both to them and the cause of God.’ He says on April 5, I758: ’ I abhor disputing, and never enter into it but when I am, as it were, dragged into it by the hair of the head.’ He acted on the advice of Polonius in Hamlet: Beware Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in, Bear it that the opposer may beware of thee. Letters connected with national events were written to leading statesmen. He asks Lord North, the Prime Minister, on June 14, 1775, ’ Is it common sense to use force towards the Americans’ and gives some startling facts as to public feeling at home, as he has been able to gauge it in his visits to all parts of the country. A copy of the letter was sent to Lord Dartmouth. He would have left America large freedom, and thus have kept the United States as part of the British Commonwealth. But the Government of George III had not learnt to take Wesley’s wider view of liberty. His letter of September 6, 1784, to the younger Pitt makes important suggestions as to taxation, and does not forget its word in season--’ O may you fear nothing but displeasing Him!’ How faithful he was to the great men whom he knew will be seen by his letters to Sir James Lowther, Lord Dartmouth and others. In July 1790 he writes to a Member of Parliament, undoubtedly William Wilberforce, asking him to speak to Mr. Pitt as to the tyrannical action of some magistrates in Lincolnshire in imposing fines on Methodists. In an important personal letter to Dr. Coke, dated September 5, I789, the sentence ’I wish you to obey "the powers that be" in America, but I wish you to understand them too,’ shows that Wesley was not altogether easy as to the way in which Coke and Asbury had approached Washington with congratulations on his appointment as President of the United States. Wesley lost no opportunity of doing good. Richard Viney’s. manuscript Journal for July 15, 1744, says: ’I received a kind letter this day from Mr. John Westley, in which he insisted on my letting him know if I was straitened in outwards.’ When Viney left Newcastle on June 4 to walk home to Pudsey, he wrote: ’ My head ached, and I was heavy, so that I did not rise till almost six, then prepared for my departure, had some talk with Mr. Westley, and he gave me a guinia for my journey, &c. At eight I breakfasted with him, took leave, and at nine set out of Newcastle, and walked without baiting through Chesterly Street to Durham, twelve miles.’ The letter to Richard Rodda on October 24, I789, urging him to leave no stone unturned to secure the appointment of Mr. Salmon of Coleford as Master. of the Poor House at Manchester is a fine illustration of his zeal on behalf of friends in need. The great sayings which have made such an impression on Wesley’s followers are met early in the letters, and mark them to the very end. It was on December 6, 1726, that he hoisted his flag: ’Leisure and I have taken leave of one another: I propose to be busy as long as I live, if my health is so long indulged me.’ The flag never drooped till death overtook him in 1791. On July 24, 1731, he writes to Mrs. Pendarves: God hath so constituted this world that, so soon as ever any one sets himself earnestly to seek a better, Censure is at hand to conduct him to it. Nor can the fools cease to count his life madness till they have confirmed him in the wisdom of the just.’ He also tells her on the 12th of August, when she is about to set out for Ireland: ’ I know no danger that a lover of God can be in till God is no more, or at least has quitted the reins and left Chance to govern the world. Oh yes, there is one danger; and a great one it is, which nothing less than constant care can prevent--the ceasing to love Him.’ There is no touch of arrogance in the greatest saying appears in the letter of March 2o, ~739: ’ I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that in whatever part of it I am I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty to declare unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation. That is Wesley’s watchword; and it is the watchword every true Christian. Wesley felt that ’ a dispensation of the gospel was committed to me; and woe is me if I preach not the gospel.’ It was in his letter to his brother Charles, after the ordinations for America, that he wrote: ’ I firmly believe I am a scriptural psp as much as any man in England or in Europe; for the uninterrupted Succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove.’ Another word has its note of rejoicing. Religion, as Wesley taught it to his Societies, stood the supreme test : ’The world may not like our Methodists and evangelical people, but the world cannot deny that they die well.’ His last letter, to William Wilberforce, is one of the noblest: ‘Go on, in the name of God and in the power of His might, till even American slavery, the vilest that ever saw the sun, shall vanish away before it.’ Nor must we forget the death-bed saying, though it was uttered when he had laid down his pen for ever: ’ The best of all is, God is with us.’ Letter writing always absorbed much of Wesley’s time. His Georgia diary for March 15, 1736, shows that at 5 a.m. he was transcribing a letter to Zinzendorf which bears date the following day. On November 16, 1738, he has four or five and thirty letters awaiting reply. On June 20, 1766, when engrossed by his Notes on the Old Testament, he says: ’ All my time is swallowed up, and I can hardly catch a few hours to answer the letters that are sent me.’ After a month in the Channel Islands he tells Miss Bolton, on September x8, I787, that with the assistance of two of his friends he ’answered abundance of letters’ (Journal, vii. 327). Despite the use of franks he had heavy postal charges. On June 23, 1783, he writes: ’ My letters to-day cost me 18s.’ He had many problems to solve in his long life, and not the least perplexing was the relation of Methodism to the Church of England. His constant aim was to maintain close fellowship between them, but he writes to his brother on September 8, 1761: ’ I do not at all think (to tell you a secret) that the work will ever be destroyed, Church or no Church.’ That conviction is more than justified by the position of Methodism in the world to-day. His patience with eager spirits amazes us. He tells Samuel Furly, on July 30, 1762: ’ You love dispute, I hate it.’ We get an illustration of this in the draft reply which Furly has written on the back of Wesley’s letter of January 25, I762. Furly protested that Wesley had not the least ground to imagine that his feeling towards his old friend would change in a year’s time, and commits himself to the statement that ’ Perfection, which now tramples on the blood of God’s eternal Son, will then make its appearance with all the signs of Satan’s contrivance, introducing confusion, rage, and devastation among the people of God.’ That strange caricature throws light on Wesley’s letters to him on May 21 and July 30, 1762, and shows how the Methodist teaching was misunderstood even by one who might have been expected to have known better. Wesley’s letters are a mirror both of the man and of the Evangelical Revival. There is no aiming at effect. The gems of the correspondence come out naturally under the impulse of the moment. Horace Walpole has left the world a vast store of letters, and by these he survives. If wit and brilliancy, without gravity or pathos, are to rank highest, Austin Dobson ranked him first of letter-writers. ’ diversity of interest and perpetual entertainment, for constant surprises of an unique species of wit, for and unexpected turns of phrase, for graphic and clever anecdote, for playfulness, pungency, irony, t there is nothing in English like his correspondence. one remembers that, in addition, this correspondence stitutes a sixty years’ social chronicle of a epoch by one of the most picturesque of picturesque chroniclers there can be no need to bespeak any further suffrage Horace Walpole’s "incomparable letters."’ [Horace Walpole, pp. 29:3-4.] That estimate is endorsed by other experts. John Wesley’s letters have a different claim on attention. They are seventy years’ panorama of the Evangelical Revival. show the preparation of the chief instruments; they introduce them to their fields of service; and for more than half a century they allow us to see them at work, light to them that sat in darkness, lifting men and women new heights of personal character, showing how helpers enlisted in the crusade against ignorance and vice, until chief worker, who had once been in constant peril from mobs, won love and honor such as few men have ever enjoyed, and closed his life with such a ’well done’ as the world scarcely ever given to any of its evangelists. Edited by Michael Mattei (2000) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 01. VOLUME 1 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 1 Events LETTERS FROM OXFORD NOVEMBER 3, 1721, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1735 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1703 June 17 Born at Epworth. 1709 Feb. 9 Saved from the Fire. 1711 May 12 Nominated for Charterhouse by the Duke of Buckingham. 1714 Jan. 28 Gown-boy at Charterhouse. 1720 June 24 Enters Christ Church. 1725 Sept. 19 Ordained deacon. 1726 Mark. 17 Fellow of Lincoln College. 1729 Name Methodist given. 1735 Apr. 25 His father’s death. These Oxford letters may be regarded as the introduction to Wesley’s Journal. They cover the formative years of his life, show out of what material the greatest evangelist was made, and confirm the judgment of Mr. Gerard, Chaplain to the Bishop of Oxford, who predicted that Wesley ‘would one day be a standard bearer of the Cross, either in his own country or beyond the seas.’ The first letter links Wesley to his old school, and brings out his scrupulous sense of personal honor. Those to his mother are a noble tribute to her gifts of mind and heart. Amid all the lights of the University she was still one of his most trusted counselors. The letters give many glimpses of life at Epworth Rectory. The Rector’s harshness to Hetty and his resentment of John’s more lenient spirit come out in the letter of December 6, 1726. The correspondence with Mrs. Pendarves (hitherto given to the world in fragments) is now published complete. Dr. Rigg thought Wesley was in love with her, and so did Lecky; but whether that was so or not, we see the young don admitted to the intimated friendship of one of the finest ladies of the time, who felt the warmest esteem and regard for him, and never lost it. The Morgan correspondence takes us to the very heart of Oxford Methodism, and brings out Wesley’s zeal as a tutor; while in a later letter we see his care for one of his friends, about whose state he consults William Law. The correspondence with his father and his brother Samuel as to the living at Epworth strikes a painful note. It was hard for John to refuse the request which they urged; but who can doubt there was a Providence in his refusal His final consent was happily in vain. The last letter, that or the Oxford Churchman who is bounded by rule and order, forms a fiting close to the first stage of Wesley’s life. Some notable sayings occur in the letters, which give promise to the high courage and broad vision of the future leader of the Evangelic Revival. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 02. THE GEORGIA LETTERS ======================================================================== THE GEORGIA LETTERS OCTOBER 10, 1735, TO NOVEMBER 26, 1737 PRINCIPAL EVENTS 1735 Oct. 21 Wesley sails for Georgia. 1736 Feb. 5 Reaches America. Aug. 11 Charles Wesley leaves Georgia. 1737 Dec. 2 John leaves Savannah. The mission to Georgia was a crucial event in Wesley’s life. He undertook it in ’the hope of saving his own soul,’ as well as to do good to the settlers. He hoped eventually to find his way open for work among the Indian tribes. Letters and Journal now throw light upon each other. Wesley enjoyed in an extraordinary degree the confidence of such men as Dr. Burton and Mr. Vernon, whose letters to him overflow with goodwill. He was living in an atmosphere of slander, and his letter to the Trustees on March 4, 1737, shows how this preyed on his mind. Dr. Burton had told him, ’You come to a people, some ignorant and most disposed to licentiousness,’ and he and the Trustees sent Wesley letters full of confidence and regard. Wesley’s care for the highest good of his parishioners stands out in his letter to Charles on March 22, 1736. The letters in this section are of special interest. He tells his brother at Tiverton his views about some of the classical authors read in great schools, and refers to the peril he had run from the writings of the Mystics. His letter to his friends at Oxford won Whitefield for America. His business ability is manifest in his communications to the Georgia Trustees; whilst his loyalty to Oglethorpe comes out in the cheering message he sends him when the founder of the colony was troubled by events in Parliament. Old friends like James Hutton and Miss Granville are net forgotten. All the correspondence bears witness to the purity of Wesley’ s heart and mind and his devotion to his work. The letters to Thomas Causton and Mrs. Williamson show how the storm of opposition drove him back to England sadder yet infinitely wiser, and ready to welcome the light and peace to which as yet he was a stranger. He had put his stiff High Churchmanship to the test, and it had failed him utterly. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 03. THE GEORGIA MISSION ======================================================================== THE GEORGIA MISSION Further information about the Georgia Mission may be found in the Earl of Egmont’s Diary, published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission in 192o. On Tuesday, October 14, 1735, he says: ’ I went to Gravesend to meet Mr. Oglethorpe there and assist in mustering the people that go with him to Georgia.’ On board the Simmonds go Mr. Oglethorpe, Mr. Johnson, [Mr. Johnson is referred to in Journal, i. 250d. His brother had been on board the Simmonds, and complained that he was inconvenienced by the public prayers in the great cabin. Fortunately he left the ship at Cowes (ibid. i. 114, 124). The father had been Governor of South Carolina.] son of the late Governor of Carolina, and the two Wesleys, brothers, both clergymen. ’A third clergyman was to have gone, but has failed us and we knew nothing of it till a few days ago. His name is Hall; he was ordained for the very purpose to go a few weeks ago, in order to succeed Mr. Quineey.’ Having after his ordination married, his wife and her relatives persuaded him not to go. He had laid out 100 on clothes and furniture for the house in Savannah. On October 20, 1736, Samuel Quincey appeared before the Georgia Trustees, when Mr. Vernon told him that his abandoning the colony to go to New York ’for six months together and leaving a wheelwright to read public prayers, comfort the dying, and bury the dead, was a behavior that the Trustees could not excuse.’ Quincey said this was clue to sickness. On March 15, 1737, Mrs. Stanley, ’the public midwife of Savannah, to whom we allow a crown for every woman whom she lays,’ gave the Trustees ’ an extraordinary account of the people’s industry and attendance on divine worship, greatly commending Mr. John Wesley, our minister at Savannah, who goes from house to house exhorting the inhabitants to virtue and religion.’ On February 8, 1738, Wesley attended the Board, and on the 22nd explained why he had come to England. ‘Mr. Vernon took him home to dinner, and in company of Mr. Hales examined him most particularly as to Causton’s bad behavior as a magistrate, which they took down in writing in order to be discussed of at the Board.’ The Earl sent Wesley, on April 5, 1736, ‘a collection of tracts relating to Carolina interleaved, with the desire that he would remark upon what he found curious therein and return it me in two years.’ On January 22, 1737, he says: ‘I passed the evening at home, and received a letter from Mr. John Wesley, our minister at Savannah, acknowledging the receipt of my collection of tracts concerning Carolina, and acquainting me that the people of Savannah are too numerous for his care, that he could wish they were better Christians, though for their number he finds more willing and desirous to be good than in any other town he knows of.’ The mission to Georgia had many painful experiences, but it played an important part in the training of Wesley. He had to face prejudice and opposition in its last stage which was humbling and disheartening, and he must have learned something of his own weakness in the case of Miss Hopkey; but he was never more zealous for the good of others, never more ready to sacrifice himself for their highest interest. He came into contact with men and women whose faith and courage made him conscious of his own spiritual need and prepared the way for his emancipation from doubt and fear. George Whitefield, who was on the ground within five months, wrote in his Journal: ‘The good Mr. John Wesley has done in America, under God, is inexpressible. His name is very precious among the people, and he has laid such a foundation that I hope neither men nor devils will ever be able to shake. Oh that I may follow him, as he has Christ!’ See also P. 365. THE RETURN FROM GEORGIA THE RETURN FROM GEORGIA Some further details from the Earl of Egmont’s Diary, referred to on pp. 229-30, may here be added. Mr. Quincey attended a meeting of the Georgia Trustees on July 20, 1736, ‘and made application that we would give him an attestation of his good behavior while he served in Georgia, that we would make him a consideration for his expenses and loss of three months’ time after the arrival of Mr. John Wesley to succeed him before his return to England, and that we would let him know what charges had been laid against him and by whom in Georgia that he might wipe off the aspersions.’ On February 17, 1737, the Earl had a conversation with Dr. Bear-croft, of the S.P.G., who said that they had received a letter from Mr. Oglethorpe, from which it appeared that John Wesley ‘renounced any salary, as thinking Ministers ought to preach the Gospel without hire, and had desired the 50 to be paid him on the foot of his distributing the same in charity, which the Society could not do.’ On April 26 the Earl writes: ‘Mr. John Wesley, our Minister at Savannah, left with us his license for performing ecclesiastical Service at Savannah, which we took for a resignation, and therefore resolved to revoke his commission. In truth the Board did it with great pleasure, he appearing to us to be a very odd mixture of a man, an enthusiast, and at the same time a hypocrite, wholly distasteful to the greater part of the inhabitants, and an incendiary of the people against the magistrates.’ That judgment has to be read in the light of a later entry, where John Doble, who had been over five years schoolmaster at Highgate in Georgia, and returned in March 1740, reported ‘that people of Savannah are a wretched crew, most of them, and Mr. Whitefield told them in his farewell sermon they were the scum of the earth, and God had only sent them to prepare the way for a better sort of men.’ In Mr. Quincey’s time there were on some Sundays not ten persons in Church and three at the Communion where Wesley had forty every Sunday. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 04. THE FIRST YEARS OF THE REVIVAL ======================================================================== THE FIRST YEARS OF THE REVIVAL MARCH 7, 1738, TO NOVEMBER 14, 1741 PRINCIPAL EVENTS 1738 Feb. 1 John Wesley lands at Deal. May 21 Charles Wesley’ s evangelical conversion. May 24 John Wesley’s evangelical conversion. June 13 Visits the Moravian Church. 1739 May 2 Field-preaching in Bristol. Nov. 11 Preaches in the Foundry. 1740 July 20 Withdraws from Fetter Lane. No letters in the whole series of Wesley’s correspondence are more significant than these. They begin with the year of his evangelical conversion and his visit to the Motarian Settlement at Herrnhut. They show how zealously he worked among the Religious Societies in London, at Oxford, and Bristol; they describe his first triumphs as a field-preacher in England. Here the letters are extraordinarily full. They were written to James Hutton, to be read in the little Society which met in Fetter Lane, and help us to realize how the news of the Great Awakening stirred the hearts of Wesley’s friends in London. We see how the Wesleys became estranged from the Moravians, and how Calvinism made a breach between them and George Whitefield. Another pilot was dropped by the outspoken letters to William Law. The letters to Samuel Wesley are quite as outspoken, and show how the younger brother was feeling his feet as a theologian. These years have unique importance in the history of the Great Revival. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 05. 1721 ======================================================================== 1721 To Ambrose Eyre, [Mr. A. H. Tod, one of the masters at Charterhouse, supplies the following facts from Alumni Carthusiani: ’June 23 1698 Ambrose Eyre, admitted pr Lord Chief Justice Holt in the place of Carlos Smith, age 14 years the 25th of July next. Exhibitioner 2 July 1703 (pre-elected); admitted to the Middle Temple 18 November 1702, as son and heir o! William Eyre, of Chelaea, Middlesex, esquire; admitted pensioner of Christ’s, Cambridge, 6 April 1703; Receiver of Charterhouse, 20 February 1719-39; admitted a poor brother 1755; died 21 April, buried at Fulham, Middlesex, 28 April 1756. By his first wife, Sarah, he was the father of the Rev. Venn Eyre, admitted 30 June 1726; he married 2nd at Charterhouse, 21 March 1730, Elizabeth Holt.’] Treasurer of Charterhouse [1] CHRIST CHURCH, November 3, 1721 SIR, --I am extremely sorry that an accident should which has given you reason to have an ill opinion of me, but am very much obliged to your civility for putting the most favorable construction on it. I hope this will satisfy you that it was by mistake and not my design that you have twice delivered the exhibition for the first Michaelmas quarter which indeed was through the mistake of my mercer, [The Bank of England had been incorporated in 1694, and for a short time carried on its business in Mercers’ Chapel. The ’instant and regular remittance of money’ was in its infancy in 1721.] who returns it, or rather through the negligence of his correspondent, who forgot to inform him of his having received the money. This made him suspect that it was detained, in which he was confirmed by receiving no answer from London; and at Lady Day, when I gave him my tutor’s bill for that quarter, he told [me] he had not received the exhibition for the first, which he supposed was detained because I had been absent the whole eight weeks in one quarter, and which made him advise me to write a receipt for that and the other due at the end of the year. These five pounds [The value of an exhibition the Restoration to 1772 was 20; it was raised to 40 on May 28, 1772 The studentship was additional See next letter.] if you please shall be deducted at Christmas, or if that does not suit with your conveniency shall be returned as soon as possible. --I am, sir, Your obliged and humble servant, [John Wesley Signature] Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] The first of Wesley’s letters that have survived is fitly preserved in the Muniment Room at Charterhouse, where he was a gown-boy from 1714 to 1720. It was published in facsimile in Greyfriar, the School magazine, for April 1891; and was reproduced in Homes and Haunts of John Wesley, pp. 152-3, by permission of the Rev. Canon Elwyn, Master of Charterhouse 1885-97. The Head Master, the Rev. Frank Fletcher, writes in 1919: ’We count John Wesley as the greatest of many great Carthusians.’ He is thus commemorated in the School Song: Wesley, John Wesley, was one of our company, Prophet untiring and fearless of tongue, Down the long years he went Spending yet never spent, Serving his God with a heart ever young. Wesley was eighteen when this letter was written. The letter has been torn, so that the date is imperfect; but the post-mark is November 8. Wesley had gone up to Christ Church in June 1720. His anxiety that the incident referred to should cast no slur on his good name is seen in the care he takes to describe how the mistake had arisen. That is characteristic of him to the end of his life. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 06. 1723 ======================================================================== 1723 To his Mother CH. CH., OXON, September 23, 1723. DEAR MOTHER, --I suppose my brother [Samuel Wesley. See next letter.] told you that Mr. Wigan [Wesley’s first tutor (see Bliss’s Reliquiae Hearnianae, if. 239, 279; iii. 83, 94). Thomas Hearne, of the Bodleinn Library, refers to George Wigan four times, and says ‘he was formerly Dr. Friend’s scholar.’ In 1725 (see letter of Nov. 22), when Dr. Gastrell was buried in Christ Church Cathedral, ‘Mr. George Wigan spoke the speech.’ In 1732 Hearne writes: ‘Mr. George Wigan was some time since student of Christ Church, where he was a great and a very good tutor. Leaving that place, he became Principal of New Inn Hall upon the death of Dr. Brabant; but, what hath been much wondered at, he hath not had so much as one gownsman entered at it ever since he had it, but shutting up the gate altogether he wholly lives in the country, whereas ’twas expected that he being a disciplinarian, and a sober, studious, and learned man, would have made it flourish in a most remarkable manner. He hath been a great while, as I hear, about a work concerning the types of Scripture, he being well versed in Hebrew. I hear he hath, since he hath been in the country, got considerable knowledge in the British language.’ On the suggestion that Wigan should be made Dean of Westminster, see Hearne’s characteristic entry of March 8, I733. There are numerous contributions of G. Wigan to the Carmina Quadragesimalia, or Lent Verses, vol. i. 1723, Oxon (Wordsworth), and Hearne notes his work on the Septuagint according to the Alexandrian MS., or rather his completion of Dr. Grabe’s work thereon. Mr. Wigan the tutor must not be confounded with the Mr. Wogan to whom Wesley wrote from Savannah: see heading to letter of March 28, 1737.] had resigned his pupils and was retired into the country to one of his livings. I was lately with Mr. Sherman, [ The Rev. Henry Sherman showed much kindness to the brothers. See Journal, i. 56, 62; Diary, if. 98, 99, 120; and letter of Dec. 18, 1724.] who is now my tutor, and who, asking me what Mr. Wigan had of me for tutorage, told me he would never take any more of me than he had done, but would rather add something to than take from what little I had. I heard lately from my brother, who then promised me to order Mr. Sherman to let me have the rent of his room, and this quarter’s studentship, by which, together with my five 11b from the Charterhouse at Michaelmas Day, I hope to be very near out of debt everywhere. The small-pox and fever are now very common in Oxford; of the latter a very ingenious young gentleman of our College died yesterday, being the fifth day from the beginning of his illness. There is not any other in the College sick at present, and it is hoped that the approach of winter will stop the spreading of the distemper. I am very glad to hear that all at home are well; as I am, I thank God, at present, being seldom troubled with anything but bleeding at the nose, which I have frequently. A little while ago, it bled so violently while I was walking in the evening a mile or two from Oxford, that it almost choked me; nor did any method I could use at all abate it, till I stripped myself and leapt into the river, which happened luckily not to be far off. I shall not want the notes of my entrance and a great while yet, but shall take care to write time enough them when I do; they can but be brought by the post at last if nobody comes this way or to London in the time. I should have been very glad to have heard my sister Suky or any other of my sisters; nor am I so poor, but that I can spare postage now and then for a letter or two. I heard yesterday one of the most unaccountable stories [The story is told in the letter of Dec. 18, 1724. Wesley’s interest in such stories never failed.] that I ever heard in my life; and the father of the person who told it me had it from the late Bishop of Raphoe in Ireland, who was concerned in it. It is too long and perhaps too impertinent to repeat now; but the most remarkable thing in it was that an actor in it, who by other circumstances pretty plainly appears to have been the devil, distinguished himself and was known to his fellows by a name () [‘Wonderful God’: see Isa. ix. 6; compare Judg. xiii. 18.] which title can only belong to the great God. I shall conclude with begging yours and my father’s blessing on Your dutiful Son. Pray remember my love to all my sisters, and my service to Mr. Romley [Mr. and Mrs. William Romley of Burton, parents of the curate whose refusal to allow Wesley to preach in Epworth Church led to the famous churchyard services (Jeernat, iii. 18-19). Wesley visited Romley on April 13, 1759: ‘a lively, sensible man of eighty-three years old, by whom I was much comforted.’ Hetty Wesley tells John in 1725 she is ‘resolved not to marry yet, till I can forget Romley or see him again.’ This is probably the future curate.] and his wife. For Mrs. Wesley, At Wroot. To be left at the Post-house in Bawtry. [1] Susanna Annesley was born in Spiral Yard, London, on January 20, 1669, the twenty-fifth child of Dr. Samuel Annesley, ‘the St. Paul of the Nonconformists.’ She married Samuel Wesley in 1689, had nineteen sons and daughters, and died at her son John’s house at the Foundery in 1743. The spiritual and intellectual debt of John Wesley to his mother was inestimable. She has been aptly called ‘the Mother of Methodism.’ This is the first of Wesley’s letters to his mother. They throw much light on the character of mother and son, and prove how sagacious a guide she was in his spiritual and theological perplexities. When he was Fellow of Lincoln, he wrote: ‘If you can spare me only that little part of Thursday evening which you formerly bestowed upon me in another manner, I doubt not but it would be as useful now for correcting my heart as it was then for forming my judgment.’ See letter of February 28, 1732. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 07. 1724 ======================================================================== 1724 To his Brother Samuel OXON, June 17, 1724. DEAR BROTHER, -- I believe I need not use many arguments to show I am sorry for your misfortune, though at the same time I am glad you are in a fair way of recovery. If I had heard of it from any one else, I might probably have pleased you with some impertinent consolations; but the way of your relating it is a sufficient proof that they are what you don’t stand in need of. And indeed, if I understand you rightly, you have more reason to thank God that you did not break both, than to repine because you have broke one leg. You have undoubtedly heard the story of the Dutch seaman who having broke one of his legs by a fall from the main-mast instead of condoling himself, thanked God that he had not broke his neck. [See Spectator, No. 574.] I scarce know whether your first news vexed me, or your last news pleased me, more; but I can assure you that, though I did not cry for grief at the former, I did for joy at the latter part of your letter. The two things that I most wished for of almost anything in the world were to see my mother and Westminster once again; ’and to see them both together was so far above my expectations that I almost looked upon it as next to an impossibility. I have been so very frequently disappointed when I had set my heart on any pleasure, that I will never again depend on any before it comes. However, I shall be obliged to you if you will tell me as near as you can how soon my uncle is expected in England and my mother in London. I hope my sister is pretty well recovered by this time, and that all at Westminster are in as good health as Your loving Brother. PS.--Pray give my service to Mrs. Harris, and as many as ask after me. Since you have a mind to see some of my verses, I have sent you some, which employed me above an hour yesterday in the afternoon. There is one, and I am afraid but one, good thing in them--that is, they are short. FROM THE LATIN As o’er fair Cloe’s rosy cheek, Careless, a little vagrant passed, With artful hand around his neck A slender chain the virgin cast. As Juno near her throne above Her spangled bird delights to see, As Venus has her fav’rite dove, Cloe shall have her fav’rite flea. Pleased at his chains, with nimble steps He o’er her snowy bosom strutted: Now on her panting breast he leaps, Now hides between his little head. Leaving at length his old abode, He found, by thirst or fortune led, Her swelling lips, that brighter glowed Than roses in their native bed. Cloe, your artful bands undo, Nor for your captive’s safety fear; No artful bands are needful now To keep the willing vagrant here. Whilst on that heav’n ’tis given to stay, (Who would not wish to be so blest ) No force can draw him once away, Till Death shall seize his destined breast. If you will excuse my pen and my haste, I shall be once more, Yours. This is my birthday. [New Style, June 28.] To his Mother OXON, November 1, 1724. DEAR MOTHER,--We are most of us now very healthy at Oxford, as I hope you are, which may be in some measure owing to the frosty weather we have lately had, preceded by a very cool summer. [See letter of Sept. 23, 1723.] All kind of fruit is so very cheap that apples may be had almost for fetching, and other things are both as plentiful and as good as has been known in a long time. We have, indeed, something bad as well as good; for a great many rogues are about the town, insomuch that it is very unsafe to be out late. A gentleman of my acquaintance, only standing at a coffee-house door about seven in the evening, had no sooner turned about but his cap and wig were snatched off, which he could not recover, though he pursued the thief a great way. However, I am pretty safe from such gentlemen; for unless they carried me away, carcass and all, they would have but a poor purchase. The chief piece of news with us is concerning the famous Sheppard’s [Jack Sheppard was a carpenter and locksmith. He used a nail to loosen his chains and force the locks. He was taken a few days later and was hanged at Tyburn. The public interest in his exploits was extraordinary. His autobiography was published in 1724 with a True Representation of his escape from the Condemned Hold . . . engraved on copper. Sir James Thornhill painted his portrait, which was reproduced in a mezzotint; he finds a place in all the serials and in Old and New London, ii. 460. Harrison Ainsworth in 1839 made him the hero of a novel.] escape from Newgate, which is indeed as surprising as most stories I have heard.. It seems he had broke out twice before, besides once out of the condemned hold, which, together with his having got his chains off again when the keeper came in, made them still more apprehensive of him. However, that he might be secure if art could make him so, he was fettered, manacled, and chained down to the ground, by one chain round his waist and another round his neck in the strongest part of the Castle. Notwithstanding which he found means to force open his chains and fetters, break through the ceiling there, and then, sliding to the leads of an adjoining house, to pass six several locked doors, and get clear off without discovery; all which was done between six and eleven at night. I suppose you have heard that Brigadier Mackintosh [William Mackintosh (1662-1743). of Borlum, Inverness-shire was Brigadier in the Old Pretender’s service took a prominent part in the Jacobite Rising 1714, escaped to France 1716, returned to Scotland probably in 1719, and was imprisoned for life in Edinburgh Castle. See Dic. Nat. Biog.] was once more taken, but made his escape from a messenger and six dragoons after an obstinate fight. Three gentlemen of our College were in September last walking in the fields near Oxford about half an hour after six, of whom the foremost was named Barnesley, [Two .Barnesleys (or Barnsleys) were at Christ Church. John Barnesley, son of John of St. Luke’s, Dublin, matriculated on Oct. 21, 1724, age 16. William Barnesley of London matriculated May 17, I723, age 19. It was probably the latter to whom Wesley refers. See Foster’s Alumni Oxonienses.] who, going to cross the path, of a sudden started back and turned as white as ashes, but being asked by the others what ailed him, answered, Nothing. The second man coming up to the same place seemed presently more frighted than he, and bawled that he saw one in white shoot across the path as swift as an arrow. Mr. Barnesley, hearing that, told him he had seen it just before; and both of them describe it to have been like a man or woman in light gray, but of so thin a substance that they could plainly see through it. They had likewise another accident the same evening, though not quite so remarkable, both which made Barnesley so curious as to write down the day of the month, which was the 26th of September. We thought no more of it afterwards till last week, when Barnesley was informed by a letter from his father in Ireland that his mother died the 26th of September between six and seven in the evening. I suppose you have seen the famous Dr. Cheyne’s Book of Health and Long Life, [George Cheyne (1671-1743), M.D. (Edin.), F.R.S. A sixth edition of his Essay of Health and Long Life was published by G. Strahan in 1725. Cheyne was a pioneer of some of the modern theories of dietetics and hygiene. ’This book of Cheyne’s produced even sects in the dietetic philosophy,’ said Dr. Arbuthnot in his Preface to his On Aliments, 1731. On March 12, 1742, Wesley read part of Cheyne’s Natural Method of Curing Diseases, ‘one of the most ingenious books which I ever saw. But what epicure will ever regard it for "the man talks against good eating and drinking" ! ’ There are references to it in Boswell’s Life of Johnson. It influenced Wesley throughout his career. Cheyne’s earlier book on The English Malady, or a Treatise on Nervous Diseases, 1733, has its bearing on some of the psychological as well as the physiological questions raised in recent years and on some curious phenomena of Wesley’s century. See Journal, v. 373; and letter of June 11, 1747, sect. 14, to Bishop Gibson.] which is, as he says he expected, very much cried down by the physicians, though he says they need not be afraid of his weak endeavors while the world, the flesh, and the devil are on the other side of the question. He refers almost everything to temperance and exercise, and supports most things he says with physical reasons. He entirely condemns eating anything salt or high-seasoned, as also pork, fish, and stall-fed cattle; and recommends for drink two pints of water and one of wine in twenty-four hours, with eight ounces of animal and twelve of vegetable food in the same time. I shall trouble you no more about him here, since you may have probably seen the book itself, which is chiefly directed to studious and sedentary persons. I should have writ before now had I not had an unlucky cut across my thumb, which almost jointed it, but is now pretty well cured. I hope you will excuse my writing so ill, which I can’t easily help, as being obliged to get done as soon as I can; and that you will remember my love to my sisters and brother, and my services to as many as ask after me. I should be exceeding glad to keep a correspondence with my sister Emly, [Emilia. She was eleven years older than John. She thanks him on April 7, 1725, for ’dispatching so speedily the business I desired you to do’ (Stevenson’s Memorials of the Wesley Family, p.262).] if she were willing, for I believe I have not heard from her since I was at Oxford. I have writ once or twice to my sister Suky too, but have not had an answer, either from her or my sister Hetty, from whom I have more than once desired the Poem of the Dog. I should be glad to hear how things go at Wroot, which I now reflect on with more pleasure than Epworth; so true it is, at least in me, that the persons not the place make home so pleasant. You said something of it in your last letter, which I wish could come to pass; but I am afraid I flattered myself too soon. It is well my paper will hold no more, or I don’t know when I should have. done, but the scantiness of that obliges me to conclude with begging yours and my father’s blessing on Your dutiful Son. To his Mother CH. CH., OXON, December 18, 1724. DEAR MOTHER--I am very glad to hear you are all well at home, as we are here, the small-pox, which raged so much a little while ago, being now almost quite over. [See letter of Sept. 23, 1723.] Only one gentleman of our College had it, who is now recovered, so that the others who feared it are freed at last from their apprehensions. I have not lately heard from Westminster; but Mr. Sherman, who did, assured me that my brothers and sister there were very well. He has given me one or two books lately, of which one is Godfrey of Bulloigne. [A translation (probably by Edward Fairfax) of Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered, of which an octavo edition was published in 1687.] We have still very warm weather at Oxford; and a gentleman, now in the room with me, says that several of the flowers in his father’s garden, who lives in town, are blown as if it were spring. The story of which I said something in my last [See letter of Sept. 23, 1723] was, as I believe I told you before, transacted a little before King James’s abdication. The Bishop of Raphoe, one of the principal actors in it, was then pretty old, but never reckoned superstitious or easy to be imposed upon. From him it came to Mr. Span, Vicar-General of Ireland, and was by him related to Mr. Harrison, a clergyman, in the hearing of his son, who told it me. The substance of it was this. It was told to the Bishop that a lad in his diocese frequently bragged that he was carried up into the air by invisible hands; who immediately sent for him to find out the truth. The lad in private, though not without menacing, confessed that he was often carried into the air, by he knew not whom, to a fine palace; where he was made to sit down at table with a great many people, who feasted and made merry; but that he was afraid they would be angry with him for telling it. The Bishop endeavored by many arguments to dissuade him from spreading such stories, which he told him could not be true, and were at best but the effects of a troubled fancy. But the boy persisted in it, and told his lordship that if he would have a little patience he would presently be convinced of the truth of his relation; for by certain symptoms which he said always preceded his transportation, he was sure it was not far off. This was presently confirmed in the Bishop’s presence, the boy being hoisted away out of the window, to his no small amazement. The next day about the same time the boy was let down into the same room, but so bruised and dispirited that it was an hard matter to get a word from him. After some time and repeated threats and promises, he told the Bishop that he was carried to the place he had before spoken of, but that instead of sitting down, as he used to do’ with the company, one or two were set apart to beat him, while the rest were making merry. His lordship now believed it was something more than a jest, being convinced that it was the devil, who for some unknown reasons was permitted to exert an extraordinary power over this lad. He nevertheless proceeded to comfort and pray by him; yet even while he was praying the boy was once more taken from him, nor was he restored again till some hours into the same chamber. He was not then soon prevailed upon to discover anything, but at last confessed that he was beat by the same persons worse than before; that they threatened him with death if he told again; and that as for the Bishop--a person whom they all honored as a king and termed, as he thought, Awly Pawly -- said that he might bluster as he would and build himself houses, but that he should never live to lie in the new one he had built already. The Bishop on this sent for several of his friends, whom he acquainted with the whole matter, and then desired them, that he might prove the devil a liar, to go him immediately to his new house, in which, though not finished, he said he would, God willing, both sup and lie that very night. Accordingly provisions and necessaries were sent thither, which were followed by the Bishop and his friends; but while they were at supper a very large stone was whirled with an incredible force through the window, and passed the sight of the whole company close to the Bishop, to the side of the room. This the Bishop said was in his opinion the work of the devil, who was willing to keep his word, though it pleased God not to suffer him to accomplish his design. However, the Bishop lay there that night; but it was the last which he spent in it, for the wars breaking out immediately after obliged him to fly his country, and the boy, as far as could learn, suffered in the same manner to his death, which soon followed. This puts me in mind of an odd circumstance, which I know not yet what to make of. I was last week walking two or three mile from Oxford, and seeing a fair house stand by itself which I never observed before, I asked who lived in it of a countryman; who informed me that it had long stood empty, by reason of its being so much haunted that no family could ever stay long in it. I design to go thither the first opportunity, and see if it be true; which I shall hardly believe till I am an eye- or ear-witness of it. Pray remember my love to all my sisters: I would have writ to one or two of them if I had either room or time; but I am just going to church; for which reason you will excuse me for breaking off so abruptly and writing so bad. I shall therefore conclude with begging yours and my father’s blessing on Your dutiful Son. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Samuel Wesley (1690-1739) went from Westminster School to Christ Church, Oxford; and in 1732 became Head Master at Tiverton. He was now Usher at Westminster School, and was almost a father to his two younger brothers. He had written to Wesley’s tutor at Christ Church about him (see previous letter). John’s eagerness to see his mother at Westminster shows how strong were his domestic affections. His uncle Samuel Annesley, on whom so many family hopes were built, never reached London. Adam Clarke says, in his Memoirs of the Wesley Family, that Wesley used to tell his nephews, ’ You are heirs to a large property in India, if you can find it out; for my uncle is said to have been very prosperous.’ In Annesley of Surat Arnold Wright gives the will of this relative, and states that he died in Surat in 1732, leaving no fortune. The letter shows Wesley’s humor, and gives the first verses from his pen that have been preserved. This letter and that of March 21, 1726, were sent to the Westminster Magazine (1774, pp. 180-2) by the Rev. Samuel Badcock, to whom they had been given by Mrs. Earle, Samuel Wesley’s daughter. Wesley criticizes his article in Mary’s New Review for December 1784 (Works, xiii. 408-11). Badcock says that the letters had been ’closely locked up for some thirty years,’ and were accidentally discovered. ’I have learnt more of his original character than can possibly be known by his public life.’ He describes Wesley at twenty-one as ’ the very sensible and acute collegian, baffling every man by his subtleties of logic, and laughing at them for being so easily routed; a young fellow of the finest classical taste, of the most liberal and manly sentiments.’ He was ’ gay and sprightly, with a turn for wit and humor.’ Dr. Warburton called him ’ this transcendent man.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 08. 1725 ======================================================================== 1725 To his Mother OXON, May 28, 1725. DEAR MOTHER, -- My brother Charles, I remember, about a month or two since, was bemoaning himself, because my brother and I were to go into the country, and he was to be left behind. But now I hope he has no reason ’to complain, since he had the good fortune to go down in my stead. It was indeed very reasonable that he should, since he had never been at Wroot before, and I have; besides that, my father might probably think it would be an hindrance to my taking Orders, which he designed I should do on Trinity Sunday. But I believe that would have been no impediment to my journey, since I might have taken Bugden [Buckden] in Huntingdonshire, where Bishop Reynolds. ordained, in my way; and by that means I might have saved the two guineas which I am told will be the charge of Letters Dimissory. I was lately advised to read Thomas Kempis [Wesley says (Journal, May 1738): I read him only in Dean Stanhope’s translation. Yet I had frequently much sensible comfort in reading him.’ The tenth edition of Stanhope’s Christian Pattern, or a Treatise of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, was published in x72t (Roberts.... London). Evidently Stanhope’s version did not satisfy him. Later we find him using the Latin text of Sebastian Castalio; and in the letter of April 19, 17654, he quotes from the better text of Lambinet. In 1735 his own version was published. See Moore’s Life of Wesley, ii. 401; W.H.S. Proceedings, xii. 33n; and page 131n.] over, which I had frequently seen, but never much looked into before. I think he must have been a person of great piety and devotion, but it is my misfortune to differ from him in some of his main points. I can’t think that when God sent us into the world He had irreversibly decreed that we should be perpetually miserable in it. If it be so, the very endeavor after happiness in this life is a sin; as it is acting in direct contradiction to the very design of our creation. What are become of all the innocent comforts and pleasures of life; if it is the intent of our Creator that we should never taste them If our taking up the cross implies our bidding adieu to all joy and satisfaction, how is it reconcilable with what Solomon so expressly affirms of religion--that her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths peace A fair patrimony, indeed, which Adam has left his sons, if they are destined to be continually wretched! And though heaven is undoubtedly a sufficient recompense for all the afflictions we may or can suffer here, yet I am afraid that argument would make few converts to Christianity, if the yoke were not easy even in this life, and such an one as gives rest, at least as much as trouble. Another of his tenets, which is indeed a natural consequence of this, is that all mirth is vain and useless, if not sinful. But why, then, does the Psalmist so often exhort us to rejoice in the Lord and tell us that it becomes the just to be joyful I think one could hardly desire a more express text than that in the 68th Psalm, ’ Let the righteous rejoice and be glad in the Lord. Let them also be merry and joyful.’ And he seems to carry the matter as much too far on the other side afterwards, where he asserts that nothing is an affliction to a good man, and that he ought to thank God even for sending him misery. This, in my opinion, is contrary to God’s design in afflicting us; for though He chasteneth those whom He loveth, yet it is in order to humble them: and surely the method Job took in his adversity was very different from this, and yet in all that he sinned not. I hope when you are at leisure you will give me your thoughts on that subject, and set me right if I am mistaken [See next letter.] Pray give my service to any that ask after me, and my love to my sisters, especially my sister Emly. I suppose my brothers are gone.--I am Your dutiful Son. To his Mother OXON, June 18, 1725. DEAR MOTHER--I am very much surprised at my sister’s behavior towards my brother Charles, [Mrs. Samuel Wesley, jun., had evidently been vexed with Charles at Wroot. She had been a kind friend to John when he was at Charterhouse, and she was a young wife at Westminster. Charles told his brother in 1727 that he had cautioned Hetty “never to contraict my sister, whom she knows,’ and who. had been very kind to her (Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 304).] and wish it is not in some measure of his own procuring. She was always, as far as I could perceive, apt to resent an affront, and I am afraid some reflection or other upon her, of which I have formerly heard him make several, has by accident come to her knowledge. If so, I don’t at all wonder at anything which might follow; for though I believe she does not want piety, I am not of opinion she abounds in charity; having observed her sometimes to retaliate with great bitterness, on imagined contempt or slighting expression. She has always been particularly civil to me, ever since I was fifteen or sixteen years old; nor do I ever remember to have received an ill word from her, even to the time of her last being at Oxford. We had then a pretty deal of talk together, frequently by ourselves, and sometimes about my brother Charles, and I don’t know that she once intimated anything to his disadvantage, so that either she must be a very skilful dissembler or the misunderstanding between them has took its rise very lately. About a fortnight before Easter, upon my visiting Mr. Leyborn, [Robert Leyborne (or Leyborn), son of Antony Leyborne of London, was educated at Westminster School, and matriculated at Brasenose College in 1711, age 17. He became a student of Christ Church in 1712, Fellow of Brasenose and M.A. 1717, Junior Proctor 1723-4, B.D. and D.D. 1731; Rector of St. Dunstan’s, Stepney, 1729, of St. Anne’s, Limehouse, 1730, till his death; Principal of St. Alban Hall i736--59. He died at Bath May 12, 1759, and was buried .in the Abbey there in the grave of his second wife. He inherited, with Mr. Leyborne of the British Factory in Lisbon, property of William Shippen, his mother’s brother.] he informed me that my brother [Samuel Wesley and his wife seem to have been in Oxford about March before their visit to Wroot.] had writ to him to provide a lodging. Mr. Leyborn immediately made him proffer of Dr. Shippen’s,[ Robert Shippen, Principal of Brasenose College 1710-45.] then out of town. But a second letter of my brother’s in which he accepted the proffer being answered in three days (Mr. Leyborn says because did not receive it), a third comes from my brother, which indeed was a very strange one, if he had met with no other provocation. It began with words to this purpose: ‘That he well hoped Mr. Leyborn had been wiser than to express his: anger against his humble servant though but by silence, since he knew it would be to no purpose; and that now he need not fear his troubling him, for lodgings would be taken for his wife and him elsewhere.’ How the matter was made up I don’t know; but he was with them the day after they came to town, and almost every one of the succeeding. We were several times entertained by him, and I thought very handsomely, nor was there the least show of dislike on either side. But what I heard my sister say once, on our parting with Mr. Leyborn, made the former proceedings a little clearer, ‘Thus should we have been troubled with that girl’s attendance everywhere, if we had gone to lodge at Dr. Shippen’s.’ You have so well satisfied me as to the tenets of Thomas of Kempis, that I have ventured to trouble you once more on a more dubious occasion. I have heard one I take to be a person of good judgment say that she would advise no one very young to read Dr. Taylor Of Living and Dying[See next letter.]: she added that he almost put her out of her senses when she was fifteen or sixteen year old; because he seemed to exclude all from being in a way of salvation who did not come up to his rules, some of which are altogether impracticable. A fear of being tedious will make me confine myself to one or two instances, in which I am doubtful, though several others might be produced of almost equal consequence. In his fourth section of the second chapter, where he treats of Humility, these, among others, he makes necessary parts of that virtue: Love to be little esteemed, and be content to be slighted or undervalued. Take no content in praise when it is offered thee. Please not thyself when disgraced by supposing thou didst deserve praise though they understood thee not or enviously detracted from thee. We must be sure in some sense or other to think ourselves the worst in every company where we come. Give God thanks for every weakness, deformity, or imperfection, and accept it as a favor and grace, an instrument to resist pride. In the ninth section of the fourth chapter he says: Repentance contains in it all the parts of an holy life from our return to our death. A man can have but one proper repentance -- viz. when the rite of baptism is verified by God’s grace coming upon us and our obedience. After this change, if we ever fall into the contrary state there is no place left for any more repentance. A true penitent must all the days of his life pray for pardon and never think the work completed till he dies. Whether God has forgiven us or no we know not, therefore still be sorrowful for ever having sinned. I take the more notice of this last sentence, because it seems to contradict his own words in the next section, where he says that by the Lord’s Supper all the members are united to one another and to Christ the head: the Holy Ghost confers on us the graces we pray for, and our souls receive into them the seeds of an immortal nature. Now, surely these graces are not of so little force, as that we can’t perceive whether we have them or no; and if we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, which He will not do till we are regenerate, certainly we must be sensible of it. If his opinion be true, I must own I have always been in a great error; for I imagined that when I communicated worthily, i.e. with faith, humility, and thankfulness, my preceding sins were ipso facto forgiven me. I mean, so forgiven that, unless I fell into them again, I might be secure of their ever rising in judgment against me at least in the other world. But if we can never have any certainty of our being in a state of salvation, good reason it is that every moment should be spent not in joy but fear and trembling; and then undoubtedly in this life WE ARE of all men most miserable! God deliver us from such a fearful expectation as this! Humility is undoubtedly necessary to salvation; and if all these things are essential to humility, who can be humble, who can be saved Your blessing and advice will much oblige and I hope improve Your dutiful Son. To his Mother OXON, July 29, 1725 DEAR MOTHER, -- I must in the first place beg you to excuse my writing so small, since I shall not otherwise have time to make an end before the post goes out; as I am not sure I shall, whether I make haste or no. The King of Poland has promised what satisfaction shall be thought requisite in the affair of Thorn [In 1724 a riot occurred at Thorn in Poland between Jesuit students and Protestants who were accused of sacrilege. The aged President of the City Council and several leading citizens were executed in December. The Protestant Powers of Europe were indignant, and the Poles especially annoyed by the speech of the English minister at Ratisbon. See Morfill’s Poland, p. 2o3; and letter of Nov.]; so that all Europe seemed now disposed for peace as well as England, though the Spaniards daily plunder our merchantmen as fast as they can catch them in the West Indies. [Spain was hoping to regain her lost possessions across the Atlantic, and sought to monopolize the commerce of the most important part of the New World, and the rigid exercise of the right of search on the high seas gave rise to many acts of violence and barbarity (Lecky’s England. in the Eighteenth Century, i. 449). In 1727 she besieged Gibraltar.] You have much obliged me by your thoughts on Dr. Taylor, [See letter of Feb. 28, 1730.] especially with respect to humility, which is a point he does not seem to me sufficiently to dear. As to absolute humility (if I may venture to make a distinction, which I don’t remember to have seen in any author), consisting in a mean opinion of ourselves, considered simply, or with respect to God alone, I can readily join with his opinion. But I am more uncertain as to comparative, if I may so term it; and think some, plausible reasons may be alleged to show it is not in our power, and consequently not a virtue, to think ourselves the worst in every company. We have so invincible an attachment to truth already perceived, that it is impossible for us to disbelieve it. A distinct perception commands our assent, and the will is under a moral necessity of yielding to it. It is not, therefore, in every case a matter of choice whether we will believe ourselves worse than our neighbor or no; since we may distinctly perceive the truth of this proposition, He is worse than me; and then the judgment is not free. One, for instance, who is in company with a free-thinker, or other person signally debauched in faith and practice, can’t avoid knowing himself to be the better of the two; these’ propositions extorting our assent, --An Atheist is worse than a Believer; A man who endeavors to please God is better than he who defies Him. If a true knowledge of God be necessary to absolute humility, a true knowledge of our neighbor should be necessary to comparative. But to judge oneself the worst of all men implies a want of such knowledge. No knowledge can be, where there is not certain evidence; which we have not, whether we compare ourselves with acquaintance or strangers. In the one case we have only imperfect evidence, unless we can see through the heart and reins; in the other we have none at all. So that the best can be said of us in this particular, allowing the truth of the premises, is that we have been in a pious error, if at least we may yield so great a point to free-thinkers as to own any part of piety to be grounded on a mistake. Again, this kind of humility can never be well-pleasing to God, since it does not flow from faith, without which it impossible to please Him. Faith is a species of belief, and belief is defined ’an assent to a proposition upon rational grounds.’ Without rational grounds there is therefore no belief, and consequently no faith. That we can never be so certain of the pardon of our sins as to be assured they will never rise up against us, I firmly believe. We know that they will infallibly do so if ever we apostatize, and I am not satisfied what evidence there can be, of our final perseverance till we have finished our course. But I am persuaded we may know if we are now in a state of salvation, since that is expressly promised in the Holy Scriptures to our sincere endeavors, and we are surely able to judge of our own sincerity. As I understand faith to be an assent to any truth upon rational grounds, I don’t think it possible without perjury to swear I believe anything, unless I have rational grounds for my persuasion. Now, that which contradicts reason can’t be said to stand on rational grounds; and such undoubtedly is every proposition which is incompatible with the Divine Justice or Mercy. I can therefore never say I believe such a proposition, since ’tis impossible to assent upon reasonable evidence where it is not in being. What, then, shall I say of Predestination An everlasting purpose of God to deliver some from damnation does, I suppose, exclude all from that deliverance who are not chosen. And if it was inevitably decreed from eternity that such a determinate part of mankind should be saved, and none beside them, a vast majority of the world were only born to eternal death, without so much as a possibility of avoiding it. How is this consistent with either the Divine Justice or Mercy Is it merciful to ordain a creature to everlasting misery Is it just to punish man for crimes which he could not but commit How is man, if necessarily determined to one way of acting, a free agent To lie under either a physical or a moral necessity is entirely repugnant to human liberty. But that God should be the author of sin and injustice (which must, I think, be the consequence of maintaining this opinion) is a contradiction to the clearest ideas we have of the divine nature and perfections. I call faith an assent upon rational grounds, because I hold divine testimony to be the most reasonable of all evidence whatever. Faith must necessarily at length be resolved into reason. God is true; therefore what He says is true. He hath said this; therefore this is true. When any one can bring me more reasonable propositions than these, I am ready to assent to them: till then, it will be highly unreasonable to change my opinion. I used to think that the difficulty of Predestination might be solved by supposing that it was indeed decreed from eternity that a remnant should be elected, but that it was in every man’s power to be of that remnant. But the words of our Article will not bear that sense. I see no other way but to allow that some may be saved who were not always of the number of the elected. Your sentiments on this point, especially where I am in an error, will much oblige and I hope improve Your dutiful Son. To his Mother CHRIST CHURCH, November 22, 1725. DEAR MOTHER,--I must beg leave to assure you that before I received yours I was fully convinced of two things,-first, that Mr. Berkeley’s [George Berkeley, D.D. (1685-1753), Bishop of Cloyne 1734. He published his Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous in 1713. The reference is to the early part of the Second Dialogue.] notion, which at first sight appeared very plausible--as, indeed, an ingenious disputant will make almost anything appear--was utterly groundless; and that he either advanced a palpable falsehood, or said nothing at all: and, secondly, that I had been under a mistake in adhering to that definition of Faith which Dr. Fiddes [Richard Fiddes (1671--July 8, 1725). A critical account of him is given by Hearne in his diary for July 15 of this year. He was author of A Body of Divinity (2 vols. folio, 1718-20) and other works. He and his school defined faith as ’an assent to a proposition on reasonable (or rational) grounds.’] sets down as the only true one. Mr. Berkeley’s reasons on a second reading I found to be mere fallacy, though very artfully disguised. From one or two you may easily judge of what kind his other arguments are. He introduces Hylas charging Philonous with skepticism for denying the existence of sensible things: to which Philonous replies that, if denying the existence of sensible things constitute a skeptic, he will prove those to be such who assert sensible things to be material; for if all sensible things are material, then, if it be proved that nothing material exists, it will follow that no sensible thing exists; and that nothing material can exist he undertakes to demonstrate. Matter, says he (by which you must mean something sensible, or rise how came you to know of it), you define a solid extended substance, the existence of which is exterior to the mind and does in no ways depend on its being perceived; but if it appear that no sensible thing is exterior to the mind, your supposition of a sensible substance independent on it is a plain inconsistency. Sensible things are those which are perceived by the senses; everything perceived by the senses is immediately perceived (for the senses make no inferences, that is the province of reason); everything immediately perceived is a sensation; no sensation can exist but in a mind: ergo no sensible thing can exist but in a mind, which was to be proved. Another of his arguments to the same purpose is this: Nothing can exist in fact the very notion of which implies a contradiction; nothing is impossible to conceive, unless the notion of it imply a contradiction. But ’tis absolutely impossible to conceive anything existing otherwise than in some mind, because whatever any one conceives is at that instant in his mind. Wherefore as matter is supposed to be a substance exterior to all minds, and as ’tis evident nothing can be even conceived exterior to all minds, ’tis equally evident there can be no such thing in being as matter. Or thus: Everything conceived is a conception, every conception is a thought, and every thought is in some mind; wherefore to say you can conceive a thing which exists in no mind is to say you conceive what is not conceived at all. The flaws in his arguments, which do not appear at a distance, [may be] easily seen on a nearer inspection. He says, artfully enough in the preface, [in] order to give his proofs their full force, it will be necessary to place them in as many different lights as possible. By this means the object grows too big for the eye; whereas, had he contracted it into a narrower compass, the mind might readily have taken it in at one view and discerned where the failing lay. How miserably does he play with the words ’idea’ and ’sensation’! Everything immediately perceived is a sensation. Why Because a sensation is what is immediately perceived by the senses -- that is, in plain English, everything immediately perceived is immediately perceived; a most admirable discovery, the glory of which I dare say no one will envy him. And again: all sensible qualities are ideas, and no idea exists but in some mind -- that is, all sensible qualities are objects of the mind in thinking, and no image of an external object painted on a mind exists otherwise than in some mind. And what then Fiddes’ definition of faith I perceived on reflection to trespass against the very first law of defining, as not being adequate to the thing defined, which is but a part of the definition. An assent grounded both on testimony and reason takes in science as well as faith, which is on all hands allowed to be distinct from it. I am, therefore, at length come over entirely to your opinion, that saving faith (including practice) is an assent to what God has revealed because He has revealed it and not because the truth of it may be evinced by reason. Affairs in Poland grow worse and worse. Instead of answering the remonstrances from the Protestant Powers, the Poles remonstrate themselves against their listing troops and meddling with what does not concern them. It seems above fifty schools and near as many churches have been taken from the Protestants in Poland and Lithuania since the treaty of Oliva; so that the guarantees of it would have had reason to interpose though the persecution at Thorn had never happened. [See letter of July 29, 1725.] The late Bishop of Chester [Francis Gastrell (1662-1725), Bishop of Chester x 7x4-25,and Canon of Christ Church. Hearne, recording his death (Nov. 1725), describes him as ’the very best of the bishops excepting Dr. Hooker of Bath, and had many excenent qualities, among some bad ones.’ He was educated at Westminster School. John Wesley went to his funeral, and his Diary says, ’ Made a copy of alcaicks on Bishop Gastrell.’ Samuel Wesley, jun., included a glowing eulogy of him in his Poems of 1736 (p: 125). Samuel Peploe ’succeeded him as Bishop. See letter of Sept. 23, 1723,n.] was buried on Friday last, five days alter his death, which was occasioned by the dead palsy and gout in the head and stomach; he was in the sixty-third year of his age. ’Tis said he will be succeeded either by Dr. Foulkes [Peter Foulkes (1676-1747), Canon and Sub-Dean of Exeter.] or Dr. Ganner, Chancellor of Norwich, one whom all parties speak well of. I have only time to beg yours and my father’s blessing on Your dutiful Son. Pray remember .me to my sisters, who, I hope, are well. If I knew when my sister Emly would be at home, I would write. November 23. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wesley was ordained deacon by Dr. Potter, Bishop of Oxford, on Sunday morning, September 19, 1725, in Christ Church Cathedral. Charles (1707-88) was still at Westminster (see heading to letter of November 26, 1737). Their father had recently received the living of Wroot, and on May 10, 1725, writes from there to John: ’Your brother Samuel with his wife and child are here. I did what I could that you might have been in Orders this Trinity; but I doubt your brother’s journey hither has for the present disconcerted our plans, though you will have more time to prepare yourself for ordination.’ Charles was with his brother Samuel. The letter is also noteworthy for its reference to Kempis, which he long afterwards described as next to the Bible. [2] His mother endorses this letter, ’Jacky’s Letter. Humility.’ A note inserted by her in the middle of the last page reads thus: ‘Weakness, deformity, or imperfection of body are not evil in themselves, but accidentally become good or evil according as they affect us and. make us good or bad’ (see page 19) Robert Leyborn had been in love with Emilia Wesley. She told John in 1725 (see Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 263) that their correspondence was broken off through ’ill-fate in the shape of a near relation.’ It was the heaviest of many trials at that time. ’ For near half a year I never slept half a night.’ She afterwards married Robert Harper. See letter of March 18, 1736. [3] Wesley was elected Fellow of Lincoln on March 17, 1726, and became Lecturer in Logic the same year. The argument of this letter shows how well he was fitted for that post, and helps us to understand the intellectual capacity of the mother to whom such a letter could be sent. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 09. 1726 ======================================================================== 1726 To his Brother Samuel [March 21, 1726] DEAR BROTHER,--I should of certainly have writ you word my success on Friday (all Thursday I was detained at Lincoln [The day of his election as Fellow of Lincoln College. On ’Lincoln College and its Fellows,’ see John Wesley, by J. H. Overton (Rector of Lincoln), pp. 16-19. ’There would be at least a tradition of learning and piety about the College when Wesley was elected. Wesley’s own incidental remarks fully bear out this theory.... He "seems to have made an equally good impression upon his brother Fellows."’ A letter from one of them, Lewis Fenton, shows how he was welcomed (Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, i. 414).]), but that I thought it more advisable, since I had promised to send some verses in a. few days, to do both in the same letter. I am at the same time to ask pardon for letting anything prevent my doing the first sooner; and to return you my sincere and hearty thanks, as well for your past kindness, as for the fresh instance of it you now give me, in the pains you take to qualify me for the enjoyment of that success, which I owe chiefly, not to say wholly, to your interest. I am the more ready to profess my gratitude now, because I may do so with less appearance of design than formerly; -- of any other design, I hope, than of showing myself sensible of the obligation; and that, in this respect at least, I am not unworthy of it. I have not yet been able to meet with one or two gentlemen, from whom I am in hopes of getting two or three copies of verses. The most tolerable of my own, if any such there were, you probably received already from Mr. Leyborn. [See letters of June 18, 1725, and April 4, 1725.] Some of those that I had besides I have sent here, and shall be very glad if they are capable of being so corrected as to be of any service to you. HORACE, LIB. I. ODE XIX The cruel Queen of fierce des’tres, While youth and wine assistants prove, Renews my long-neglected fires And melts again my mind to love. On blooming Glycera I gaze, By too resistless force opprest; With fond delight my eye surveys The spotless marble of her breast. In vain I strive to break my chain; In vain I heave with anxious sighs: Her pleasing coyness feeds my pain And keeps the conquests of her eyes. Impetuous tides of joy and pain By turns my lab’ring bosom tear; The Queen of Love, with all her train Of hopes and fears, inhabits there. No more the wand’ring Scythian’s might From softer themes my lyre shall move; No more the Parthian’s wily flight: My lyre shall sing of naught but Love. Haste, grassy altars let us rear; Haste, wreaths of fragrant myrtle twine; With Arab sweets perfume the air, And crown the whole with gen’rous wine. While we the sacred rites prepare, The cruel Queen of fierce desires Will pierce, propitious to my prayer, The obdurate maid with equal fires. ODE XXII Integrity needs no defense; The man who trusts to Innocence, Nor wants the darts Numidians throw, Nor arrows of the Parthian bow. Secure o’er Libya’s sandy seas Or hoary Caucasus he strays; O’er regions scarcely known to Fame, Washed by Hydaspes’ fabled stream. While void of cares, of naught afraid, Late in the Sabine woods I strayed; On Sylvia’s lips, while pleased I sung, How Love and soft Persuasion hung ! A ravenous wolf, intent on food, Rushed from the covert of the wood; Yet dared not violate the grove Secured by Innocence and Love: Nor Mauritania’s sultry plain So large a savage does contain; Nor e’er so huge a monster treads Warlike Apulia’s beechen shades. Place me where no revolving sun Does e’er h.is radiant circle run, Where clouds and damps alone appear And poison the unwholesome year: Place me in that effulgent day Beneath the sun’s directer ray; No change from its fixed place shall move The basis of my lasting love. SENT TO A GENTLEMAN WHOSE FATHER WAS LATELY DEAD. In imitation of’ Quis desiderio sit pugor.’ [Horace’s Odes, I. xxiv.] What shame shall stop our flowing tears What end shall our just sorrows know Since Fate, relentless to our prayers, Has given the long destructive blow! Ye Muses, strike the sounding string, In plaintive strains his loss deplore, And teach an artless voice to sing The great, the bounteous, now no more For him the Wise and Good shall mourn, While late records his fame declare; And, oft as rolling years return, Shall pay his tomb a grateful tear. Ah I what avail their plaints to thee Ah I what avails his fame declared Thou blam’st, alas I the just decree Whence Virtue meets its just reward. Though sweeter sounds adorned thy tongue Than Thracian Orpheus whilom played, When list’ning to the morning song Each tree bowed down its leafy head, Never I ah, never from the gloom Of unrelenting Pluto’s sway Could the thin shade again resume Its ancient tenement of clay. Indulgent Patience! heav’n-born guest! Thy healing wings around display: Thou gently calm’st the stormy breast And driv’st the tyrant Grief away. Corroding Care and eating Pain By just degrees thy influence own; And lovely lasting Peace again Resumes her long-deserted throne. To his Brother Samuel LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXON, April 4, 1726 DEAR BROTHER,--I should have written long before now, had not a gentleman of Exeter made me put it off from day to day, in hopes of getting some little poems of his, which he promised to write out for me. Yesterday I saw them, though not much to my satisfaction, as being all on very wrong subjects, and run chiefly on the romantic notions of love and gallantry. I have transcribed one which is much shorter than any of the rest, and am promised by to-morrow night, -if that will do me any service, another of a more serious nature. I believe I have given Mr. Leyborn at different times five or six short copies of verses: the latest were a translation of part of the Second Georgic and an imitation of the 65th. Psalm. If he has lost them, as it is likely he has in so long a time, I can write them over in less than an hour, and send them by the post. My father, very unexpectedly a week ago, sent me in a letter a bill on Dr. Morley [John Morley, Rector of Lincoln College 1719-31. He held the living of Scotton, near Gainsborough. See Journal, iii. 511; and letter of Dec. 11, 1730.] for twelve pounds, which he had paid to the Rector’s use at Gainsborough; so that, now several of my debts are paid and the expenses of my treat defrayed, I have above ten pounds remaining; and if I could have leave to stay in the country till my College allowance commences, this money would abundantly suffice me till then. As far as I have ever observed, I never knew a college besides ours, whereof the members were so perfectly satisfied with one another and so inoffensive to the other part of the University. All I have yet seen of the Fellows are both well-natured and well-bred; men admirably disposed as well to preserve peace and good neighborhood among themselves, as to promote it wherever else they have any acquaintance. By a cool fountain’s flow’ry side The fair Celinda lay; Her looks increased the summer’s pride, Her eyes the blaze of day. Quick through the air to this retreat A bee industrious flew, Prepared to rifle every sweet Under the balmy dew. Drawn by the fragrance of her breath, Her rosy lips he found; There in full transport sucked in death, And dropt upon the ground. Enjoy, blest bee, enjoy thy fate, Nor at thy fall repine; Each god would quit his blissful state, To share a death like thine. [Priestley’s Letters, p. 3.] THE SEVEN FORMER VERSES OF THE FORTY-SIXTH PSALM On God supreme our hope depends, Whose omnipresent sight Even to the pathless realms extends Of uncreated night. Plunged in the abyss of deep distress, To Him we raise our cry; His mercy bids our sorrows cease, And fills our tongue with joy. Though earth her ancient seat forsake, By pangs convulsive torn; Though her self-balanced fabric shake, And ruined nature mourn; Though hills be in the ocean lost, With all their shaggy load,- No fear shall e’er molest the just, Or shake his trust in God. What though the ungoverned, wild abyss His fires tumultuous pours; What though the watery legions rise And lash the affrighted shores; What though the trembling mountains nod, Nor stand the rolling war,- Sion, secure, enjoys the flood, Loud echoing from afar. The God Most High on Sion’s hill Has fixed His sure abode; I Nor dare the impetuous waves assail The city of our God. Nations remote and realms unknown In vain reject His sway; For, lo! Jehovah’s voice is shown, And earth shall melt away. Let war’s devouring surges rise And rage on every side, The Lord of Hosts our refuge is And Jacob’s God our guide. Mr. Le Hunte [William Le Hunte: matriculated, Christ Church, 1710, age 17; Proctor 1724, Vicar of Kidderminster I729, Rector of Oxhill 1731. He contributed a set of verses to the Carmina Quadragesimalia, or Lent Verses, vol. i. 1723, p. 79 (Wordsworth, University Life, pp. 309, 312).] and Mr. Sherman send their service.--I am Your loving Brother. I believe I could put off two or three more receipts if I had them. Pray my love to my brother and sister. On Friday St. Peter’s Church in the Baily was beaten down by the fall of the steeple. Saturday morning a chandler here murdered two men and wounded a third; in the evening a fire broke out at the Mitre, but was stopped in a few hours. To his Brother Samuel LINCOLN COLLEGE, December 5, 1726, DEAR BROTHER,--I return you thanks for your favorable judgment on my sermon, and for the alterations you direct me to make in it; yet, in order to be still better informed, I take the liberty to make some objections to some of them, in one or two of which I believe you misunderstood me. I. The reasons why I conceive the Samaritans to have been idolaters are, first, because our Savior says of them, ’ Ye worship ye know not what ’; which seems to refer plainly to the object of their worship: and, secondly, because the old inhabitants of Samaria, who succeeded the Israelites, were undoubtedly so; and I never heard that they were much amended in after-times, -- ‘These nations feared the Lord, and served their graven images, both their children and their children’s children’ (2 Kings xvii. 41). II. Were the Jews obliged to love wicked men And is not our commandment extended to some cases to which theirs did not reach to the excluding some instances of revenge, which were indulged to them We are doubtless to love good men more than others; but to have inserted it where I was only to prove that we were to love them, and not how much, would not, I think, have been to my purpose. Where our Savior exerts His authority against His opposers, I cannot think it safe for me to follow Him. I would much sooner in those cases act by His precepts than ’example: the one was certainly designed for me, the other possibly was not. The Author had power to dispense with His own laws, and wisdom to know when it was necessary: I have neither. No one would blame a man for using such sharpness of speech as St. Stephen does; especially in a prayer made in the article of death, with the same intention as his. III. What you understand as spoken of rulers, I expressly say of private men: ’ As well every ruler as every private man must act in a legal way; and the latter might with equal reason apply the civil sword himself as use violent means’ (by which I here mean reviling, studiously and unnecessarily defaming, or handing about ill stories of wicked men) ’to preserve the Church.’ 1. I believe it to be more especially the duty of governors to try to amend scandalous offenders. 2. That flagrant immorality is a sufficient reason to shun any one. 3. That to the weak and private Christian it is an unanswerable reason for so doing. 4. That in many cases a private Christian, in some a clergyman, is not obliged to admonish more than once. But this being allowed, still the main argument stands, that the Scripture nowhere authorizes a private person to do more than to shun an heretic, or (which I expressly mention) an obstinate offender. I had not the least thought of any retrospect in them, neither when I wrote or spoke those words, ’If Providence has pointed you out, &c.’ My mother’s reason for my cutting off my hair is because she fancies it prejudices my health. As to my looks, it would doubtless mend my complexion to have it off, by letting me get a little more color, and perhaps it might contribute to my making a more genteel appearance. But these, till ill health is added to them, I cannot persuade myself to be sufficient grounds for losing two or three pounds a year: I am ill enough able to spare them. [See letter of Nov. 17 1731.] Mr. Sherman says there are garrets somewhere in Peck water to be let for fifty shillings a year; that there are, too, some honest fellows in college who would be willing to chum in one of them; and that, could my brother [Charles had been elected to a studentship at Christ Church this year.] but find one of these garrets, and get acquainted with one of these honest fellows, he might very possibly prevail upon him to join in taking it; and then, if he could but prevail upon someone else to give him seven pounds a year for his own room, he would gain almost six pounds a year clear if his rent were well paid. He appealed to me whether the proposal was not exceeding reasonable; but as I could not give him such an answer as he desired, I did not choose to give him any: at all. Leisure and I have taken leave of one another [One of the first of Wesley’s memorable sayings.]: I propose to be busy as long as I live, if my health is so long indulged to me. In health and sickness I hope I shall ever continue, with the same sincerity, Your loving Brother, My love and service to my sister. To Mr. Wesley, Great Dean’s Yard, Westminster. To his Brother Samuel LINCOLN COLLEGE, December 6, 1726. DEAR BROTHER -- The very thing I desire of you is this, that you would not content yourself with your own opinion, nor fix your own opinion at all, till you have heard my story as well as theirs who accuse me. ’Tis very hard: I have said all that I can say, -- I have professed my sincerity and integrity, more perhaps than it became me to profess them; I have asked yours as well as my father’s pardon for any real or supposed slight I have put upon you; to you in particular I have given all the satisfaction which I could contrive to give in words; and yet am now just as far, if not farther, from a reconciliation than I was when I first set out. Since all probable methods of gaining my cause have failed, I will try one way more: I will relate the controverted facts as plainly as I can, without desiring you either to believe me or not. If you do, I shall be glad both for your sake and my own; if not, I have done my part, and can therefore quietly commit my ways to Him, who in His own good time will make my innocence as clear as the light. First I shall tell you what I suspect, and next what I know. My suspicion is that, on your receiving a letter from me, you immediately set yourself to consider what ’tis probable I shall say to your last: and if you hit upon any of my objections, then they are to go for nothing; you have already found out the emptiness of them. You then proceed to read, taking it for granted that if I will not tell a downright lie, which is a question, I will however color and palliate everything, as far as my wit will serve me to do with any show of truth; that calmness is an infallible mark of disrespect, as warmth is of guilt; and with a few of these either praecognita or praeconcessa, ’tis perfectly easy to demonstrate that I am totally in the wrong. Without some proceedings of this kind, I cannot imagine or guess how you come to be so displeased at me: why, alter I have over and over desired that my past miscarriages might be forgotten, your language still shows them to be fresh in your memory; to what end, since it does not appear that different expressions would not do as well, you give me in every one of your letters one or more of those taunting sentences, ’It would have been fair enough ad hominem,’ ’ I hope ’tis not only pro forma that you labor.’ I do believe you are yet my affectionate friend; but very much fear you will not be so long, if everything I say has so strange a construction put upon it. My father’s words and your reflection upon them were both perfectly unintelligible to me till I read the Canon he mentions. I should then have been exactly as much at a loss as before, but that my brother Charles accidentally, while we were in the country, repeated to me part of a conversation he had with my father in their return from my brother Ellison’s. The substance of it, as near as I remember, was this: ‘My father last night was telling me of your disrespect to him; he said you had him at open defiance. I was surprised, and asked him how or when. He said, "Every day, you hear how he contradicts me, and takes your sister’s part before my face. Nay, he disputes with me, preach --” And then he stopped short as if he wanted to recall his word, and talked of other things.’ I said I wondered what he meant; till recollecting with my brother that my father, mother, sister Emly, and I had several times been speaking of the treatment we should show ill men; and that my brother having likewise had many disputes with me about it, I told him ‘I had for near a twelvemonth intended writing on Universal Charity, having read over Dr. Clarke and Bishop Atterbury’s Sermons for that purpose; that I would set about it immediately, and there he should hear at once, and so would be better able to judge of my arguments.’ I wrote it accordingly, and after my mother’s perusal and approbation, she making one alteration in the expression, preached it, on Sunday, August 28. I had the same day the pleasure of observing that my father the same day, when one Will. Atkins was mentioned, did not speak so warmly nor largely against him as usual. The next day (29) I went to Epworth, and returned from thence on Thursday (September 1). In the evening my brother desired me to take a walk, and told me what I have above recited. We supped, and walked about a quarter of an hour in the garden; from whence I ran in to find my father. I met him by himself in the hall, and told him, not without tears, that I learned from my brother I had offended him, both by speaking often in contradiction to him and by not offering myself to write for him, but, I now promised to do whatever he pleased. He kissed me, and I believe cried too; told me he always believed I was good at bottom (those were his words), and would employ me the next day. The next day I began transcribing some papers for him; and find, by my diary, I employed the same way part of every day, from the 2nd to the 12th inclusive; only excepting Sunday the 11th, in which all the spare time I had was employed in writing what I remembered of my father’s sermon. On Thursday of the following week I dined at my sister Lambert’s, and was her son’s godfather, and was detained there by fresh company coming in till evening; on Friday my father, brother, and I walked over to dinner to Mr. Hoole’s; on Saturday morning came over Mr. Harper of Epworth and Mr. Pennington, to take leave of my brother and me. In the rest of the week I wrote and transcribed a sermon against Rash Judging, which with my father’s leave I preached on Sunday. On Monday the 19th we set out for Oxon. Neither did my father, while I was with him, speak one word to me of that sermon he complains of; nor did it appear, unless by that one word to my brother, that he had then taken offence at all. If he had, he would surely have used some means ’to have satisfaction made where the offence was given,’ and not have’ suffered me again to occupy that place I had once abused’; especially till I had ’faithfully promised to forbear all such matter of contention in the church,’ which I was not likely to do till I was apprised of my fault. The 53rd Canon runs thus: ’If any preacher in the pulpit particularly or narrowly of purpose impugn or confute any doctrine delivered by any other preacher in the same church -- or in any church near adjoining, because upon such public dissenting and contradicting there may grow much offence and disquietness to the people the churchwardens or -party grieved shall forthwith signify the same to the Bishop, and not suffer, &c.’ Against this I have offended, if I have in the pulpit particularly or of purpose impugned any doctrine there delivered before. But this plainly supposes the impugner to know that the doctrine he opposes was preached there before; otherwise he can’t possibly be said to impugn it particularly or on purpose. Now, it is not possible he should know it was there delivered, unless he either heard it preached himself or was informed of it by others. The disputed point between my father and me was the particular measure of charity due to wicked men; but neither have I heard him, neither did he himself or any other person inform me, that he ever preached at all in Wroot Church on that subject. So that I am in no wise guilty of breaking the Canon, unless it obliges every preacher to inquire what particular tenets have ever been maintained (for the time is not limited) both in his own and the adjoining churches: if he is to inquire of the former, he must inquire of the latter too; the Canon equally speaking of both. If there be any objection made to the sermon itself, I have it by me, and, for the matter of it, am not ashamed or afraid to show it anybody. Why you defer your advice till my debts are paid [See letter of March 19, 1727.] you may probably see a reason; I do not. I reckon my Fellowship near sixty pounds a year. Between forty and fifty it will infallibly cost to live at college, use what management I can. As for pupils, I am not qualified to take them till one of our tutors goes away; when that will be is very uncertain. What you mean by my debt at Wroot I do not apprehend. If the whole I have at any time received of my father, I know not how much it is, and shall not therefore know (as neither will you) when it is satisfied; if what I have received at the University, I may be ruined for want of advice before I can possibly repay that; if what I received when last in the country, that was nothing at all, for I not only bore my own expenses in traveling, but paid ready money for whatever I brought from thence, and left money behind me -- though for several reasons I did not think good to tell my father so much when he blamed me with being so expensive to him in that journey. My sister Hetty’s behavior has, for aught I have heard, been innocent enough since her marriage. Most of my disputes on Charity with my father were on her account, he being inconceivably exasperated against her. ’Tis likely enough he would not see her when at Wroot: he has disowned her long ago, and never spoke of her in my hearing but with the utmost detestation. Both he, my mother, and several of my sisters were persuaded her penitence was but feigned. One great reason for my writing the above-mentioned sermon was to endeavor, as far as in me lay, to convince them that, even on the supposition that she was impenitent, some tenderness was due to her still; which my mother, when I read it to her, was so well aware of that she told me as soon as she had read it, ’You writ this sermon for Hetty; the rest was brought in for the sake of the last paragraph.’ My sister Lambert behaved herself unexceptionally while we were in the country. That she had lately altered her conduct, which indeed is highly improbable, I did not hear till now. I very heartily desire (though I see not how it can be effected, unless you will take my word till my actions disprove it) that you should entertain a just opinion, as of the morals in general, so in particular of the gratitude of Your loving Brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] After Wesley was elected Fellow of Lincoln on March 17, 1726, he obtained leave of absence in April from the University and spent; the summer in Lincolnshire. A facsimile page of his Diary during. that time is given in the Journal, i. 68. He served as his father’s curate at Epworth and Wroot, transcribed his father’s Job, and began a. paraphrase of Psalm civ. His mother advised him: ’ I would not have you leave off making verses; rather make poetry sometimes your diversion, though never your business.’ He returned to Oxford on September 21. This letter to his eider brother gives some indication of the family trouble about Hetty Wesley, who had married William Wright in 1725, after getting herself into disgrace through the wiles of a young solicitor who kept her away from home for a night. John evidently looked more leniently upon her conduct than did his father, who resented his son’s plea for gentler treatment. Anne Wesley made a happy marriage with John Lambert, a land surveyor in Epworth, in 1725. Dr. Samuel Clarke, Rector of St. James’s, Westminster, preached on December 30, 1705, before Queen Anne, on the Great Duty of Universal Love and Charity, from 1 John iv. 21: ’True greatness, therefore, is to imitate God in His most glorious perfection of goodness.’ Atterbury’s sermon (1 Pet. iv. 5), on the Power of Charity to cover Sin, was preached in Bridewell Chapel on August 16, 1694. Samuel Wesley (in a letter ’in the Colman Collection) replied on December 10 that he would not pretend to defend what he had almost forgotten. He is resolved to do what he can to reconcile his father and mother and Emilia to Hetty. ‘Your reading to my mother was a very wrong step too; you might have had it to say that no one living had seen it; for the authority of her approbation on the one side did not outweigh the suspicion of combination on the other.’ As to his father’s temper, he says: ‘I have lived longer with him than you, and have been very intimate, and yet almost always pleased him, and am confident I shall do so to the end of my life.’ Emilia speaks of her father’s ’ unaccountable love of discord.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 10. 1727 ======================================================================== 1727 To his Mother LINCOLN COLLEGE, January 25, 1727. DEAR MOTHER, -- I am shortly to take my Master’s degree. [He took his M.A. on Feb. 14, gaining considerable reputation by his disputation for the degree. He told Henry Moore that he delivered three lectures: De Anima Brutorum, on Natural Philosophy; De Julio Caesare, on Moral Philosophy; and De Amore Dei, on Religion.] As I shall from that time be less interrupted by business not of my own choosing, I have drawn up for myself a scheme of studies from, which I do not intend, for some years at least, to very. I am perfectly come over to your opinion that there are many truths it is not worth while to know. Curiosity, indeed, might be a sufficient plea for our laying out some time upon them, if we had half a dozen centuries of life to come; but methinks it is great ill-husbandry to spend a considerable part of the small pittance now allowed us in what makes us neither a quick nor a sure return. Two days ago I was reading a dispute between those celebrated masters of controversy, Bishop Atterbury and Bishop Hoadly [Atterbury preached a funeral sermon (on Thomas Bennet the bookseller) from 1 Cor. xv. 19, ’If in this life only . . .’ He argued that, were there no life after this, men would be more miserable than beasts, and the best men often the most miserable. Hoadly disputed the interpretation of the text. Atterbury replied: Hoadly retorted. Atterbury preached another sermon on Charity (I Pet. iv. 8). Again Hoadly criticized at length. A concise account of the controversies may be read in the latest life of Atterbury by Canon Beeching, 1909, PP. 44-5. A fuller account is given in Hunt’s Religious Thought in England, iii. 78-9. ’Coming from a High Churchman, at a time when most divines were eloquent on the natural rewards of virtue and religion, Atterbury’s doctrine was startling.’ For Wesley’s interpretation, see his Notes upon the New Testament. See also previous letter.]; but must own I was so injudicious as to break off in the middle. I could not conceive that the dignity of the end was at all proportioned to the difficulty of attaining it. And I thought the labor of twenty or thirty hours, if I was sure of succeeding, which I was not, would be but ill rewarded by that important piece of knowledge whether Bishop Hoadly had misunderstood Bishop Atterbury or no. About a year and an half ago I stole out of company at eight in the evening with a young gentleman with whom I was intimate. As we took a turn in an aisle of St. Mary’s Church in expectation of a young lady’s funeral, [ We are not able to trace the young lady friend whose funeral Wesley attended about Midsummer, 1725 at St. Mary’s Oxford. The registers give no age or place of residence, butit is a choice between the following: -- 1725: March 30, Mary Gunn; June 30, Eliza Carter; August 10, Martha Brown; August 28 Mary Downs; Octoboer 28 Ann Williams. The vicar was Thomas Weeksy. We owe these details to the courtesy of the verger, Mr. Chaundy. Probably it was Eliza Carter.] with whom we were both acquainted, I asked him if he really thought himself my friend; and if he did, why he would not do me all the good he could. He began to protest; in which I cut him short by desiring him to oblige me in an instance which he could not deny to be in his own power -- to let me have the pleasure of making him an whole Christian, to which I knew he was at least half persuaded already; that he could not do me a greater kindness, as both of us would be fully convinced when we came to follow that young woman. He turned exceedingly serious, and kept something of that disposition ever since. Yesterday was a fortnight, he died of a consumption. I saw him three days before he died; and, on the Sunday following, did him the last good office I could here, by preaching his funeral sermon; which was his desire when living. [See the following letter. Robin Griffiths, son of the Vicar of Broadway, died Jan. 10, 1727. The sermon, on 2 Sam. xii. 23, is given in the Arminian Mag. 2797, PP. 422-6; see Journal. i. 62.] To his Mother LINCOLN COLLEGE, March 19, 1727. DEAR MOTHER, -- One advantage at least my degree has given me: I am now at liberty, and shall be in a great measure for some time, to choose my own employment; and as I believe I know my own deficiencies best and which of them are most necessary to be supplied, I hope my time will turn to somewhat better account than when it was not so much in my own disposal. On Saturday next I propose beginning an entirely different life, with relation to the management of my expenses, from what I have hitherto done. I expect then to receive a sum of money, [Probably from his Fellowship, at which time he may have received some allowance. See letter of Dec. 6, 1726.] and intend immediately to call in all my creditors’ bills (that they may not grow by lying by, as it sometimes happens), and from that time forward to trust no man, of what sort or trade so ever, so far as to let him trust me. Dear mother, I speak what I know: my being little and weak, whereas had it not been for a strange concurrence of accidents (so called in the language of men) I should very probably have been just the reverse, I can easily account for; ’I can readily trace the wisdom and mercy of Providence in allotting me these imperfections. (Though what if I could not since, while I look through a glass, I can only expect to see darkly.) But here the difficulty was likely to lie: Why would Infinite Goodness permit me to contract an habit of sin, even before I knew it to be sinful, which has been a thorn in my side almost ever since ‘How can I skill of these Thy ways’ so well, that I am verily persuaded, had it not been for that sinful habit, I had scarce ever acquired any degree of any virtuous one [’How can I skill of these Thy ways ’ is adapted from George Herbert’s The Temple, ’ Justice.’ See Wesley’s edition, 1773, P. 19. The poem begins: ‘I cannot skill of these Thy ways,’ and ends ‘I cannot skill of these my ways.’] Is not this the finger of God Surely none else could have extracted so much good from evil! surely it was mercy not to hear my prayer! The conversation of one or two persons whom you may have heard me speak of (I hope never without gratitude) first took off my relish for most other pleasures .so far that I despised them in comparison of that. From thence I have since proceeded a step farther to slight them absolutely. And I am so little at present in love with even company, the most elegant entertainment next books, that unless they have a peculiar turn of thought I am much better pleased without them. I think ’tis the settled temper of my soul that I should prefer, at least for some time, such a retirement as would seclude me from all the world to the station I am now in. Not that the latter is by any means unpleasant; but I imagine it would be more improving to be in a place where I might confirm or implant in my mind what habits I would without interruption before the flexibility of youth is over, than to stay where, among many advantages, I lie under the inconvenience of being almost necessarily exposed to much impertinence and vanity. A school in Yorkshire, forty miles from Doncaster, was proposed to me lately, on which I shall think more when it appears whether I may have it or no. A good salary is annexed to it; so that in a year’s time ’tis probable all my debts would be paid, and I should have money beforehand. But what has made me wish for it most is the frightful description, as they call it, some gentlemen who know the place gave me of it yesterday. The town (Skipton-in-Craven) [The Grammar School at Skiptonin-Craven was founded in 1548 by William Ermystead, Canon of St. Paul’s, London. See Potts’s Liber Cantabrigiensis, p. 523.] lies in a little vale, so pent up between two hills that it is scarce accessible on any side; so that you can expect little company from without, and within there is none at all. I should therefore be entirely at liberty to converse with companions of my own choosing, whom for that reason I would bring with me; and company equally agreeable, wherever I fixed, could not put me to less expense. The sun that walks his airy way To cheer the world and bring the day; The moon that shines with borrowed light; The stars that grid the gloomy night,- All of these, and all I see, Should be sung, and sung by me: These praise their Maker as they can, But want and ask the tongue of man. [Parnell’s A Hymn to Contentment; where the second line reads ’ To light the world and give the day.] The text of that sermon I preached on the Sunday following Mr. Griffiths’s death was, ’ Now he is dead, wherefore should I fast can I bring him back again I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.’ [See previous letter.] I never gave more reason to suspect my doctrine did not agree with my practice; for a sickness and pain in my stomach, attended with a violent looseness, which seized me the day he was buried, altered me so much in three days, and made me look so pale and thin, that those who saw me could not but observe it. A letter from my sister Emly, my brother tells me, was brought to my chamber the other day; but wherever the fellow laid it, I have not been able to set eyes upon it from that time to this. I am full of business; but have found a way to write without taking any time from that. ’Tis but rising an hour sooner in a morning and going into company an hour later in ’the evening; both which may be done without any inconvenience. [For an account of his early rising. see the sermon on Redeeming’ the Time in Works, vii. 69.] My brother has got the other side away from me. -- I am Your affectionate, dutiful Son. I return you thanks for your thoughts on Zeal, and my sister Emly for hers on--I know not what; however, I am persuaded they were very good. My love attends my other sisters. I should have said brother Charles’ too; for now he has a live manhood. [There is a tear in the letter which makes the last two words difficult to decipher. ’ Live manhood ’ seems to be the expression. Charles was now nineteen. He had been elected to Christ Church in April 1726, and was now with his brother, no longer a schoolboy, but enjoying his live ‘manhood.’] Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Mrs. Wesley replied to this letter on May 14. John had been accustomed to sign himself ‘Your dutiful Son’; now he subscribes himself ‘Your affectionate, dutiful Son.’ Here is his mother’s comment: ‘Dear Son, the conclusion of your letter is very kind. That you were ever dutiful, I very well know. But I know myself enough to rest satisfied with a moderate degree of your affection. Indeed, it would be unjust in me to desire the love of any one. Your prayers I want and wish; nor shall I cease while I live to beseech Almighty God to bless you. Adieu.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 11. 1728 ======================================================================== 1728 Editor’s Introductory Notes There is now a gap of two years and nine months in the letters. The Rector sent an account of Mrs. Wesley’s health in July 1727, which made her son write what his father describes as ’your compliments of condolence and congratulation to your mother on the supposition of her near approaching demise.’ Her husband added: ’She has now and then some very sick fits, yet I hope the sight of you would revive her.’ That letter has not survived. Wesley reached Epworth in August, and was his father’s curate till he returned to Oxford in July 1728. After taking priest’s orders in September, he went back to Lincolnshire, where he remained (save for two months in Oxford) as curate at Wroot until November 1729, when he came into residence at Lincoln College. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 128; Moore’s Wesley, i. 148-50. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 12. 1729 ======================================================================== 1729 To his Father LINCOLN COLLEGE, December 19, 1729. DEAR SIR, -- As I was looking over the other day Mr. Ditton’s Discourse on the Resurrection of Christ, [By Humphrey Ditton(1675-1715), Master of the new Mathematical School in Christ’s Hospital: A Discourse concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . with an Appendix concerning the impossible production of thought from matter and motion; the nature of human souls and of brutes; the animi mundi, &c. 1714.] I found, toward the end of it, a sort of essay on the Origin of Evil. I fancied the shortness of it, if nothing else, would make you willing to read it; though very probably you will not find much in it which has not occurred to your thoughts before. ’Since the Supreme Being must needs be infinitely and essentially good as well as wise and powerful, it has been esteemed no little difficulty to show how evil came into the world. Unde malum [‘Whence did evil arise?’] has been a mighty question.’ There were some who, in order to solve this, supposed two supreme, governing principles; the one a good, the other an evil, one: which latter was independent on and of equal power with the former, and the author of all that was irregular or bad in the universe. This monstrous scheme the Manichees fell into, and much improved; but were sufficiently confuted by St. Austin, who had reason to be particularly acquainted with their tenets. But the plain truth is, the hypothesis requires no more to the confutation of it than the bare proposing it. Two supreme, independent principles is next door to a contradiction in terms. It is the very same thing, in result and consequence, as saying two absolute infinities; and he that says two, had as good say ten or fifty, or any other number whatever. Nay, if there can be two essentially, distinct, absolute infinities, there may be an infinity of such absolute infinities; that is as much as to say, none of them all would be an absolute infinite, or that none of them all would be properly and really infinite. ’ For real infinity is strict and absolute infinity, and only that.’ ’From the nature of liberty and free will we may deduce a very possible and satisfactory (perhaps the only possible just) account of the origin of evil. ’There are, and necessarily must be, some original, intrinsic agreements and disagreements, fitnesses and unfitnesses, of certain things and circumstances, to and with each other; which are antecedent to all positive institutions, founded on the very nature of those things and circumstances, considered in themselves, and in their relation to each other. ’Farther: it noway derogated from any one perfection of an infinite Being to endow other beings which he made with such a power as we call liberty -- that is, to furnish them with such capacities, dispositions, and principles of action, that it should be possible for them either to observe or to deviate from those eternal rules and measures of fitness and agreeableness, with respect to certain things and circumstances, which were so conformable to the infinite rectitude of his own will, and which infinite reason must necessarily discover. Now, evil is a deviation from those measures of eternal, unerring order and reason; not to choose what is worthy to be chosen, and is accordingly chose by such a will as the divine. And, to bring this about, no more is necessary than the exerting certain acts of that power we call free will. By which power we are enabled to choose or refuse, and to determine ourselves to action accordingly. Therefore, without having recourse to any ill principle, we may fairly account for the origin of evil from the possibility of a various use of our liberty; even as that capacity or possibility itself is ultimately founded on the defectibility and finiteness of a created nature.’--I am, dear sir, Your dutiful and affectionate Son. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Samuel Wesley, M.A., was born on December 17, 1662, and was being trained at Newington Green for the Nonconformist ministry, when he changed his views and entered Exeter College as a pauper scholaris in August 1683. He took his B.A. in 1688, and was ordained that summer. He married Susanna Annesley on Nov. 12, 1688, in Marylebone old Parish Church, where their son Charles is buried, received the living of South Ormsby in 1691, became Rector of Epworth in 1697, and died there in April 1735. His indomitable industry and fine scholarship were not less remarkable than the guidance he gave to his sons at Oxford. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 13. 1730 ======================================================================== 1730 To his Mother LINCOLN COLLEGE, February 28, 1730. DEAR MOTHER, -- Two things in Bishop Taylor [Taylor’s Rules and Exercises of Holy Living, chap. iv., Of Christian Hope. The five acts of Hope: Means of Hope, and Remedies against Despair (ed. of 1700), pp. 191-5. See letter of June 18, 1725.] I have been often thinking of since I writ last; one of which I like exceedingly, and the other not. That I dislike is his account of Hope, of which he speaks thus: ’Faith believes the revelations, Hope expects His promises; Faith gives our understandings to God, Hope our passions and affections; Faith is opposed to infidelity, Hope to despair.’ In another place his words are: ’ Faith differs from Hope in the extension of its object and the intension of its degree; Faith belongs to all things revealed, Hope only to things that are good, future, and concerning ourselves.’ Now, to pass over less material points, doesn’t this general objection seem to be against him, that he makes Hope a part or species of Faith, and consequently contained in it, as is every part in its whole Whereas, had it been so, St. Paul would have broken that universally received rule, never to set things in contradistinction to each other one of which is contained in the other. May we not, therefore, well infer that, whatever Hope is, it is certainly distinct from Faith as well as Charity, since one who, we know, understood the rules of speaking, contradistinguishes it from both As Faith is distinguished from other species of assent, from Knowledge particularly, by the difference of the evidence it is built on, may we not find the same foundation for distinguishing Hope from Faith as well as from Knowledge Is not the evidence on which we build it less simple than that of Faith, and less demonstrative than the arguments that create Knowledge It seems to have one of its feet fixed on the Word of God, the other on our opinion of our own sincerity, and so to be a persuasion that we shall enjoy the good things of God, grounded on His promises made to sincere Christians, and on an opinion that we are sincere Christians ourselves. Agreeably to this, Bishop Taylor himself says in his Rules for Dying: ’ We are to be curious of our duty and confident of the article of remission of sins, and the conclusion of those promises will be that we shall be full of hopes of a prosperous resurrection.’ Every one, therefore, who inquires into the grounds of his own hope reasons in this manner: If God be true, and I am sincere, then I am to hope. But God is true, and I am sincere (there is the pinch): Therefore I am to hope. What I so much like is his account of the pardon of sins, which is the clearest I ever met with: ’ Pardon of sins in the gospel is sanctification. Christ came to take away our sins, by turning every one of us from our iniquities (Acts iii. 26). And there is not in the nature of the thing any expectation of pardon, or sign or signification of it, but so far as the thing itself discovers itself. As we hate sin, grow in grace, and arrive’ at the state of holiness, which is also a state of repentance and imperfection, but yet of sincerity of heart and diligent endeavor; in the same degree we are to judge concerning the forgiveness of sins. For, indeed, that is the evangelical forgiveness, and it signifies our pardon, because it effects it, or rather it is in the nature of the thing, so that we are to inquire into no hidden records. Forgiveness of sins is not a secret sentence, a word, or a record, but it is a state of change effected upon us; and upon ourselves we are to look for it, to read it and understand it.’ [Holy Dying, chap. v. sect. 5.] In all this he appears to steer in the middle road exactly, to give assurance of pardon to the penitent, but to no one else. Yesterday I had the offer of another curacy, [The curacy eight miles from Oxford. Was this Stanton Harcourt Cary’s Survey of England and Wales, 1784, shows the distance from Oxford to be eight miles by curving road, about seven direct. Richard Green, in John Wesley the Evangelist, p. 86, says it is ’probably Stanton Harcourt.’] to continue a quarter or half a year, which I accepted with all my heart. The salary is thirty pounds a year, the church eight miles from Oxford; seven of which are, winter and summer, the best road in the country. So now I needn’t sell my home, since it is at least as cheap to keep one as to hire one every week. I have another piece of news to acquaint you with, which, as it is more strange, will, I hope, be equally agreeable. A little while ago Bob Kirkham [Son of the Rev. Lionel Kirkham. See Journal, i. 23-7; Telford’s, Life of Wesley, pp. 232-3.] took a fancy into his head that he would lose no more time and waste no more money; in pursuance of which he first resolved to breakfast no longer on tea, next to drink no more ale in an evening, or however but enough to quench his thirst, then to read Greek or Latin from prayers in the morning till noon and from dinner till five at night. And how much may one imagine he executed of these resolutions Why, he has left off tea, struck off his drinking acquaintance to a man, given the hours above specified to Greek Testament and Hugo Grotius, [The Dutch jurist and theologian (1583-1645). His Annotations on the Old and New Testaments appeared in 1641 -- 6.] and spent the evenings either by himself or with my brother and me.--I am, dear mother, Your dutiful and affectionate Son. I don’t despair of spending two days with you before Whitsuntide is over. To Mrs. Wesley, At Epworth. To be left at the Post-house in Gainsborough. Mrs. Pendarves replies GLOUCESTER, August 28, 1730. SIR,--I think myself extremely obliged to you for the favor of the sermon, and those letters that alone were worthy of the correspondence they maintained. I received them safe last week, and should sooner have made my acknowledgements for them but that I have been engaged with so much company since my return from dear, delightful Stanton, that till this moment I have not had time to express my gratitude for the elegant entertainment I have had, not only from the manuscripts, but in recollecting and repeating the conversation you and your brother made so agreeable, which I hope will soon be renewed. If you have any affairs that call you to Gloucester, don’t forget you have two pupils who are desirous of improving their understanding and that friendship which has already taught them to be, sir, Your most sincere, humble servants. My companion joins with me in all I have said, as well as in service to Araspes. To Ann Granville LINCOLN COLLEGE, September 27 [1730]. What can Selima think of my long silence Will it admit of any honorable interpretation Can you believe that any business is of such importance as to excuse it in the least degree That I might not seem utterly inexcusable, I have been several times for throwing everything by; and should have done it had I not been persuaded that you would not condemn me unheard. Every day since my return hither I have been engaged in business of far greater concern than life or death; and business which, as it could not be delayed, so no one else could do it for me. Had it not been for this, I should long before now have returned my sincerest thanks to Selima, which are due to her on so many accounts that I know not where to begin. Happy indeed should I have been, had it been my lot to meet you once more in that delightful vale! What we could, we did. The places where she was, we visited more than once. And though Selima herself was not there, yet there we could find the remembrance of her. The more I think of you, the more convinced I am that here at least I am not guilty of flattery when I mention the vast advantage you have over me in gratitude as well as humility. The least desire of being serviceable to you is received by you as a real service, and acknowledged in so obliging a manner that at the same time I am quite ashamed of doing so little to deserve it. You give me an inexpressible pleasure. How differently turned is my mind! how little moved with the most valuable benefits! In this, too, give me of your spirit, Selima: let me imitate as well as admire. I would fain imitate, too, that generous ardor which, in spite of all the hindrances that surround you, so strongly inspires you to burst through all and redeem time to the noblest purposes. I am afraid of nothing more than of growing old too soon, of having my body worn out before my soul is past childhood. Would it not be terrible to have the wheels of life stand still, when we had scarce started for the goal; before the work of the day was half done, to have the night come, wherein no one can work I shiver at the thought of losing my strength before I have found [it]; to have my senses fail ere I have a stock of rational pleasures, my blood cold ere my heart is warmed with virtue! Strange, to look back on a train of years that have passed, ’ as an arrow through the air,’ without leaving any mark behind them, without our being able to trace them in our improvement! How glad am I that this can’t be the case of Selima! The hours you have already given to that best of studies, divinity, forbid that, as sufficiently appears by your resolution to pursue it still. That, among the multitude of books writ on this subject, you prefer those that are clear and elegant, is surely right; ’tis doubly prudent to choose those writers before others who excel in speaking as well as thinking. Yet, as nobly useful divinity is, ’tis perhaps not advisable to confine yourself wholly to it: not only for fear it should tire one who has been used to variety of subjects, but chiefly for fear it should make you less useful to those who have the happiness of your acquaintance; for whose sake therefore, as well as your own, I should fancy you would like to intermix some history and poetry with it. ’Tis incredible what a progress you might make in all these in a year or two’s time, could you have a fixed hour for each part of your work [See letter of June 17, 1731.] Indeed, a great part of most days (I sigh while I speak it) is torn from you by your barbarously civil neighbors. But are not the mornings your own If they are, why should you not enlarge and improve them as much as possible O Selima, would it but suit your health, as wall as it would your inclinations, to rise at six and to give the first hour of the day to your private and part of the next to your public addresses to God, God is not unrighteous that He should forget that labor of love. He would repay it in prospering all your following employments. You would then never repent either giving what time remained of the morning to some lively writer in speculative divinity, or your calling in from the afternoon or evening (your usual place) an elegant poet or judicious historian. For were it possible for you to pursue this course, it would soon be as agreeable as useful. Your knowledge would swiftly (though insensibly) improve, not so swiftly as your happiness. You would then find less pain from every accident; even from the absence of Aspasia. A treasure doubtless she is, the value of which nothing can teach so well as experience; every additional degree of intimacy with her may questionless enhance her value. Nor would it be human to be unconcerned at a separation from such a friend. Yet the time may come when that concern, though equally tender, shall not be equally painful to you: when you shall be as much pleased as ever with her presence, and yet not so much displeased at her absence. For there is a way (though it is a way which the world knows not) of dividing friendship from pain. It is called charity, or the love of God. The more acquainted we are with rids, the less anxiety shall we receive from the sharpest trial that can befall us. This, while it enlivens every virtuous affection of our souls, adds calmness to their strength; at the same time that it swells their stream, this makes it flow smooth and even. Soft peace she breathes wherever she arrives, She builds our quiet as she forms our lives, Leaves the rough paths of nature even, And opens in each breast a little heaven. [Prior’s Charity, where it is brings,’ not ’ breathes,’ in line I; ’heart,’ in line 4; line 3, ’Lays the rough paths of peevish nature even.’] O Selima, never complain that it is not in your power to repay your friends much more than by receiving from them at least; don’t complain with regard to me: any one of those! obliging things you have said is vastly more than a return for all the little service that is in my power to do you. I am amazed more and more, each time I reflect on those strange instances of your condescension, and feel how much I am overpaid, in (what I can never think of with due esteem and gratitude) the regard you show for Selima’s Ever obliged friend and faithful servant, CYRUS. Araspes joins me in wishing he could make any return to Mrs. Granville’s and Selima’s goodness. I beg you to correct what you see wrong in the enclosed, and to send it when you write. Adieu. Mrs. Pendarves replies GLOUCESTER, October 12, 1730. SIR, -- I am almost afraid to own my having had both your letters, lest I should forfeit that good opinion that I extremely desire Cyrus should always have of Aspasia. I must farther confess that, had I not received the second letter, I should not have had courage to have wrote. I am but too sensible how unequal I am to the task. Could I, like our inimitable dear Varanese, express my sentiments, with what pleasure should I agree to the obliging request you make! But why should I be afraid of your superior understanding when I know at the same time the delight you take in not only entertaining but improving all those you converse with Then take me into your protection. Look on me as one surrounded with infirmities and imperfections, who flies to you for assistance against the assaults of vanity and passion. If you are desirous I should think you my friend, let this be the trial of it, not to leave any of my follies unreproved. I shall not scruple to discover to you those many defects which on a longer acquaintance with me your own observation must have pointed out to you; and it is no small argument of the great desire I have of improvement that I will run so great a hazard, for certainly you will value me less when you know how weak I am. You have no reason to make an apology for recommending the book you mention (which I suppose was the Bishop of Cork’s). I have not yet read it; but I shall wait with impatience for the Abstract [See previous letter and that of Feb. 13, 1731.] you promise me, which I am sure will very well deserve the time I shall bestow in reading of it. My stay in Gloucester is uncertain; but when we go to town we shall call at Oxford, where we shall not fail of inquiring after Cyrus and Araspes. Selima adds: Aspasia is called away before she has finished her letter, and has not said one word for Selima, who thinks of Cyrus and Araspes with that esteem their merit justly claims, desires always to be thought their friend, and wishes Selima was worthy of it. When we go to Oxford, we don’t know at what college to inquire after our agreeable friends. Mrs. Pendarves writes: GLOUCASTETR, October 26 [1730]. SIR,--We have determined to leave this place on Monday the 9th of November, and hope to see you on Tuesday at Oxford. Perhaps the weather and your inclinations may be so favorable to us that we may meet sooner (of hiring a coach [This and a similar phrase in the reply evidently refer to some arrangement by which the brothers joined their friends at Burford and rode with them to Oxford. See letter of Nov. 19.]). You are very just to those friends you have lately obliged with your company, when you seem assured of their good wishes. The success that attended your journey was certainly owing to yours and Araspes’s merit. Your guardian angels would not forsake a charge so worthy of their care. Happy should we be, could our intercession secure you from accidents. The pleasure you gave us in your conversation we think of daily with thankfulness, and hope nothing will happen to prevent your making the visit you have promised us in January. My mother charges me with her particular compliments to you and your brother. Selima says she will not be contented with my making a bare compliment for her. If time would permit, I would gladly say more for her as well as for myself; but I have been in a hurry all this day. When shall I be worthy to subscribe myself, what I very sincerely desire to be, Cyrus’s Friend and most faithful servant, ASPASIA. From Mrs. Pendarves : NEW BOND STREET,1 [‘Pease, cabbages, and turnips once grew where Now stands new Bond Street, and a newer Square; Such piles of building now rise up and down, London itself seems going out of town.’(Bramston’s Art of Politicks, 1729.)] November 19 [1730]. The pleasure you and your brother gave us of your conversation at Burford, the entertainment we had upon the road to Oxford, which neither the dirty way nor rattling wheels could entirely deprive us of, the book to which we owe many agreeable hours, and the great consolation and civility which my mother received from you (which she has not faded to inform us of) after we left her, are favors that ought to be acknowledged with the utmost gratitude. You might reasonably have expected this small return much sooner, but we have been in a perpetual hurry since our arrival. I have not had time even to write to Varanese. You are inclined to think favorably of Selima and Aspasia; therefore I believe you will not easily accuse them of ingratitude. They are sensible of the advantage your friendship will be to them, and desire more than to be worthy of it. Nor is this a small ambition, for you cannot place your esteem but where there is the appearance of some perfection. Your example and instruction may in time make so great an impression on them, as that they may challenge your favor as their due. At present they look on it as an obligation. Our journey ended with as good success, though not altogether so much satisfaction, as it begun. The company in the coach were tolerably entertaining and very complaisant. We got to town by six o’clock, and were not at all fatigued, nor have we caught any cold since we came. The life of noise and vanity that is commonly led here cannot possibly afford any entertainment for you. When we have an opportunity of conversing with a reasonable friend, we wish that Cyrus and Araspes were added to the company. I have been at two operas and very much delighted. I hope it is not a fault to be transported by music. If it is, I will endeavor to correct it. I am ashamed of sending you so blotted a piece of paper; but I am in haste, and must trust to your partiality to excuse the faults of Your most obliged, humble servant. Araspes may assure himself of the good wishes of Selima and Aspasia. To his Father LINCOLN COLLEGE, December 11, 1730. DEAR SIR, --- We all return you our sincere thanks for your timely and necessary advice, and should be exceeding glad if it were as easy to follow it, as ’tis impossible not to approve it. That doubtless is the very point we have to gain before any other can be managed successfully: to have an habitual lively sense of our being only instruments in His hand, who, can do all things either with or without any instrument. But how to affix this sense in us is the great question. Since to man this is impossible, we hope you and all our friends will continue to intercede for us to Him with whom all things are possible, To-morrow night I expect to be in company with the gentleman [The young gentleman of Christ Church who said, ’Here is a new sect of Methodists sprung up.’] who did us the honor to take the first notice of our little Society. I have terrible reasons to think he is as slenderly provided with humanity as with sense and learning. However, I must not slip this opportunity, because he is at present in some distress, occasioned by his being obliged to dispute in the schools on Monday, though he is not furnished with such arguments as he wants. I intend, if he has not procured them before, to help him to some arguments, that I may at least get that prejudice away from him that ’ we are friends-to none but what are as queer as ourselves.’ A week or two ago I pleased myself mightily with the hopes of sending you a full and satisfactory solution of your great question; having at last procured the celebrated treatise of Archbishop King, De Origine Mali. [William King (1650-1729), Archbishop of Dublin 1703. De Origine Mali was published in 1702. It was translated by Dr. Edmund Law. See Journal, viii. 119n; and letters of Dec. 19, 1729, and Jan.1731.] But on looking farther into it, I was strangely disappointed; finding it the least satisfactory account of any given by any author whom I ever read in my life. He contradicts almost every man that ever writ on the subject, and builds an hypothesis on the ruins of theirs which he takes to be entirely new, though, if I do not much mistake, part of it is at least two thousand years old. The purport of this is, ’ That natural evils flow naturally and necessarily from the essence of matter, so that God Himself could not have prevented them, unless by not creating matter at all.’ Now this new supposition seems extremely like the old one of the Stoics, who I fancy always affirmed, totidem verbis, that ’ All natural evils were owing not to God’s want of will, but to His want of power to redress them as necessarily flowing from the nature of matter.’ I breakfasted to-day with a great admirer of the Septuagint, who was much surprised to hear that any one should charge them with want of integrity, and seemed to think that charge could not be made out. Nay, he went so far as even to assert that he took this Greek to be more faultless than our present Hebrew copies. I wished I had had one or two of the places you mention at hand, and I would have given him them to chew upon. One pretty large dissertation I have by me still; I propose to read and transcribe it against I go up to London to the Westminster Great Day, [The Westminster Feast and Play on Jan. 28. See letter of Jan. 27, 1731, to Mrs. Pendarves.] which I am afraid will be as soon as my brother will want it. I am glad the Rector [Dr. Morley, who was a warm friend to Wesley. See letters of April 4, 1726, and April 14, 1731, n.] is in so fair a way of recovery; I showed Mr. Robinson [Michael Robinson, Fellow of Lincoln, was Chaplain of All Saints’, Oxford, and Rector of Great Leighs.] what related to him this morning, who I found had received from Mrs. Morley a fuller account of the Doctor’s illness. Before she writ he had got over all remains of his distemper, except a weakness in the fingers of his left hand. We can’t compass Thomas Burgess’s [One of the prisoners whom the Methodists were caring for.] liberty yet, though it seems to have a fairer show than formerly. On Sunday they had prayers, and a sermon at the Castle; on Christmas Day we hope they will have a dinner; and the Sunday after, a communion, as many of them as are desirous of it, and appear prepared for it. I had almost forgot to tell you that on Tuesday se’nnight Mr. Morgan opened the way for us into Bocardo. [The debtors’ jail above the north gate of the city. The previous August William Morgan had led them. to visit the jail at the Castle. See Telford’s Wesley, p. 60.] --I am Your dutiful and affectionate Son. p class="Section1"Near Stony Stratford./p div align="center" style="text-align:center" span class="MsoPlainText"ispan style="font-size:12.0pt; MS Mincho""> To Mrs. Pendarves INNOCENTS’ DAY [1730]. Had I not been engaged almost every hour in an employment which set Aspasia continually before my eyes, [His MS., finished on Christmas Eve: see letter of Feb. 13, 1731.] I could by no means have satisfied myself so long without saying anything of my obligations to her; I could not have been easy without repeating my acknowledgements for them, particularly for the last, that lovely instance of your condescension, which so opportunely relieved me from the perplexity I was in. Every pleasing reflection it has given me since was a farther reason for me to thank you again; and I have been sometimes afraid that my omitting it so long might give you hard thoughts of my gratitude. But I sincerely ask pardon for that fear, so injurious both to Aspasia and Selima; with whom I should ’by no means presume to converse at all, had I not so often experienced that candor which was ever as unwilling to observe a fault as willing to excuse it when observed. Do not think, good Aspasia, I am yet so vain as to dare to maintain any intercourse with you but upon a full conviction that you are ’always ready to forgive me both when I say amiss, and when I do not so, what your goodness requires. While I am reflecting on this I can’t but often observe with pleasure the great resemblance between the emotion I then feel, and that with which my heart frequently overflowed, in the beginning of my intercourse with our dear Varanese. Yet is there a sort of soft melancholy mixed with it, when I perceive that I am making another avenue for grief, that I am laying open another part of my soul, at which the arrows of fortune may enter. Nay, but here will I hold: since the Christian name for fortune is providence, or the hand of God, should it wound me even in the person of my friend there would be goodness in the severity. Should one to whom I was united by the tenderest tie, who was as my own soul, be torn from me, it would be best for me; to me, too, it would, be the stroke of mercy. Though, were it a less good to myself, I ought doubtless not to grieve because one who deserves so well of me is taken from me to God. Surely if you were called first mine ought not to overflow because all tears were wiped from your eyes. That even in this a regard for your happiness ought to take the place of my regard for my own is most certain; but whether I could do what I ought I have great reason to question. I much doubt whether self-love in so trying a circumstance would not be found too strong for a friendship which I even now find to be less disinterested than I hitherto imagined. I used to flatter myself that I had at least the desire to be some way serviceable to Aspasia and Selima, and that this, unmixed with any meaner motive, was the sole principle of many of my actions; but even with this I perceive another principle is interwoven, a desire of recommending myself to their esteem. And if this be a fault, I am much to blame: it is a fault deeply rooted in my nature. But is it a fault to desire to recommend myself to those who so strongly recommend virtue to me ardently to desire their esteem who are so able and willing to make me in some degree worthy of it Tell me, Aspasia; tell me, Selima, if it be a fault that my heart burns within me when I reflect on the many marks of regard you have already shown Your ever obliged and ever faithful CYRUS. Editor’s Introductory Notes: 1730 [1] Wesley returned from Lincolnshire, where he had been his father’s curate, to Oxford on November 22, 1729, at the call of Dr. Morley, the Rector of Lincoln College, who put eleven pupils under his care. The Methodists had already received their nickname, and John Wesley became the leader of the Holy Club. In 1730 his romantic correspondence began with Mrs. Pendarves, afterwards the wife of Dean Delany. Lady Llanovet, who edited The Autobiography and Correspondence of Mrs. Delany, was ignorant of the existence of these letters, of which Wesley kept careful copies in one of his notebooks (now in the Colman Collection), with abbreviations of his own. The Rev. Dr. Hoole printed some of these in the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1863, pp.134, 211. Mary Granville was born at Coulston, Wilts, on May 14, 1700, her father being the grandson of Sir Bevil Granville, the Royalist soldier, who was killed in 1643 on Lansdown. Her mother was a daughter of Sir Martin Westcombe, Consul at Cadiz. When eight she was taken to live with her aunt Lady Stanley at Whitehall, where she was brought up with the idea of becoming a maid of honor, as her aunt had been to Queen Mary. Her father retired about 1715 to a house at Buckland in Gloucestershire, which faced the valley of Evesham; and there Miss Granville formed a friendship with Sarah Kirkham, afterwards married to the Rev. John Chapone, who was a year older than herself. The Rev. Lionel Kirkham was Rector of Stanton, within two miles’ distance from Buckland. Mary Granville was staying with her uncle Lord Lansdowne when Mr. Pendarves, of Roscrow, Cornwall, saw her, and wished to marry her. He was nearly sixty, she was seventeen. She married him in 1718 with ’great pomp,’ but felt that she was sacrificed. Her father died in 1723; and Mrs. Granville, with her daughter Ann (variously spelt Anne and Anna), removed from Buckland. In 1724 Mr. Pendarves died in London. His widow was only twenty-four. Her fortune, she says, was ’ very mediocre, but it was at my own command.’ She writes to her sister on January 26, 1727: ’I heartily grieve to think how ill you have been used by your landlord. I am glad my mama has given him warning, and that she designs to remove in the spring.’ Their new home was in Gloucester. Mrs. Pendarves tells her sister on November 11, 1727: ’ You are very merry about your new habitation; I wish you merry in it.’ Mrs. Pendarves lived chiefly with Sir John and Lady Stanley at Somerset House and Northend, mixed in Court circles, saw the coronation procession of George II start from Westminster Hall, and enjoyed the favor of the King and Queen. In June 1730, when staying with her mother, she heard Wesley preach, and asked him for a copy of the sermon. She had written to her sister on April 4, 1730: ’ I honor Primitive Christianity, and desire you will let him know as much when next you see him’ (Auto. and Corr. i. 250). Lady Llanover puts in a footnote, ’ Probably a nickname,’ but does not seem to recognize that it was meant for Wesley. In the following correspondence Aspasia is Mrs. Pendarves; Selima is Miss Ann Granville; Cyrus is John Wesley; Charles Wesley is Araspes; Varanese is Miss Betty Kirkham; Sappho is Mrs. Chapoho. ’Cyrus’ seems to be taken from the play, of which Mrs. Pendarves tells her sister on November 11, 1727: ’You shall have Cyrus as soon as I can get him’ (ibid. i. 146). Wesley’s Diary shows that he was at Stanton on July 31, where he stayed with the Kirkhams and met Mrs. Pendarves. He notes on August 10: ’ Began transcribing sermon for Mrs. Pendarves.’ [3] There is no year attached to this letter, but Mrs. Pendarves was evidently away from her sister.’ Perhaps the date was 1730. (See Auto. and Corr. i. 260.) Miss Granville was seven years younger than Mrs. Pendarves. Wesley writes to her as though she were one of his own pupils. [5] Samuel Wesley was the wisest counselor of his sons in the persecution they had to bear at Oxford. The letter for which John thanks him was written on December 1, and is quoted in his letter to Richard Morgan on October 18, 1752. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 14. 1731 ======================================================================== 1731 To his Father January 1731. DEAR SIR, -- Though some of the postulata upon which Archbishop King [See letters of Dec. 11, 1730, and Jan. 6, 1791.] builds his hypothesis of the Origin of Evil be such as very few will admit of, yet, since the superstructure is regular and well contrived, I thought you would not be unwilling to see the scheme of that celebrated work. He divides it into five chapters. The sum of the first chapter is this: The first notions we have of outward things are our conceptions of motion, matter, and space. Concerning each of these, we soon observe that it does not exist of itself; and consequently that there must be some first cause, to which all of them owe their existence. Although we have no faculty for the direct perception of this First Cause, and so can know very little more of Him than a blind man of light, yet thus much we know of Him by the faculties we have,--that He is one, infinite in nature and power, free, intelligent, and omniscient; that consequently He proposes to Himself an end in every one of His actions; and that the end of His creating the world was the exercise of His power, and wisdom, and goodness; which He therefore made as perfect as it could be made by infinite goodness, and power, and wisdom. Chapter II. But if so, how came evil into the world If the world was made by such an agent, with such an intention, how is it that either imperfection or natural or moral evils have a place in it Is not this difficulty best solved by the Manichaean supposition that there is an evil as well as a good principle By no means; for it is just as repugnant to infinite goodness to create what it foresaw would be spoiled by another, as to create what would be spoiled by the constitution of its own nature: their supposition therefore leaves the difficulty as it found it. But if it could be proved that to permit evils in the world is consistent with, nay necessarily results from, infinite goodness, then the difficulty would vanish; and to prove this is the design of the following treatise. Chapter III. All created beings as such are necessarily imperfect; nay, infinitely distant from supreme perfection. Nor can they all be equally perfect; since some must be only parts of others. As to their properties too, some must be perfecter than others; for, suppose any number of the most perfect beings created, infinite goodness would prompt the Creator to add less perfect beings to those, if their existence neither lessened the number nor conveniences of the, more perfect. The existence of matter, for instance, neither lessens the number nor the conveniences of pure spirits. Therefore the addition of material beings to spiritual was not contrary to but resulted from infinite goodness. Chapter IV. As the evils of imperfection necessarily spring from this, that the imperfect things were made out of nothing, so natural evils necessarily spring from their being made out of matter. For matter is totally useless without motion, or even without such a motion as will divide it into parts; but this cannot be done without a contrariety of motions, and from this necessarily flows generation and corruption. The material part of us being thus liable to corruption, pain is necessary to make us watchful against it, and to warn us of what tends toward it; as is the fear of death likewise, which is of use in many cases that pain does not reach. From these all the passions necessarily spring; nor can these be extinguished while those remain. But if pain and the fear of death were extinguished, no animal could long subsist. Since, therefore, these evils are necessarily joined with more than equivalent goods, the permitting these is not repugnant to but flows from infinite goodness. The same observation holds as to hunger, thirst, childhood, age, diseases, wild beasts, and poisons. They are all therefore permitted, because each of them is necessarily connected with such a good as outweighs the evil. Chapter V. Touching moral evils (by which I mean ’inconveniences arising from the choice of the sufferer ’), I propose to show: 1. What is the nature of choice or election. 2. That our happiness consists in the elections or choices we make. 3. What elections are improper to be made. 4. How we come to make such elections. And, 5. How our making them is consistent with the divine power and goodness. 1. By liberty I mean an active, self-determining power, which does not choose things because they are pleasing, but is pleased with them because it chooses them. That God is endued with such a power I conclude: (1) Because nothing is good or evil, pleasing or displeasing, to Him, before He chooses it. (2) Because His will or choice is the cause of goodness in all created things. (3) Because if God had not been endued with such a principle, He would never have created anything. But it is to be observed, farther, that God sees and chooses whatever is connected with what He chooses in the same instant; and that He likewise chooses whatever is convenient for His creatures in the same moment wherein He chooses to create them. That man partakes of this principle I conclude: (1) Because experience shows it. (2) Because we observe in ourselves the signs and properties of such a power. We observe we can counteract our appetites, senses, and even our reason, if we so choose; which we can no otherwise account for than by admitting such a power in ourselves. 2. The more of this power any being possesses, the less subject he is to the impulses of external agents and the more commodious is his condition. Happiness rises from a due use of our faculties: if, therefore, this be the noblest of all our faculties, then our chief happiness lies in the due use of this -- that is, in our elections. And, farther, election is the cause why things please us: he therefore who has an uncontrolled power of electing may please himself always; and if things fall out contrary to what he chooses, he may change his choice and suit it to them, and so still be happy. Indeed, in this life his natural appetites will sometimes disturb his elections, and so prevent his perfect happiness; yet is it a fair step towards it that he has a power that can at all times find pleasure in itself, however outward things vary. 3. True it is that this power sometimes gives pain--namely, when it falls short of what it chooses; which may come to pass, if we choose either things impossible to be had, or inconsistent with each other, or such as are out of our power (perhaps because others chose them before us), or, lastly, such as necessarily lead us into natural evils. 4. And into these foolish choices we may be betrayed either by ignorance, negligence, by indulging the exercise of liberty too far, by obstinacy or habit, or, lastly, by the importunity of our natural appetites. Hence it appears how cautious we ought to be in choosing; for though we may alter our choice, yet to make that alteration is painful--the more painful the longer we have persisted in it. 5. There are three ways by which God might have hindered His creatures from thus abusing their liberty. First; by not creating any being free. But had this method been taken, then (1) The whole universe would have been a mere machine. (2) That would have been wanting which is most pleasing to God of anything in the universe---namely, the’ free service of His reasonable creatures. (3) His reasonable creatures would have been in a worse state than they are now: for only free agents can be perfectly happy; as, without a possibility of choosing wrong, there can be no freedom. The second way by which God might prevent the abuse of liberty is by overruling this power and constraining us to choose right. But this would be to do and undo, to contradict Himself, to take away what He had given. The third way by which God might have hindered His creatures from making an ill use of liberty is by placing them where they should have no temptation to abuse it. But this too would have been the same in effect as to have given them no liberty at all. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate and dutiful Son. To Mrs. Pendarves January 11 [1731]. Why will Aspasia let in these unpleasing thoughts, these uneasy fears upon me From your long silence I can’t but apprehend either that you have been out of order, or that I have been so unhappy as to displease you by some indecent or foolish expression. What shelter can I fly to from these apprehensions, unless it were possible to take in a strict sense that strange intimation you have sometimes given of being afraid to converse with me O Aspasia, if you are afraid you can’t come up to the character given you by our dear Varanese, how can I hope to reach that which equal kindness but not equal justice drew What excuse does your fear leave my presumption how can I speak, if you are silent I have reasons enough (if any reasons could be enough to keep one so obliged as me from owning it) entirely to decline an intercourse which every step I take shows me unfit for; in which I can no more keep up to the spirit of Aspasia than I can in this or anything answer her expectations, and expectations for which you have too much ground; which, considering the many advantages I have long enjoyed over and above the friendship of our Varanese, though I cannot, I ought to satisfy. I ought to be some way useful to you, as you have been many ways to me. I ought to have turned that charming freedom you indulge me in to yours as well as my own advantage; to have employed it the most generous friendly way, in endeavoring to correct those failings in Selima and Aspasia (for surely no human creature is wholly spotless) which I have not yet so much as observed. I ought--I know not what. When will these two or three weeks be over, that I may speak what I cannot write [See letter to his father (Dec. 11, 1730) about going up to Westminster, and letter of Jan. 27 to Mrs. Pendarves.] It is in your power to make them move less slow. A line from Aspasia or Selima would make the time roll more swiftly, as it would, I hope, remove the apprehensions of Your CYRUS. Mrs. Pendarves replies: NEW BOND STREET, January 15, 1731. I have but a moment’s time, and I cannot employ it better than in assuring Cyrus, though I doubtless appear unworthy of the favor he shows me, that Aspasia has been more unfortunate than ungrateful. The true reason I have not wrote has been my incapacity of doing it. A great weakness I had in my eyes for a considerable time, and the fear of its returning if I strained them too soon, has been the only reason of my silence. I have received all your letters, and am infinitely obliged by them. Selima several times designed making up for my deficiency; but her heart faded, and she said she was ashamed, and talked of her not being able to write well enough, and several things of that sort, which I could not agree with her in. We talk of the worth of Cyrus and Araspes whenever we have any private conversation. I desire when you come to town you will let me know what day will be most convenient for you to come to me, a pleasure I depend upon; but do not come without sending, because my brother is in the house with us, and he is frequently engaged with company. It would be a great concern to me and to Selima to have you come at a time when perhaps we may either be abroad or engaged with company that would not be agreeable to you. I hope Araspes is well, though you do not mention him in your letter. I am called away. Ought I not to be ashamed to send such a hasty scrawl to Cyrus If it serves to convince you that I am not quite unworthy of your correspondence, I shall esteem it one of the best letters I ever wrote. And that you may not think you are the only person who have thought themselves neglected by me, at the same time I received your last I had one from Varanese that wounded my very heart. However, I hope I have regained her favor, and that you will not be less indulgent to one who knows very well how to value your acquaintance, and is Your most faithful friend and humble servant, ASPASIA, I make it my humble request that you will burn every letter I write. [She renews this request. See letter of Aug. 26.] To Mrs. Pendarves WESTMINSTER, January 27 [1731]. ’Tis with a great deal of pleasure as well as fear that I take the liberty to acquaint you we have been in town some hours, and attend your commands as to the time when we may have the happiness of waiting upon you. To-morrow, indeed, we are obliged to give to the Westminster Feast. If you are pleased to fix on any day after that, it will be ever owned as a fresh instance of your goodness by Your most obliged and most obedient servants. From Mrs. Pendarves January 27 [1731]. It is no small pleasure to us the hope of seeing Cyrus and Araspes on Saturday in the afternoon. We shall be at home from five till eight, at which hour we are obliged to go abroad to supper. We are sorry to stint your time; but we have been engaged some time, and cannot very well break it off. We join in our humble service to your brother, and are Your assured friends and humble servants. I am in great haste. From Mrs. Pendarves January 30 [1731]. It is a vast concern to me and my sister that we are obliged to put off the favor you designed us this afternoon. My sister is so much out of order that she keeps her bed, and I cannot very well leave her bedside. We hope your stay in town will not be short; and if you are not engaged on Monday in the afternoon, we hope you and your brother will favor us with your company for an hour or two. If my sister is not well enough to leave her chamber, I will send you word. This is a great disappointment to us, but I hope we shall have amends made us.--I am, sir, Your most humble servant. To Mrs. Pendarves February 4 [1731]. I should have been exceedingly pleased could I have read over these papers with Aspasia and Selima: both because I should have hoped to have confirmed or altered my own judgment in several particulars, and because longer experience in things of this nature might perhaps have enabled me to be of some use toward fixing theirs. But ’tis well; I leave you in His hands, ’who shall lead into all truth.’ To Mrs. Pendarves February 11 [1731]. ’Tis as impossible for us to remember as we ought our last obligation to Aspasia and Selima as it is to forget it; and that sure can never be--no, ’not in the land where all things are forgotten.’ Even there we hope to remember, and with a more tender regard than we are here capable of, to whom we owe in great measure many changes in ourselves, of which we shall then feel the full advantage: who they were that so nobly assisted us in our great work in wearing off several stains from our nature; that so strongly recommended, by that irresistible argument example, whatsoever is honorable or lovely. There are few, except the harsher, passions of our souls which you did not engage in those late happy moments: but none more than our wonder; our joy itself was not greater than our admiration. That London is the worst place under heaven for preserving a Christian temper any one will immediately think who observes that there can be none where its professed, irreconcilable enemies, the lust of the eye and the pride of life, are more artfully and forcibly recommended. Yet even here you retain a constant sense what manner of spirit we are to be of. In the utmost affluence of whatever the world can afford to chain down your affections to it, the whole tenor of your words and actions shows they are reserved for sublimer objects. Who can be a fitter person than one that knows it by experience to tell me the full force of that glorious rule, ’Set your affections on things above, and not on things of the earth’ Is it equivalent to ’Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and strength’ But what is it to love God Is not to love anything the same as habitually to delight in it Is not, then, the purport of both these injunctions this,--that we delight in the Creator more than His creatures; that we take more pleasure in Him than in anything He has made, and rejoice in nothing so much as in serving Him; that, to take Mr. Pascal’s expression, while the generality of men use God and enjoy the world, we, on the contrary, only use the world while we enjoy God How pleasingly could I spend many hours .in talking with you on this important subject ! especially if I could hope to repay thereby one mite of the vast debt I owe you, to recall to your mind any hint by pursuing of which you might exalt it to a yet firmer temper. But I submit. By thus cutting my time short, Providence shows me it has more suitable methods of leading you into all truth, and fixing you in all virtue, than the weak endeavors of Your obliged friend, CYRUS. Feb. 12.--I have a thousand things to say, would time permit; but, O believe, I can never say half of what I feel ! Adieu. Mrs. Pendarves replies February 13 [1731]. The few hours that Selima and Aspasia enjoyed the conversation of Cyrus and Araspes are too valuable to be forgot; which I should sooner have endeavored to convince you of if I could have found time: and the favor of the book is of so high a nature that we can never be so ungrateful as to look on it without the greatest thankfulness. How happy should we have been to have heard it read by one who so well knows to recommend everything he approves of! I am sensible there must be several things we shall not be able to comprehend in such a treatise; you must therefore give me leave to trouble you with my ignorance by desiring your explanation of what I may not understand. I hope we shall hear from you soon; I have not time now to enlarge my letter. I must again repeat my acknowledgements for the friendship you have shown us in many instances. Selima and Aspasia will always gratefully remember them. To Mrs. Pendarves February 19 [1731]. Yes, it is better to assure Aspasia now, though it be but in one line, that I am sensible of her strange goodness in thus preventing me a second time, than to put off still what, could it have been avoided, ought not to have been delayed a moment. But what can I do, thus hemmed in as I am with business over and above my own I am persuaded you would not condemn me, Aspasia, did you know how many days pass over my head in which I have not one poor hour from five to seven but what is engaged long before it comes. Yet never shall any engagement of any kind make me so false both to justice and friendship as to neglect any commands which I may have the pleasure of receiving from Aspasia or Selima. That particular .one which your last gives me leave to expect, I should earnestly have requested myself had not you mentioned it first. O Aspasia, how gladly should I receive into my soul your ignorance of some points in philosophy could ignorance of pride, ingratitude, and passion pass at the same time into (I dare hardly say) Your friend, CYRUS. When Aspasia or Selima is the theme’, I speak the sense of Araspes in my own. Adieu. Mrs. Pendarves replies: NEW BOND STREET, April 4, 1731. In what manner can I make an excuse to Cyrus for being so long without acknowledging the favor of his last letter By this time he certainly repents of the great indulgence he has shown me. When I consider how every hour of your life is employed, either in your own improvement or bestowing part of your knowledge on those who are happily placed under your care; and that, notwithstanding the difficulty it is for you to command any time to yourself, you have always remembered me in the most obliging manner, and have studied not only how to entertain but to improve me, -- when I recollect all this, have I not reason to fear the loss of your good opinion, and that you think me unworthy of your favor and advice that surrounded by vanity and impertinence I are fallen into the snare, and refuse to hear the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely God forbid my state should be so desperate as to prefer sin and folly to virtue and wisdom! I will sincerely tell you the truth, and trust to your mercy. All the acquaintance I almost have are now in town, and they are continually soliciting us either to come to them or they will come to us; my sister being soon to leave me, all her friends endeavor to give her as much entertainment as they can: by which means our time is so entirely engrossed, that for two months past we have lived in a perpetual hurry, and shall do so for the month to come. I would not have you imagine we have neglected the book. Whatever comes with your recommendation is of too much value to be neglected. But the subject of it is too elevated to be read in a hurry; next week I hope we shall have leisure to read and reflect. I am a little at a loss for some words, not being used to shorthand [By which she means abbreviations.]; but I believe I shall be able to find them out. Every Sunday evening there is a gentleman in this town has a concert of music. I am invited there to-night, and design to go. I charge you, on the friendship you have professed for me, tell me your sincere opinion about it and all your objections. For if I am in an error by going, you ought to prevent my doing so again. Dear Varanese I have not heard from a great while; why are we denied the happiness and advantage of conversing with such a friend Araspes may justly claim our service and esteem. Selima joins with Aspasia in being to Cyrus a Faithful and obliged friend. I have hardly confidence to expect a return to this. To Mrs. Pendarves April 5 [1731]. Aspasia will hardly imagine how often, since I had the pleasure of returning my thanks for her last favor, I have been angry at this ill-natured business which has so long kept me from repeating them. Many a time have I sighed and said to myself: ’ No, nothing ought to keep me from it. I ought not on any account to lose the only way I now have of enjoying such conversation. This is the voice of reason, not prejudice. Is there a more improving (as well as pleasing) employment When thy heart burns within thee at her words, is it not the warmth of life, of virtue Do they not inspire some degree of the purity and softness of that heart from which they come’ Yet one consideration there is that as often checks my complaints and bids my soul be still: ’Should I neglect the work to which Providence so plainly calls me, even in hope of such a good, by thus striving to be more like I should be still more unlike Aspasia.’ The more I observe the dispositions of those poor creatures that make up the bulk of mankind, the more do I desire to shelter myself from them under the protection of Varanese and Aspasia and Selima. The stronger distaste I conceive at those, the more amiable light these appear in. And this doubtless is one of the uses which God makes even of the children of this generation. As they give us a stronger dislike to vice, which, though it appear hateful to abstracted reason, yet Thus speaking and thus acting grows tenfold More horrid and deform [Paradise Lost, ii. 705-6: ‘So speaking and so threatening, grew tenfold More dreadful and deform.’]; so they inspire us with a livelier approbation of virtue, which never appears more awful and glorious than when it appears, like the great Author of it, ’ with clouds and darkness round about it.’ Then it is, when I am tired with the melancholy prospect of them whose eyes the god of this world hath blinded, whose hearts he hath so bowed down to earth that their admiration soars not so high as The riches of heaven’s pavement, [Mammon in Paradise Lost, i. 682.] that I fly to those whose eyes are opened, whose hearts are enlarged, who see and love the noblest objects; that I can hardly forbear crying out aloud, ’How unlike are these to Selima, Aspasia, Varanese!’; that I most earnestly repeat that my frequent wish— O might there be unfeigned Union of mind, as in us all one soul! [Paradise Lost, viii. 6o3-4: ‘Which declare unfeigned Union of mind, or in us both one soul.’] Were it possible that my mind should unite with yours, dear Aspasia, in the single instance of humility which I can’t but particularly observe and admire whenever I consider your behavior toward me, I should then dare to hope that He who had wrought in me’ to think as I ought to think’ would in His own time work a farther resemblance to good Aspasia in Her most obliged, faithful CYRUS. The esteem of Araspes as well as Cyrus must ever attend both Aspasia and Selima. To Mrs. Pendarves April 14 [1731]. I cannot, I will not delay any longer to return my sincerest thanks to dear Aspasia for, I had almost said, the greatest of her favors, as indeed every one seems greater than the preceding. Yet methinks I should not say that you seem to exceed even your former goodness in this; since that expression would imply some room for doubt, which surely there is not here. Not only the justice which you show to the sincerity of my intentions; not only the friendly applause you give me, which, undeserved as it is, is yet exceeding pleasing, when I consider it as a mark of that approbation which I must ever have in the highest esteem; but, above all, that lovely freedom you use with me in a point of the last (utmost) importance, leaves me no room to doubt but I may look upon the last as the greatest of my obligations. Far be it from me to think that any circumstance of life shall ever give the enemy an advantage over Aspasia. Though she walk through the vale of the shadow of death, where sin and vanity are on every side; where vice and folly appear in so fair a fight as to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect; where the utmost skill of the world and the prince of it join to tear up humility, the root of Christian virtue, and consideration, which alone (under God) is able to give it any increase, --- even there her footsteps shall not slide; she shall fear and shall find no evil: He who hath overcome the world and its prince shall give His angels charge over her to keep her in all her ways. And far should I be from doubting but they would keep you safe, though you should see cause to withdraw your favor from me; though-you should at last perceive some of those numerous faults which were before so strangely hid from you, and so be obliged to choose a fitter object for that friendship to which I made so unequal returns. O Aspasia, am I not already betraying myself, needlessly showing my imperfections, to give way to one thought of losing your friendship while I have such an evidence of its sincerity before me I greatly wish I may be able to give a full answer to the question you so obligingly propose; but a direct one I can’t give, unless such an one may be deduced from any of the following considerations. To judge whether any action be lawful on the Sabbath [On Sunday observance in the eighteenth century, see Abbey and Overton’s The English Church in the Eighteenth Century, ii. 513—19.] or no, we are to consider whether it advances the end for which that was ordained. Now, the end for which the Sabbath was ordained is the attainment of holiness. Whatever therefore tends to advance this end is lawful on this day: whatever does not tend to advance this end is not lawful on this day. Two things we may infer hence: (1) That works of mercy are lawful on this day; for they directly tend to advance this end,’ to make us holy as God is holy. (2) That works of necessity are lawful on this day; of which there are two sorts: first, works which we ought to do but cannot do on another day; secondly, works that or works the neglect of which would obstruct this end, for whatever can’t be omitted without hindering it do indirectly tend to advance it. One of these, to those who can’t perform the offices of religion so well without it, is giving themselves some diversion from it. But of this we may observe that, it being therefore allowed because it tends to advance the end of the day, it is allowable so far and no farther as it does tend to it, to our advance in holiness. It is not enough to say this or that diversion does not obstruct this end; for what does so is allowable on no day: but unless it promotes this particular end, it is not allowable on this day. Araspes (whose great esteem, as well as mine, ever attends Aspasia and Selima) was extremely delighted as well as me with a letter we received some time since, acquainting us with a resolution dear Varanese had lately entered into. Why it is that I am not allowed a stricter intercourse with such a friend is a question I could never fully answer but by another, Why is any intercourse with such a friend as Aspasia or Selima allowed Their most obliged CYRUS. On Monday we are to set out upon a pretty long journey, which will keep us out about three weeks. [This was their journey to Lincolnshire. They stayed three weeks at Epworth, and then walked back to Oxford. Wesley’s Diary shows that during this visit to Lincolnshire he was twice at Scotton, where the Rector of his College was lying ill. See letter of June 17.] We should be exceedingly grieved if Selima should be obliged to begin hers before that time, which would prevent our having that pleasure the very expectation of which gives us many agreeable moments. Adieu. From Ann Granville GLOUCESTER, May 8, 1731. I had rather expose my own ignorance in writing than not hear from Cyrus and Araspes, whose letters give so much pleasure and improvement to your friends. Beside, at present I have my mother’s commands to warrant my own inclination. She orders me to be very particular in her acknowledgements of the last letter she received from you. We were extremely vexed when we came [to Stanton] to find our agreeable friends had left it. [He was at Stanton on April 19.] Except that disappointment, our journey was as prosperous as we could wish. But my sister was not with us. The weakness we felt at parting we endeavored to correct by saying, Would not Cyrus blame us for this The reflection dried our tears; but, I must confess sincerely, it did not ease our pain. Is not this wrong in us Did I (for my sister has more fortitude) make a proper progress in Christianity, the things of this world would certainly be more indifferent to me than I find they are. How shall I learn the happiness of being above trifles Nobody can so well point out the way to me as yourself. But I could not make such a request did I not know how ready you are to do good. I have not had the pleasure of a letter since I came home from our valuable Sappho, [Miss Sally Kirkham (1699-1764), eldest daughter of the Rev. Lionel Kirkham, Rector of Stanton. In 1725 she married the Rev. John Capon, or Chapone, who had a school there. Aspasia and Selima answered, as godmothers, for their daughter. See letter of June 17.] but I have heard she is well. My sister and I answered for her dear little girl, but she is in the hands of a person more capable of instructing her. I suppose you have heard from my sister by this time. If not, I must excuse her, because she is at present very much taken with some business in order to a little ramble she goes upon this summer. We were prodigiously obliged to you for the book you favored us with. The greatest objection I had to London was that I had no time to read it. My sister and I almost quarreled about it when I came away. But she promised to send it me when she had read it. There are some words puzzle us, not understanding shorthand. [See Mrs. Pendarves’ letter of April 4.] We must beg of you to explain them; for we cannot consent to lose one word. I am often angry with some of our neighbors, who, impertinently civil, take up more of my time than I am willing to bestow upon them. I am now guilty of the same fault, and write on without considering how many useful good things I may prevent your doing. I will make no excuses, because I hope you look upon my errors as a friend. Show me you are so by telling me as freely of them as I assure Cyrus and Araspes that I am Your most faithful friend and humble servant. My mother’s best wishes attend the good brothers. To Mrs. Pendarves June [1731]. [The Diary shows that he was writing this letter at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.] It was not in the power of all the variety of objects that ’occurred to me in my late journeys to lessen the concern I felt at being so long cut off from the conversation of Aspasia. The impression which this had left on my mind was so far from being effaced by any succeeding pleasure that every agreeable entertainment I had recalled it to my thoughts, and made me as more sensible of my obligations to her, so more desirous again to acknowledge them. You will easily judge whether the remembrance of Aspasia: made that entertainment in particular less agreeable which I enjoyed last week [From the Diary we see that he walked from Oxford by Shipton and Stowe, reaching Stanton at eight on Saturday evening, May 22, where he stayed with Mr. Kirkham and met Varanese and Mrs. Granville. He had tea with the two ladies on Sunday. On Monday he is in V.’s arbor. He is at Buckland on Wednesday, where’ he met Varanese. ’ Danced ’ occurs twice in the entries. On May 31 he returns by Stowe and Shipton to Oxford.] in the almost uninterrupted conversation of dear Varanese. ’On this spot she sat,’ ’Along this path she walked,’ ’Here she showed that lovely instance of condescension,’ were reflections which, though extremely obvious, yet could not but be equally pleasing, but give a new degree of beauty to the charming arbor, the fields, the meadows, and Horrel [See letter of Aug. 14.] itself. The happy disappointment we met with here in having everything succeed beyond our expectations almost reconciled Araspes and me to our other disappointment of a less pleasing nature. And, indeed, I for my part cannot without the utmost immodesty repine at any dispensation of Providence while I am so unaccountably indulged both in the friendship of our Varanese and in calling myself dear Aspasia’s Most obliged, faithful CYRUS. Araspes, too, begs leave to say that he is entirely at Aspasia’s service. Adieu. To his Father June 11, 1731. Our walk was not so pleasant to Oxford as from it, though in one respect it was more useful; for it let us see that four- or five-and-twenty miles is an easy and safe day’s journey in hot weather as well as cold. We have made another discovery too, which may be of some service: that it is easy to read as we walk ten or twelve miles; and that it neither makes us faint, nor gives us any other symptom of weariness, more than the mere walking without reading at all. Since our return our little company that used to meet us on a Sunday evening is shrunk into almost none at all. Mr. Morgan is sick at Holt; Mr. Boyce is at his father’s house at Barton; Mr. Kirkham must very shortly leave Oxford, to be his uncle’s curate; and a young gentleman of Christ Church, who used to make a fourth, either afraid or ashamed, or both, is returned to the ways of the world, and studiously shuns our company. [They got back to Oxford on May 12. See letter of June 26, 1734.] However, the poor at the Castle have still the gospel preached to them, and some of their temporal wants supplied, our little fund-rather increasing than diminishing. Nor have we yet been forced to discharge any of the children which Mr. Morgan left to our care: though I wish they too do not find the want of him; I am sure some of their parents will. Some, however, give us a better prospect; John Whitelamb in particular. [In 1734 Whitelamb became Rector of Wroot, the living of which he held till his death in 1759. See Journal, iii. 24; Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 374-86; and letter of Nov. 17.] I believe with this you will receive some account from himself how his time is employed. He reads one English, one Latin, and one Greek book alternately; and never meddles with a new one in any of the languages till he has ended the old one. If he goes on as he has begun, I dare take upon me to say that, by the time he has been here four or five years, there will not be such an one of his standing in Lincoln College, perhaps not in the University of Oxford. To his Mother June 11, 1731. The motion and sun together, in our last hundred-and-fifty miles’ walk, so thoroughly carried off ail our superfluous humors, that we continue perfectly in health, though it is here a very sickly season. And Mr. Kirkham [When at Stanton on May 22.] assures us, on the word of a priest and a physician, that if we will but take the same medicine once or twice a year we shall never need any other to keep us from the gout. When we were with him, we touched two or three times upon a nice subject, but did not come to any full conclusion. The point debated was, What is the meaning of being ’ righteous over much,’ or by the more common phrase of being ’too strict in religion’ and what danger there was of any of us falling into that extreme [See letter of July 19.] All the ways of being too righteous or too strict which we could think of were these: either the carrying some one particular virtue to so great an height as to make it clash with some others; or the laying too much stress on the instituted’ means of grace, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law; or the multiplying prudential means upon ourselves so far, and binding ourselves to the observance of them so strictly, as to obstruct the end we aimed at by them, either by hindering our advance in heavenly affections in general or by retarding our progress in some particular virtue. Our opponents seemed to think my brother and I in some danger of being too strict in this last sense of laying burdens on ourselves too heavy to be borne, and consequently too heavy to be of any use to us. It is easy to observe that almost every one thinks that rule totally needless which he does not need himself; and as to the Christian spirit itself, almost every one calls that degree of it which he does not himself aim at, enthusiasm. If, therefore, we plead for either (not as if we thought the former absolutely needful, neither as if we had attained the latter), it is no great wonder that they who are not for us in practice should be against us. If you, who are a less prejudiced judge, have perceived us faulty in this matter, too superstitious or enthusiastic, or whatever it is to be called, we earnestly desire to be speedily informed of our error, that we may no longer spend our strength on that which profiteth not. Or whatever there may be on the other hand, in which you have observed us to be too remiss, that likewise we desire to know as soon as possible. This is a subject which we would understand with as much accuracy as possible; it being hard to say which is of the worse consequence, -- the being too strict, the really carrying things too far, the wearying ourselves and spending our strength in burdens that are unnecessary; or the being frightened by those terrible words from what, if not directly necessary, would at least be useful. From Mrs. Pendarves [NEW BOND STREET], June 16 [1731]. Without the highest vanity how can I suppose my correspondence of so much consequence as to give Cyrus any pleasure I have no occasion to think it but from your own words: and can I doubt your truth No, certainly. I will not say I envied either Varanese or Cyrus those moments they passed together, for indeed I did not; but happy should I have been to have shared them with you. How I please myself with the thoughts that I was not quite forgot at that interview! Perhaps I was wished for. How differently were my hours employed just at that time! Instead of meeting with a favorite friend, I parted from one, my dearest Selima. I want her every moment, particularly when I am alone. Her conversation softened every care. But I own it is ungrateful for me to repine at her absence. My mother can’t be happy without her, and I ought to resign her with cheerfulness. My natural disposition is hasty and impatient under disappointments, but your example and precepts have already corrected some part of that inexcusable temper; and I owe you my best thanks for many tranquil hours which I should not have had without that amendment. The common conversation of the world disgusts me extremely; but I am not only disgusted at some principles which I find too much encouraged, but really afflicted. I know men of excellent understanding, learning, humanity, in short endowed with all the agreeable qualities that can be desired, and not destitute of good ones; but talk to them of religion, and they maintain an opinion that shocks me to hear it. They allow our Savior to be a great prophet, but divest Him of divinity; admire the Scriptures, but call every part that mentions the Trinity fictitious. I have one friend in particular of this opinion. He is in every other respect a most amiable man; -- in all moral duties none can excel him, the best husband, friend, master, son; charitable without the least ostentation; has a fine understanding and the greatest politeness, without the least tincture of vanity. What do you say that man’s state is with regard to the next world Company is come in, and prevents my saying any more; but I shall be glad to hear soon from you. My service attends Araspes. --I am Your obliged friend. To Ann Granville June 17 [1731]. In what words can I express my thanks to Selima for the favorable opinion she entertains of myself, of which she has given me so obliging a proof, as I extremely desired but knew not how to ask for Perhaps you don’t know the inconvenience you are bringing upon yourself --- that your generosity will but embolden me to ask more. Yet thus I can assure you it will be: your letters will in one sense never satisfy me. But the oftener you favor me (if you should please to do it again), the more earnestly I shall desire it. You have already effectually convinced me of this--that it may be said with equal justice of every sort of conversation with Aspasia or you, ’ It brings to its sweetness no satiety.’ That the tearing asunder of such friendships as these should occasion a very sensible pain is surely the effect both of nature and reason, which don’t require us to be without passions (no, be it a Roman virtue to be ’without natural affection ’), but to proportion them to the occasion. Indeed, we are not required by reason to grieve on the severest occasion ’as those without hope’: we have a good hope that, severe as it is, it is no less merciful--nay, more so; since no pain approaches a Christian but to pave the way for more than equal pleasure. We had so much pleasure in the late hours we spent at Stanton, [On April 19 the Diary shows that he was at Stanton and met Mrs. Granville. Her daughters were in London.] that nothing could have added to it but Selima or Aspasia. All things else conspired to complete our happiness: nor was it a small share of it which we conveyed to Mrs.. Astell. Our dear Sappho showed us her proposal to the ladies, which gave us several agreeable conversations. Surely her plan of female life must have pleased all the thinking part of her sex, had she not prescribed so much of the two dull things, reading and religion. Reading, indeed, would be less dull, as well as more improving, to those who, like her, would use method in it; but then it would not rid them of so much time, because half a dozen books read in course would take up no more of that than one or two read just as they carne to hand. That you propose and attain another end in reading [See letters of Sept. 27, 1730, and Aug. 14, 1731.] than throwing away a few leisure hours, that one sentence in truth so well expresses the end for which we live, move, and have our being. How glad should I be could I either teach or be taught by any one ’ to be above trifles’! how doubly glad to have Selima for my instructor in indifference to the things of this world! Why, that is everything! that is to be happy, to be renewed in the image in which we were created, to have that mind in us which was also in Christ Jesus. If it be ever in my power to assist any one in renewing their minds in this image, surely the more I conversed with them the more power I should have as well as the more inclination to pursue that glorious work. Do not then think, dear Selima, that anything you can say can possibly hinder me from doing good. Every line from so friendly an hand, every word that comes from so good an heart, has a real tendency to increase both the desire and the power of being useful in the Much obliged friend, CYRUS. The death of one of the best friends I had in the world, [On June 15 his Diary entry is ’Rector dead.’ Dr. Morley died on June 12 at Scotton. See next letter.] which happened last week, as it occasioned, will I hope excuse the delay of this, as well as the defects. Araspes joins with me in sincere thanks to Selima, and begs she would, when it is convenient, present our best respects to good Mrs. Granville. To Mrs. Pendarves June 19 [1731]. Is it a proof that I am or that I am not duly sensible of my obligations to dear Aspasia, that I so extremely desire to contract more by more frequently conversing with her Would it were possible for me, once a month at least, to have the pleasure of seeing your thoughts! You shall not doubt but it would give me improvement too: the same freedom that shines through your last, whenever I admired it, could not but make upon me a lasting as well as pleasing impression. There was no need of Selima’s letter to our Varanese, or of that she was since pleased to favor me with, to make either of us wish both her and Aspasia a share in-all our happiest moments. ’Tis but a few days since that I had a little share in your misfortune in parting with a sincere friend. [He refers to Ann Granville’s leaving London, and Dr. Morley’s dearth.] But I shall go to him again, if he does not return to me; though he is gone a longer journey than Selima, I hope as far as paradise. If Providence has used me as an instrument of doing any good to Aspasia, I had almost said, ’ I have my reward.’ Some part of it I have undoubtedly. The thought of having added anything to your ease will make many of my hours the happier. Yet perhaps I ought not to desire you should be easy at the common conversation of the world, which, if once it comes to be indifferent to us, will scarce be long before it be agreeable. We are indeed, as to this, in a great strait: either it displeases -- and who would be in pain, could it be avoided or it pleases, which surely causes, if it does not spring from, an entire depravation of our affections. Which side shall we turn to Oh that there were a middle way! that we could shun this unpleasant or fatally-pleasing impertinence! But it cannot be. All we can do is to be on our guard when we are engaged in it, and to engage no more in it than is plainly necessary. Do not be surprised, good Aspasia, when I assure you that I exceedingly rejoice at your other affliction. I am extremely glad to find you among those few who are yet concerned for the honor of their Master, and can’t but congratulate you upon your wise choice. ’ If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.’ I know there are in these last days many seduced by fair speeches ’to deny the Lord that bought them,’ to affirm that He and the Father are not one, and that it is robbery to think Him equal with God. Indeed, the first reformers of the Christian Faith in this point (with whom Dr. Clarke [See letters of Dec. 6, 1726, and Sept. 24, 1753.] joins), only modestly asserted that the Church was bought with the blood of Christ, but not of God, i.e. not of ’the God who is over all, who is and was and is to come, the Almighty.’ And it was many hundred years after, that Socinus roundly maintained that Christ never purchased any Church at all, nor ’gave His life a ransom for any man, all those phrases being purely metaphorical.’ That any one had any hope of. outgoing him I never heard before; but surely those gentlemen who will prove them to be fictitious have a much better courage than even Socinus. Yet there is one step farther for these too -- to affirm the same of all the saints; and then Tindal’s [Matthew Tindal (1657 - 1733), LL.D., the chief exponent of Deism, whose Christianity as Old as the Creation appeared in 1730.] arguments are ready to their hands. That sometimes even a good man falls a prey to the cunning craftiness of these deceivers I can easily believe, having known one (otherwise) strictly virtuous person who was under that infatuation several years. That such an one has nothing to hope for from the terms of the gospel is likewise exceeding plain: seeing exactly equivalent to the words of the Church of England (who did not rashly adopt them in her Liturgy), ’ This faith except every man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly,’ are those of the very person they thus outrage, ’ He that believeth not shall be damned.’ Not that we have authority to apply this general sentence to any one particular offender; because, all sin being a voluntary breach of a known law, none but He who seeth the heart, and consequently how far this breach of His law is voluntary in each particular person, can possibly know which infidel shall perish and which be received to mercy. Whenever you recommend to that all-sufficient mercy any of those that have erred and are deceived, then especially, dear Aspasia, do not forget Your ever obliged CYRUS. The best wishes of Araspe’s are yours. Adieu. To Mrs. Pendarves July 19 [1731]. Is it utterly impossible that I should hear a little oftener from dear Aspasia I can’t be entirely satisfied till you assure me it is; that you have too many employments of a noble kind, and too many more useful and pleasing entertainments, to allow you a vacant hour to throw away upon me, so often as once a month. So soon as I am assured of this I shall cease to importune you about it; but while I have any hope of success I can’t give up a cause the gaining of which would so much add to my happiness. I can’t help being more desirous now than even at other times of hearing from you, because of an imputation that has lately been thrown upon me, which I would fain, if it were possible, remove. I have been charged with being too strict, with carrying things too far in religion, and laying burdens on myself, if not on others, which were neither necessary nor possible to be borne. [See letters of June 11 (to his mother) and Nov. 17.] A heavy charge indeed! To be too strict! That is to blaspheme the law of God as not strict enough. To carry duties too far! Why, what is this but to change holiness itself into extravagance To impose unnecessary burdens! Then am I an hinderer as well as slanderer of the religion I live to recommend; then have I added to the words of God’s Book, and He shall add to me all the plagues that are written in it. Do not therefore blame me, Aspasia, for using every means to find whether I am thus guilty or no; and particularly for appealing to the judgment of one who in this is not likely to be prejudiced in my favor. Those among whom chiefly your lot is cast are not accused of too much strictness. Whatever other ill weeds may flourish there, a Court is not a fit soil for this. Give me leave, then, to lay freely before you what my sentiments in this point are, and to conjure you to tell me with the same freedom which of them you disapprove of. My present sense is this: -- I was made to be happy: to be happy I must love God; in proportion to my love of whom my happiness must increase. To love God I must be like Him, holy as He is holy; which implies both the being pure from vicious and foolish passions and the being confirmed in those virtuous and rational affections which God comprises in the word charity. In order to root those out of my soul and plant these in their stead, I must use (1) such means as are ordered by God; (2) such as are recommended by experience and reason. Thus far I believe we are all agreed; but in what follows we are not: for (1) as to the end of my being, I lay it down for a rule that I can’t be too happy or therefore holy; and infer thence that the more steadily I keep my eye upon the prize of our high calling the better, and the more of my thoughts and words and actions are directly pointed at the attainment of it. (2) As to the instituted means, I likewise lay it down for a rule that as ’ none teach like God,’ so there are none like them; and consequently that I am to use them every time I may, and with all the exactness I can. As to prudential means, I believe this rule holds--of things indifferent in themselves, whatever hinders the extirpating my vile affections or the transferring my rational ones to proper objects, that to me is not indifferent, but resolutely to be abstained from, however familiar and pleasing: again of things indifferent in themselves, whatever helps me to conquer vicious and advance in virtuous affections, that to me is not indifferent, but to be embraced, be it ever so difficult or painful. These are the points which I am said to carry too far; whether I do or no, I beg you would not delay to inform me. Perhaps it may not be long before I have it in my power at once to return my thanks for that favor (which I shall wait for with some impatience) and to hear your sentiments more fully on some of these subjects. I extremely desire to see one of my sisters who is lately come to town [His uncle Matthew Wesley, a surgeon, who lived near Temple Bar, visited Epworth in 1731, and offered to take Martha Wesley to live with him in London.]; which, with the hopes of waiting upon Aspasia, makes me greatly wish to spend a few days there. If your journey [In a letter of May 27, ~73~, to her sister, Mrs. Pendarves (Auto. and Corr. i. 272) speaks of a proposed visit to Ireland with Mr. and Mrs. Wesley of Dangan, of whom she had seen much in London. See next letter.] begins before I can have that happiness, yet it will be some satisfaction to me to reflect that you are with those who are equally willing as well as far more able to entertain you than Your most obliged, obedient CYRUS. Araspes joins with me in wishing all happiness to Aspasia. Adieu. From Mrs. Pendarves NEW BOND SIRIET, July 21, I731. The frequent interruptions that have happened to my correspondence with Cyrus I cannot place among my little disappointments: for, indeed, I have been heartily mortified by it; not so much for the loss I have had of an agreeable entertainment as the fear that you should censure me for it, and perhaps (though I believe it would be unwillingly) tax me with ingratitude. As I endeavor in every respect to guide all my words and actions by the rule of truth, even the most minute circumstances of my life, I must tell Cyrus the real cause of my silence, though at the same time I don’t think I can excuse (at least not to myself) the having so long neglected answering your letter; and fear, when I have told you my manner of spending the last two months, you may condemn me as much as I do myself. My brother, whose company I am so happy as to enjoy in the house with me, takes up so much of my time in the morning that I with great difficulty find leisure to write to Gloucester. As I am no housekeeper, I seldom dine at home, but either go to my uncle’s or to some particular friend who will not let me spend one day entirely at home since my sister left me. Besides this a gentleman and lady [Mr. and Mrs. Wesley, of Dangan Castle.] that I have a great regard for, who have left England about a week, engrossed so much of my time in going with them to see all the remarkable seats about London, and to shops to assist them in buying of clothes and furniture, that I have lived as much in a hurry as if I was immediately to take a long journey. To add to this, the thoughts I have of following them the next month (for they are gone to Ireland) have furnished me with new materials for employment. This is the true state of my case; and now I have troubled you with this impertinent account, am I guilty or not guilty Ah, too guilty I fear! that could not find in all that trifling hurry one moment’s leisure to satisfy my mind in a rational way. But I hope you will forgive a fault that has had no ill consequence on your side: your not hearing from me has done you no wrong. I, indeed, have suffered by it. The imputation thrown upon you is a most extraordinary one; but such is the temper of the world, where you have no vice to feed their spleen with they will condemn the highest virtue. O Cyrus, how noble a defense you make, and how are you adorned with the beauty of holiness I You really are in a state to be envied; but you deserve the happiness you possess, and far be it from me to envy such excellence. I may aspire after some part of it. How ardently do I wish to be as resigned and humble as Cyrus! I am not presumptuous enough (knowing too well I never can attain it) to desire the knowledge and strength of reason that you are endowed with by nature, and that you have carefully cultivated and improved. But I pray to God to give me an humble and contrite spirit, to let me taste of the crumbs that fall from His table. ’ I believe I Lord, help Thou my unbelief.’ As you say, my lot is fallen among those who cannot be accused of too much strictness in religion; so far from that, that they generally make an open profession of having no religion at all. I can’t observe my fellow creatures in such manifest danger without feeling an inexpressible concern. But God in His good time may make them sensible of their blindness, and call them into a state of salvation. When I am in Dublin, which will be three weeks or a month hence, I doubt my correspondence will meet with more interruptions than it has hitherto. But in the meantime, to make me some mends, I promise to answer your letters as soon as I receive them. I am afraid, when you come to town, I shall not have the pleasure of seeing you; because I am to go out of town some days before I begin my great journey. I shall think myself very fortunate if I am not when you come hither. Our friend Varanese is very well, as a letter informed me last post. I have just had time to finish this letter in a hasty manner. Company is come, and will not allow me a longer conversation. I cannot always submit to this sort of life. It encroaches too much. Adieu. I hope to hear soon; for I am in some doubt and concern about my late silence, and fear this letter is not powerful enough to dissipate those suspicions my past behavior may have occasioned. Cyrus has no friend in the world that wishes him happiness more sincerely than does his Faithful and obliged ASPASIA Assure Araspes of the same. To Mrs. Pendarves July 14 [1731]. You have, indeed, done me wrong in this, Aspasia., in thinking I could give way to any suspicion to your disadvantage;. and yourself too, in doubting the power of that letter to remove it, if any such there were. Other wrong I confess you have done me none; since I must ever acknowledge that delightful means of improvement which it has not been in your power to give me lately, a pure effect of your goodness, not justice. I can never pretend any right to that favor; unless this should seem so to generous Aspasia, -- that I endeavor to esteem it as it deserves, and not to let it be given in vain; and that when I feel something of your spirit transfused into mine, then my heart remembers and blesses you. I am extremely happy in having your approbation there, where I am most careful to be approved; and though I am sensible how small a part of it I deserve, yet I can’t help experiencing How sweet applause is from an honest tongue. What is popular fame, laid in the balance with this Who would not gladly make the exchange Give me the censure of the many and the praise of the few. What is the evil compared with the good! Evil It is none at all: it is all good. One that is learning Christ should never think censure an evil. No; it is a gracious gift of a wise Father to His children: it is subservient to the noblest purposes; in particular to the attainment of humility, which in order to holiness is all in all, which whoever thinks he has enough of already has nothing of yet as he ought to have. By this alone may we judge of the value of censure: God hath so constituted this world that, so soon as ever any one sets himself earnestly to seek a better, Censure is at hand to conduct him to it. Nor can the fools cease to count his life madness [Wisdom of Solomon, v. 4.] till they have confirmed him in the wisdom of the just. May not one reason why God makes even these fools such a means of leading others to wisdom be this,--that those whose eyes are opened may the more tenderly pity their blindness; that the contempt and hate which such objects are apt to inspire may melt down into softer passions, and they may be the more unwilling to see those cast away who have (though unknowingly) helped them to their haven I do not wonder that Aspasia is thus minded; any more than I did at the temper of dear Varanese when under the sharpest pain an embodied spirit can know. You will easily take knowledge of those words, if you have not heard them before: ’When I was in the greatest of my pains, if my strength would have allowed, I would gladly have run out into the streets to warn all I met that they should save themselves from pains sharper than mine.’ Something like this methinks ’tis impossible not to feel even when we read a description of the great place of torment. What would not one do to save a poor wretch from falling into it ! How unwilling are we to give over our attempts to help him! how ardent to try every way, while time is, before the pit shut its mouth upon him! In attaining some share of a better portion, some lot in a fairer heritage, I may aspire to imitate Aspasia; but vainly should hope for the same share in it. You have kept yourself unspotted from the world: I am sullied with many stains! Your mind is now adorned with many of those dispositions to which mine must probably be yet long a stranger. For though I would fain be nearer you; though I do what I can (alas! I fear not always) to overtake you: yet so hard is it to lay aside every weight, these follies do so easily beset me, that I find it will not be; -- the penitent can’t avoid being left behind by the innocent! True it is that I have all the advantages given me that outward circumstances can afford. I spend day by day many hours in those employments that have a direct tendency to improve me: you can rarely have one wherein to pursue that great work with the full bent of your mind. I have scarce any acquaintance in the world who is not either apt to teach or willing to learn: you are entangle among several who can plead for themselves little more than that they do no hurt. And would to God even this plea would hold! I much fear it will not. Is it no hurt to rob you of that time for which there is no equivalent but eternity, on the use of every moment of which much more than a world depends to turn your very sweetness of temper against you on this very account to encroach upon you with so much cruelty to force you to stand still so many hours when you are most ardent to press forward nay, to strike whole days out of your existence, while He that sitteth in heaven sees that all the kingdoms He hath made are vile compared to the worth of one particle of them O God, hath Thy wisdom prepared a remedy for every evil under the sun, and is there none for this Must Aspasia ever submit to this insupportable misfortune Every time a gay wretch wants to trifle away part of that invaluable treasure which Thou hast lent him, shall he force away a part of hers too tear another star from her crown of glory Oh, ’tis too much indeed! Surely there is a way to escape. The God whom you serve point it out to you! In about eight days I hope to be in town. If you leave it before that time, I heartily recommend you to His protection who is able ’ to save to the uttermost’; and if I have not the pleasure of seeing you now, I shall the more cheerfully bear my disappointment, since you are so good as to assure me that, notwithstanding the distance between us, you will now and then think of, dear Aspasia, Your most sincere friend and most obedient servant, CYRUS. Though I had almost forgot Araspes, he will never forget what he owes to good Aspasia. Adieu. From Mrs. Pendarvas July 29 [1731]. I wish it could have been otherwise, but I doubt I shall not be in town when Cyrus is there. I am now in the country, and shall stay a fortnight longer. To make myself some amends, I lay hold of the first opportunity to write, and to convince you that, when I have not been regular in my answers to your letters, it has been my fault: though my not being at home is a reason why I have not much time at command, what leisure I have I dedicate to Cyrus, While I read your letters I find myself carried above the world. I view the vanities I left behind with the disdain that is due to them, and wish never to return to them: but as it is my lot to dwell among them as yet, I will at least endeavor to defend myself from their assaults; and with your assistance I hope to baffle and turn aside their sting. But as from every evil we may extract good, so in this particular I have great consolation that, weak and insignificant as I am, I have sometimes found means of maintaining the honor of our great God when I have heard the blasphemer say ’ Where is now their God ’ At such an instant, how have I wished for a capacity equal to the mighty Cause! for Cyrus’s wisdom and words! There is a young lady, a particular friend of mine, who by all that I can judge of her behavior omits no duty either to God or man, yet is so discontented with herself that she is upon the brink of despair. I believe her in an ill state of health, and that may contribute to her melancholy. I asked her when it was that she was most dissatisfied, and promised her great comfort from your advice. She says ’she has a coldness when she says her prayers (which she constantly does twice a day) and wandering thoughts, and that the week before she receives the sacrament she endures such agonies as are not to be expressed.’ I know no one so able to assist her as you, and I am sure of your endeavor to do it, which will be fresh obligation to Your faithful ASPASIA. Araspes is very good to me, and I am not ungrateful. To Ann Granvill, July [1731] Selima will not believe that any other reason could have kept me so long from writing but the having so many things which I must do, as scarce give me any time for what I would do. I can by no means think the acknowledging it once a fit return for your last favor, and have often been upon the point of telling you so, when some fresh business has seized upon me and forced me to deny myself yet longer the pleasure of doing you that justice. And, to say the truth, I am even now as busy as ever, but not quite so patient; and therefore, since there is no end of waiting for this leisure, I must make what I cannot find. I am something the more reconciled to this confinement, because though it hinders my expressing it so often, yet it never hinders me from remembering that regard which on so many accounts I owe Selima. Nay, this very circumstance, that I am so confined, often recalls you to my thoughts, and makes me the more sensible of that hard trial to which you are frequently exposed. If I am compassed with business on every side, yet ’tis business of my own: such especially is that which I engage immediately for the sake of others; since I know to whom I lend that time and pains, and that what I so lay out shall be surely paid me again. But Selima, under as great a multitude of engagements, has not always the same thought to support her. You often are troubled about many things, few of which promise even distant pleasure, and are obliged to converse with many persons, too wise to learn, though not wise enough to teach. O Selima, teach me to submit to such a trial, if ever it should be my portion: tell me how you let yours down to such capacities, and sustain the insipidness of such conversations, how you do to possess your soul in patience, when the floods of impertinence are around you. I have often wondered how so active a spirit as yours, that was not made for a common share of glory, but to force its way through all impediments to the heights of knowledge and virtue--how such a spirit as yours could bear with calmness to have its flight stopped in the mid-way by those mere children of earth, who will not take pains to be even as the angels of God in heaven; nay, who perhaps would not be angels if they might, since ’tis sure those ancient heirs of salvation are therefore the most happy because they are the most active of all created beings. I have lately had the pleasure of two letters from Aspasia, [July 21 and 29.] and hoped for a still greater in waiting upon her next week; but her last informed me she is out of town, and does not return this fortnight, before which time I must leave it. I believe Providence is more careful of me than I am of myself, and knowing that, were I to see Aspasia or Selima often, I could not possibly act up to the favorable opinion they are pleased to entertain of us, removes me (for my interest, though against my choice) from the opportunities of betraying my weakness. If I have fewer opportunities, too, of expressing my gratitude in writing than I could wish, let it not deprive me of the pleasure of sometimes hearing from Selima, yet let me steal a few moments from you. I am sure none of them that converse with you (on however so many accounts besides you may give them the preference) are more thankful for that favor than Your most obliged and most obedient CYRUS. To Mrs. Pendarves August 12 [1731]. Nothing could have made our journey more prosperous than it was except the seeing Aspasia. We were successful in every other respect far beyond our expectations. Indeed, the chief design we went upon was very unlikely, humanly speaking, to succeed at all. But what is likelihood against any undertaking if He be for it ’ whom all things serve’! I am sensible how good you axe to me, Aspasia; both in writing so soon, engaged as you were, and in permitting me to hope that when you are less engaged you will again bestow some moments upon me. But this is not the only reason why I shall be heartily glad, whenever you are rescued from many of your engagements, whenever it is in your power to burst those chains that hang heavy on your noblest purposes and to move with a full and free course toward the haven where you would be! I have a good hope that you will continue to disdain all the vanities that surround you, and that those choicest instruments of mischief, ’they that do no harm,’ will never be able to undermine your resolution; because you take the true method of defense, the not standing barely on the defensive. Oh may you ever retain this just sense of our state: may you ever remember that we are to resist, not to stand still; that they who would overcome are not barely to repel, but likewise to retort the darts of the enemy; that to be innocent we are to be active, to avoid evil we must do good, and if it be possible in that very particular wherein we are solicited to evil. Hath the fool said aloud, ’ There is no God’ so much the rather let us prove there is one. Is His Son degraded into an equality with the sons of men the more zealously let us assert His equality with God. Do any blaspheme His Word that is our time to show that not otherwise under heaven can we obtain salvation. Who, indeed, is sufficient to prove these things against an artful, practiced unbeliever If even your address be not sufficient of itself, yet He is with you who is sufficient for all things, who hath often strengthened the weak for this very thing, ’to still the enemy and the ’self-avenger.’ ’Tis a great instance of His never failing them that seek Him that the lady you mention has such a friend as Aspasia. Afflicted as she is, I can scarce call her unhappy; nay, I am almost tempted to envy her. Too tender a conscience is a glorious excess! Scarce has any one fallen by fearing to fall. Yet it is an excess; and I wish it be in my power to contribute toward the removing it. Two things she seems to complain of most, inattention in prayer and uneasiness before the sacrament. The latter probably is owing in good part to the former, which therefore appears to require consideration most. As to this I would ask first: ’Can you help it If not, do you think God is good If He be, He can’t be displeased at what you can’t avoid. That would be to be angry at Himself, since ’tis His will, not yours, that you are not more attentive.’ Next I would ask: ’Do you expect while upon earth to be "as the angels of God in heaven" If not, you must expect to have a share in that infirmity which no one quite shakes off till he leaves earth behind him.’ As to shaking it off in some degree, if she thinks that worth while, and is resolved to use any probable means of doing it, I could propose one or two that seldom fail to be of service to those that regularly use them: ’ Are you inattentive in prayer pray oftener. Do you address to God twice a day already then do so three times. Do you find yourself very uneasy before the sacrament, though you receive it every month your next resolution, with God’s leave, should be to receive it every week.’ Your friend’s case appears to be this: God, seeing the earnestness of heart with which she chooses virtue, sees that she is a fit object for a large measure of His blessed Spirit. As a preparative for this, He sends this pain {whether the immediate cause of it be in her body or mind) to cleanse her from all remaining sinful affections and to balance all those temptations that might prevent her pressing forward to that degree of holiness which becomes them whom God thus delights to honor. If so, it will continue with her till it has had its perfect work. I want to say a great deal more on this subject, but am exceedingly straitened for time, being to begin a long journey in a day or two, though not so long an one as Aspasia. I was going to say nor so dangerous. But I know no danger that a lover of God can be in till God is no more, or at least has quitted the reins and left Chance to govern the world. Oh yes, there is one danger; and a great one it is, which nothing less than constant care can prevent--the ceasing to love Him: but that care will never be wanting in Aspasia. She will continually watch over her affections, and be going on from strength to strength; every new scene will be to her a new scene of action, of improving herself and others. This reflection greatly softens the thought of the distance that will be shortly between us; especially when I reflect farther that you will still indulge in a share of that improvement, dear Aspasia, Your most faithful friend and most obliged servant, CYRUS. I intend to stay but a fortnight at my father’s. If you don’t set out till I return, may I not hear from you You will believe that the gratitude and best wishes of Araspes as well as Cyrus will ever attend Aspasia. Adieu, To Ann Granville August 14 [1731]. I have neither time nor skill to thank Selima as I would for her repeated condescension to me, which nothing can excel, and that for which I am so deeply indebted to good Mrs. Granville. Both hers and your partiality toward me I cannot but observe with wondering gratitude; and hope it will continue to plead in my behalf, and to excuse my many faults and infirmities: and my observing this makes me the less surprised that, notwithstanding all my failings, you still have so favorable an opinion of me as to think me worth your correspondence. Perhaps ’tis one of these failings that even now I intend to speak the plain sense of my [mind]. I do it in so unhappy a manner as to make even sincerity look like flattery: a fault I desire as carefully to avoid as stabbing my friend with a smile. For doubtless those words that inspire vanity, if they ’ be smooth as oil, yet be very swords.’ God forbid that mine should ever be such to Selima, or Selima’s to me. I trust they will not, but that I shall always be enabled to consider them in the true light as a picture of what you are and what I perhaps shall be, if your friendship has its perfect work. What you write with so generous a view as this justly claims the best return I can make: especially when it informs me ’that there is one particular wherein I may possibly be of some service to Selima. I had, indeed, spent many thoughts on the necessity of method to a considerable progress either in knowledge or virtue, and am still persuaded that they who have but a day to live are not wise if they waste a moment, and are therefore concerned to take the shortest way to every’ point they desire to arrive at. The method of or shortest way to knowledge seems to be this: (1) to consider what knowledge you desire to attain to; (2) to read no book which does not some way tend to the attainment of that knowledge; {3) to read no book which does tend to the attainment of it, unless it be the best in its kind; (4) to finish one before you begin another; and (5) to read them all in such an order that every subsequent book may illustrate and confirm the preceding. The knowledge which you would probably desire to attain to is a knowledge of divinity, philosophy, history, and poetry. If you will be so good as to direct me how I can be of use to you in any of these, it will give me a very particular pleasure. [See letters of June 17 and Dec. 1.] I am glad you passed your time so agreeably in the country, [Mrs. Pendarves writes to her sister on Sept. 10: ’ I suppose by this time you are returned from Stanton.] and doubt not but Sappho would have made it yet more agreeable. Surely you are very just in observing that a country life is in many respects preferable to any other; particularly in its abounding with those beauties of nature that so easily raise our thoughts to the Author of them. Methinks, whenever about us round we see Hill, dale, and shady wood and sunny plain, And liquid lapse of murm’ring stream, [Paradise Lost, viii. 261-3, v. 153.] ’tis scarce possible to stop that obvious reflection: These are Thy glorious works, Parent of good. [Paradise Lost, viii. 261-3, v. 153.] Nor is it hard here, where the busy varieties of a great town do not flutter about us and break our attention, to fix that reflection so deep upon our souls that it may not pass away, like the objects that occasioned it. I hope to retain some of the reflections which the smooth turf on which we sat, the trees overshadowing and surrounding us, the fields and meadows beneath, and the opposite hills, with the setting sun just glimmering over their brows, assisted Aspasia and Selima in inspiring; till I have the happiness of meeting part, at least, of the same company on Horrel again. Perhaps Aspasia may be there too; though, if it should be long before we meet, we may trust her with Him in whose hands she is: what seems best to Him is best both for her and us. ’Tis a cheerful thought that even the winds and seas can only fulfill His word! Why is it, then, that our hearts are troubled for her Why does tenderness prevail over faith Because faith is not yet made perfect; because we yet walk partly by sight; because we have not yet proved the whole armor of God, and therefore still lie open to this suggestion of the enemy, ’ Some things are out of the reach of God’s care; in some cases His arm is shortened and cannot save.’ Nay, but where is the darkness that covers from His eye, where is the place where His right hand doth not hold us As well, therefore, may we be shipwrecked on the dry land as shipwrecked on the sea unless He command it. And if He does command any of us ’to arise and go hence,’ what signifies it where the command finds us As means can do nothing without His word, so when that is passed they are never wanting: Since when obedient nature knows His will, A fly, a grapestone, or an hair can kill. [Prior’s Ode to Memory of Colonel Villiers.] Whether it be in my power or no to do anything for Selima that will either make that summons, whenever it comes, less unpleasing, or in the meantime contribute to your ease and satisfaction and the conquest of those enemies that so easily beset us all, you will assure yourself of the best endearours of Your most friendly and most obedient CYRUS. The best service of Araspes as well as Cyrus attends Mrs. Granville and Selima. Adieu. From Mrs. Pendarves August 26 [1731]. I hope this letter will reach you before I begin my journey, which I intend to do on Tuesday next. I shall go in five days to Chester, and from thence take shipping for Dublin. The passage is reckoned a bad one, and the time of year subject to storms. I must desire your prayers for me particularly at that time: though I thank God I have not one anxious thought about my journey or voyage. When I consider the worst thing that can happen will be death, I am not terrified at the reflection. I hope I am not too presumptuous: tell me if I am, and teach me how to fear in a proper way the King of Terrors. The lady for whom you have so kindly given me your advice has been in the country almost ever since I received your letter. I shall take an opportunity of reading part of it to her; but not all, till I have heard again from you, for a reason which I will now tell you. A physician ought to know every symptom of a distemper, or how should he know properly to prescribe You say she should add to the length of her prayers or to the frequency of them. But she has tried that method already, and has reduced herself to death’s door by her intense application to her devotions. To be sincere, I doubt one great cause of her uneasiness is a pride of heart which she is not sensible of. I have observed instances of it in trifles -as, Expecting great civilities and ceremony from her acquaintance, and thinking that they do not pay her respect enough and that they neglect her. When she has had her mind ruffled by any such unkind behavior as she calls it, she then falls into a deep melancholy; and from apprehending the loss of her friends’ affections, she carries those fears farther, almost to despair. She has also a mixture of vanity (which bears a near relation to pride) to appear in as good clothes as any of her companions, when she can’t so well afford it. If a proper humility could be instilled into her, I am apt to think it would dispel all those gloomy thoughts that now perplex her. She would be resigned to all the decrees of Providence when she was once convinced how little we any of us deserve the blessings we enjoy. That unfortunate disposition of hers would make me very criminal in her eyes, did she know what I have told you of her. But sure the intention with which I do it justifies my discovering those infirmities of my friend that cannot be cured without being known. When you write to me, which I hope will be soon, direct your letter to my sister at Gloucester, and she will take care to convey it to me. I shall be glad to know from you the definition of pride and vanity, and the difference there is between them. Give me leave to tell you my opinion, and then set me right if my notion does not agree with yours. The proud man (according to my way of thinking) believes he deserves all honors that can be paid him, and the vain man would be ’thought to deserve all. I have not time to add a word more. -- I am to Cyrus and Araspes a faithful friend. ASPASIA. I must insist on your burning [Wesley probably did this (see also letter of Jan. 15), but kept careful copies, which have been preserved and are in the possession of Mr. Russell J. Colman.] all my letters, and pray don’t make use of any epithet before my name when you write to me. I have not time to tell my reasons. To Mrs. Pendarves September 28 [1731]. I could not be unmindful of Aspasia in the stormy weather we had at the beginning of this month; though I did not receive your last till near three weeks after, when you too, I hope, had ended your journey. ’Tis not strange that one who knows how to live should not be afraid to die; since the sting of death is sin. Rather it would have been strange if Aspasia had been afraid, if either her nature or her faith had failed her: as well knowing that where death is the worst of ills there it is the greatest of blessings. I am very sensible of the confidence you repose in me, in telling me the whole of your friend’s case-illness. The symptoms you mention are these: (1) the expecting great civilities from her acquaintance, with an aptness to think herself neglected by them; (2) a deep sadness upon the apprehension of their unkindness and the supposed loss of their affections, which often carries her to such a length as to believe that God will forsake her too; (3) a desire to be equally well dressed with her companions, though she has not an equal fortune. The first question is, therefore, what disorder it is that is the cause of these effects. One person I knew who had every one of these symptoms: she expected great civilities, and was extremely apt to think her acquaintance neglected her and showed less respect to her than to other people; the apprehension of whose unkindness, joining with ill-health, sometimes made her deeply melancholy. I have often known her pained at being worse dressed than her companions, and have heard her say more than once that few trials she had met with in her life were harder to be borne. Is it not likely that it was the same cause that produced the same effects in both these persons If so, we are not far from finding what it is; for in one I knew it was chiefly vanity. Her sense of honor was not under due regulation; she was too fond of being admired, and therefore could ill bear to miss of this, but much worse to be contemned; and from too strong a desire of being approved and too great an aversion to being despised, which was her original distemper, wholly proceeded those painful symptoms. She seldom thought she met with respect enough, because she loved it too well; the least shadow of disrespect pained her, because she hated it too much. Hence, too, she dreaded whatever might expose her to it, and therefore was uneasy when less well dressed than her companions. Perhaps her taking their supposed unkindness so deeply might flow from a better fountain. Is too tender a sense of the loss of a friend’s affection a necessary proof of vanity May we not put a milder interpretation, even upon an aptness to suspect it where there is no real ground of suspicion This is a weed; but is it not the weed of an excellent soil for Such flaws are found in the most noble natures. It seems probable that this is the disease of yours as well as of my acquaintance, namely vanity; which you justly distinguish from pride, though indeed they are nearly related, pride regarding (as you well observe) our opinion of ourselves, vanity the opinions of other men concerning us: the former being immoderate self-esteem, the latter immoderate desire of the esteem of others. The proper remedy for either of these distempers you rightly judge to be humility. But how to infuse this God knows. With men it is impossible. I know none more likely to be an instrument in His hand to perform this work of omnipotence than Aspasia. For you will not depend on your own strength while you insinuate to her the great cause of her melancholy; while you use all your address to make her sensible how apt vanity is to steal in even upon the best tempers; how useful it might be, seeing nothing but the finger of God can cast out this stubborn spirit, to mix with (intersperse) all our solemn addresses to Him with particular petitions against it. O Aspasia, how amiable do you appear while you are employed in such offices as these, especially in the eyes of Him who seeth more clearly than man seeth ! how just a return are you making to Him for the talents He has bestowed upon you I and how generous a use of your power over your friends while you thus direct it all to their advantage ! Watch over me too for good, Aspasia. Though we are far, far divided as to our persons, yet let your thoughts (at least morning and evening) be with Your most obliged friend and servant, CYRUS. Is there need for Aspasia to desire one thing twice of Cyrus or Araspes I hope both of them are more sensible of their obligations to her. Adieu. To Ann Granville October 3 [1731]. ’Tis in vain for me to think I shall ever be able to tell Selima how much I am obliged to her for her last. Why do you thus add to the obligations that were before too great to admit of any return I am now entirely reconciled to my late disappointment by the charming manner in which you mention it, and share in the pleasure of your lovely conversations while you tell me I was thought of in them. Nothing could give me a livelier satisfaction, unless I should once again meet Selima, and assure her that those are some of the happiest hours of my life when I can give any proof of the value I have for her friendship, and that no employment is more agreeable to me than that which gives me any hopes of improving it. An account I received some time since from Aspasia (for whose safety you will believe I am sincerely glad [Mrs. Pendarves went to Ireland in September. See letter of Aug. 26.]) so much resembles yours that I have been in some doubt whether you did not speak of the same plan. [See letters of July 29, Aug. 12 and 26, and previous letter.] Whether you did or no, I wish that you have not both much too favorable an opinion of me. I am sure I should of myself, did I think it in my power ’ to heal the broken in heart, to use any words that would cure a wounded spirit, or be a medicine for that sickness.’ Nor, indeed, have I time to weigh so nice a case thoroughly; do not, then, be surprised, good Selima, if while I dare not wholly decline what you desire, yet I am forced to do it in so imperfect a manner as neither suits the importance of the thing itself nor my obligations to the person that desires it. One that is generous, charitable, and devout, that has an easy fortune and many sincere friends, is yet unhappy; something lurking within poisons all the sweets, nor can she taste any of the goodness she enjoys. She strives against it, but in vain. She spends her strength, but to ’no purpose: her enemy still renews his strength: nature even— When ’gainst his head her sacred arms she bent Strict watch, and fast severe, and prayer omnipotent. [The Battle of the Sexes, xxxvi., by Samuel Wesley, jun.] Still he pursues her prayer; still he wounds her doubts and scruples of various sorts, so as to make the very ways of pleasantness uneasy and the path of life like that which leads to destruction. And is there no help Yes. If Selima can believe, all things are possible to her that believeth. The shield of faith will yet repel all darts, if she can be taught to use it skillfully; if the eyes of her understanding can be enlightened to see what is the hope of her calling: to know that our hope is sincerity, not perfection; not to do well, but to do our best. If God were to mark all that is done amiss, who could abide it Not the great Apostle himself, who, even when he had finished his course on earth and was ripe for paradise, yet mentions himself as not having already attained that height, not being already perfect. Perfect, indeed, he was from sin, strictly speaking, which is a voluntary breach of a known law; at least from habits of such sin: as to single acts, he knew whom he had believed. He knew who had promised to forgive these, not seven times but seventy times seven. Nay, a thousand times a thousand, if they sincerely desire it, shall all sins be forgiven unto the sons of men. We need except none; no, not the sin against the Holy Ghost, for in truth this phrase is nowhere in the whole sacred book. ’The sin against the Holy Ghost’ is a term invented by the devil to perplex those whom he cannot destroy. The term used by God is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, a phrase that instantly shuts out all thoughts and accusations, for blasphemy must be a speech; and what speech it is Christ has expressly told us in Mark iii. 22, 29, 30: ’ He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth He out devils.’ Shall He not cast out by the finger of God that anxiety which they have instilled in His servant shall He not avenge her that cries to Him day and night, [though] (for wise reasons) He bear long with her enemies I trust He shall avenge her speedily. At last, if she ceases not to cry unto Him to deliver her from her weakness, then let her be assured it shall not be in vain: for ’ God is in the cry, but not in the weakness. I do not say that she shall immediately be delivered: nor yet are her good dispositions lost; seeing there is a reward for suffering as well as for acting, and blessed are they that endure temptation. God has given them a means of improving their good dispositions, which is not given to the rest of the world; a means which supplies the want of activity and gives them all the advantage of a busy life without the dangers. This is the surest, it is the shortest way, as to all virtue, so particularly to humility, the distinguishing virtue of Christians, the sole inlet to all virtue. Neither do I believe that she will ever be wholly freed either from wandering thoughts in prayer, or perhaps from such as would be wicked were they chosen or voluntarily indulged, but which, when they are not voluntary, are no more voluntary than the beating of the heart or of the arteries. I never heard or read of more than one living person (Mr. De Renty) [Wesley published An Extract of the Life of Monsieur De Renty in1741. He died at Paris on April 24, 1649, aged thirty-seven.] who had quite shook off the weight, and much doubt if of the sons of men now alive there be one who is so highly favored. And perhaps we have scarce another instance of an embodied soul who always did the work of God with cheerfulness. The common lot of humanity seems to be, to be various, more particularly in the things that pertain to God, from whom we are so far estranged by nature. With regard to these even David could sometimes say, ’Why go I so heavily while the enemy oppresses me’ His rule it was therefore, as it is ours, to judge of us not by what we feel but by what we do. To his Brother Samuel LINCOLN COLEGE, November 17, 1731. DEAR BROTHER,--Considering the other changes that I remember in myself, I shall not at all wonder if the time comes when we differ as little in our conclusions as we do now in our premises. In most we seem to agree already; especially as to rising, not keeping much company, and sitting by a fire, which I always do, if any one in the room does, whether at home or abroad. But these are the very things about which others will never agree with me. Had I given up these, or but one of them rising early, [See letter of March 19, 1727.] which implies going to bed early (though I never am sleepy now), and keeping so little company--not one man in ten of those that are offended at me, as it is, would ever open their mouth against any of the other particulars. For the sake of these, those are mentioned: the root of the matter lies here. Would I but employ a third of my money, and about half my time, as other folks do, smaller matters would be easily overlooked. But I think nil tanti est. [’Nothing is worth such a sacrifice as this.’] As to my hair, I am much more sure that what this enables me to do is according to the Scripture than I am that the length of it is contrary to it. [See letter of Dec. 5, 1726.] I have often thought of a saying of Dr. Hayward’s when he examined me for priest’s orders [He was ordained priest at Christ Church by Dr. Potter on Sept. 22, 1728.]: ’Do you know what you are about You are bidding defiance to all mankind. He that would live a Christian priest ought to know that, whether his hand be against every man or no, he must expect every man’s hand should be against him.’ It is not strange that every man’s hand who is not a Christian should be against him that endeavors to be so. But is it not hard that even those that are with us should be against us that a man’s enemies (in some degree) should be those of the same household of faith Yet so it is. From the time that a man sets himself to his business, very many, even of those who travel the same road, many of those who are before as well as behind him, will lay stumbling-blocks in his way. One blames him for not going fast enough; another, for having made no greater progress; another, for going too far, which, perhaps, strange as it is, is the more common charge of the two: for this comes from people of all sorts; not only infidels, not only half Christians, but some of the best of men are very apt to make this reflection: ’ He lays unnecessary burdens upon himself; he is too precise; he does what God has nowhere required to be done.’ True, He has not required it of those that are perfect; and even as to those who are not, all men are not required to use all means, but every man is required to use those which he finds most useful to himself. And who can tell better than himself whether he finds them so or no ’ Who knoweth the things of a man better than the spirit of a man that is in him ’ This being a point of no common concern, I desire to explain myself upon it once for all, and to tell you, freely and clearly, those general positions on which I ground (I think) all those practices, for which (as you would have seen, had you read that paper through) I am generally accused of singularity. [See letter of July 19.](1) As to the end of my being, I lay it down for a rule that I cannot be too happy, or therefore too holy; and thence infer that the more steadily I keep my eye upon the prize of our high calling the better, and the more of my thoughts, and words, and actions are directly pointed at the attainment Of it. (2) As to the instituted means of attaining it, I likewise lay it down for a rule that I am to use them every time I may. (3) As to prudential means, I believe this rule holds of things indifferent in themselves: whatever I know to do me hurt, that to me is not indifferent, but resolutely to be abstained from; whatever I know to do me good, that to me is not indifferent, but resolutely to be embraced. But it will be said I am whimsical. True; and what then If by whimsical be meant simply singular, I own it: if singular without any reason, I deny it with both my hands, and am ready to give a reason, to any that asks me, of every custom wherein I willfully differ from the world. I grant, in many single actions I differ unreasonably from others; but not willfully: no, I shall extremely thank any one who will teach me to help it. But can I totally help it, till I have more breeding or more prudence to neither of which I am much disposed naturally; and I greatly fear my acquired stock of either will give me small assistance. I have but one thing to add, and that is as to my being formal. If by that be meant that I am not easy and unaffected enough in my carriage, it is very true; but how shall I help it I cannot be genteelly behaved by instinct; and if I am to try after it by experience and observation of others, that is not the work of a month but of years. If by formal be meant that I am serious, this too is very true; but why should I help it Mirth, I grant, is fit for you; but does it follow that it is fit for me Are the same tempers, any more than the same words or actions, fit for all circumstances If you are to ’rejoice evermore’ because you have put your enemies to flight, am I to do the same while they continually assault me You are glad, because you are ’passed from death to life’; well, but let him be afraid who knows not whether he is to live or die. Whether this be my condition or no, who can tell better than myself Him who can, whoever he be, I allow to be a proper judge whether I do well to be generally as serious as I can. John Whitelamb wants a gown much, and I am not rich enough to buy him one at present. If you are willing my twenty shillings (that were) should go toward that, I will add ten to them, and let it lie till I have tried my interest with my friends to make up the price of a new one.--I am, dear brother, Yours and my sister’s affectionate Brother. The Rector [Euseby Isham, 1731-55.] is much at your service. I fancy I shall some time or other have much to say to you about him. All are pretty well at Epworth, my sister Molly [Mary Wesley, who married John Whitelamb in 1734 and died the same year. See letter of Oct. 4, 1769.] says. From Ann Granville GLOUCASTER, December 1, 1731 It is very unwillingly that I have been so long prevented thanking Cyrus for the last proof of his friendship, though you have reason to be glad of it; for my letters are so trifling, that you show the most good nature and humility in the world to suffer my correspondence. I hope in time to be more worthy of it; nothing will be more conducive to it than the advantage of such an instructor. I can’t help believing my friend is the better for your good and kind advice. She has not mentioned anything upon that subject in her last letters, but says her spirits are more lively, and she enters a little into the diversions of the Bath, which at first she was quite averse to; for I fancy the more satisfied one is with oneself, the more cheerfully may one partake of the innocent entertainments of the world. How far, indeed, and what sort of diversions are the most allowable and consistent with one’s duty, is what I would fain be satisfied in. Suppose I go every week to an assembly, play at cards two or three hours, if I omit no duty by it, is it a fault or would it be in an older person than myself though I don’t think being young exempts me from any good or religious act. You see, Cyrus, how freely I expose to you all my errors, all my scruples; and though I expose the weakness of judgment, yet I show how desirous I am to’ reform my will and rectify my thought’: for sure, the active principle within is worth improvement; you have confirmed me in the inclination of doing it--have already, and I hope will continue to assist me in it. I shall be extremely thankful for that scheme of books you mention. [See letter of Aug. 14.] Oh that I could make as good a use of them as the person it was made for I What happiness is it to have those we love follow after virtue! and how sensible an affliction to see them forsake those paths which can alone make them happy! That is a pain Cyrus has not, and I hope will never know, any otherways than the general benevolence he has for all his fellow creatures makes him grieve when they do miss. Now give me leave to say that I can’t find out the advantage of losing the conversation of particular sensible and virtuous friends. Their words, their example excite us on to goodness; they blow up and keep alive those sparks of religion which are too apt (with sorrow I speak it) to grow faint and languid. I can recollect many instances where they have been of advantage to me. At church their attention has increased mine. At home they have begun good conversations that I have been the better for; as we were often together, we used to assist each other in bearing a multitude of impertinence that I am now forced to support singly. Now, have I not more reason to imagine ’twas rather for their good than mine that they were removed Now, I fear I show great arrogance to deny anything you say, but I only make this objection in order to be more fully convinced. No one can do it so soon as Cyrus. His arguments are so plain and sensible, and withal so well expressed, they please the fancy while they inform the understanding; which is what I very seldom have met with before, most instructive things being dry and tedious--at least to me, who cannot, like my dear Sappho, search for through all her obscure recesses. I am now reading a book I want your opinion of. ’Tis Mr. Burkitt’s Explanation of the New Testament; he calls it Expository Notes with Practical Observations. Sure Cyrus cannot sit without a fire this weather. I hope the good Society prospers; one way I’m sure they do. I often think of them, especially when the cold makes me shrink. They are those that are chosen of peculiar grace; the influence of it will, I hope, extend to their weaker brethren. The last letter I had from Aspasia she said she was very much concerned she had not writ to you, and desired me to assure the good brothers of her friendship and good wishes, as does my mother, who is very much out of order with a cold. The last time I heard from Sappho she was well. Is not Araspes’ hymn quite charming You have not sent your poetic herd so far but you can call them in whenever you please. Cyrus may be certain I shall never forget him in the only way I can show my gratitude to him. Oh that I had reason to think my prayers would be as efficacious as his with[out] doubt are l What is uttered with so much real piety must be successful for himself and for his friends. There I hope he will always place SELIMA. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] She had to write on January 30 altering the date of the visit. [2] The ’ book’ is the MS. in the Colman Collection, ’ The Procedure, Extent, and Limits of the Human Understanding.’ It has 103 pages, and is dated Christmas Eve, 1730. The last two chapters are on the Improvement of Knowledge by Revelation and the Improvement of Morality by Revelation. It is an epitome of The Procedure (or Progress), Extent, and Limits of Human Understanding (1728), by Dr. Peter Browne Bishop of Cork 1710-35. See Journal, iv. 192; and letters of October 12, 1730, and January 6, 1756, sect. II. 7. [3] This is Wesley’s answer to the letter of Mrs. Pendarves of April 4 on the Sunday concerts. [4] Mrs. Chapone (the ’Sappho’ of the letter) was a gifted woman. Her letters on behalf of Mrs. Elstob, the Anglo-Saxon scholar, made a great impression on Queen Caroline in 1730. The reference here is evidently to some writing of hers. Mrs. Pendarves describes one of her papers as ’ an excellent piece of wit and good sense’; and says: ’ Sally would shine in an assembly composed of Tullys, Homers, and Miltons;’ at Gloucester she is like a diamond set in jet, their ’dullness makes her: brightness brighter!’ See Autobiography and Correspondence, i. 487, 586. [5] On July 13, 1731, Mrs. Pendarves tells her sister: ’ I have not heard from Sally [Sally Kirkham (Mrs. Chapone). See letter of June 17.] a good while. I am indebted to Cyrus, but I will write as soon as I can. If you write to him soon, you may say I am in some hurry preparing for my intended journey.’ She found time to write a week later. [6] Horrel, where Wesley had spent such a pleasant summer day, is a plantation of beech-trees on the crest of the hill above Stanton on its south side. There is a beautiful view from it of the village nestling among the trees below and of the church with its graceful spire. In the distance are the hills between Stanton and the Malvern Hills; and more to the north and west are the fields and meadows extending through the valley of Evesham. The Rector of Stanton, the Rev. T. W. Reynolds, to whom we owe this description, can understand how Wesley and his friends enjoyed their seat on the turf under the beech-trees. [7] Mrs.Pendarves replies to Wesley’s letter of August x2. She writes to her sister from Chester on September 10 that she and her friend Mrs. Donnellan have secured the best cabin in the Pretty Betty, for which they are to pay five guineas. They had a good voyage. On September 25 she tells her sister from Dubhn: ’ I desired Cyrus to direct any letter he wrote to me to Gloucester, but I did not consider that will double the expense, therefore I desire you will send him the direction to me here’ (Auto. and Corr. i. 292). [8] Miss Granville’s reply, endorsed by Wesley ’M[iss] Granville, Dec. 1731,’ is in the Colman Collection, and is far too important to be. omitted. It has never before been printed. Selima’s friend, about whom Wesley had written on October 3, is probably the young lady whose case her sister had laid before him on July 29. It is a relief to find that she was in happier spirits at Bath. Miss Granville’s reference to Araspes’ ’quite charming’ hymn is the first tribute to the great hymn-writer of the future, and enables us to date the beginning of Charles Wesley’s hymn-writing six years earlier than was previously known. The earliest hymns we possess were written in March 1738 on his recovery from a serious illness in Oxford. It was after his conversion on Whit Sunday 1738 that the great stream of sacred song began to flow, and never ceased till he was on his death-bed in 1788. ’ Your poetic herd ’ must have been verses sent by the brothers to their friend. See heading to letter of August 28, 1730; and for the quotation from Prior, which Wesley had probably used in writing to her, see letter of July 13, 1771 to Philothea Briggs. The letter is also interesting because of its reference to Burkitt’s Notes on the New Testament, which John Nelson had for his pillow when he and Wesley slept on the floor at St. Ives in September 1743. ’ The good Society ’ is the Holy Club, which was then in its early days; and the sitting without a fire gives a glimpse of the self-sacrifice which made it possible for Wesley to carry out his works of charity. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: 15. 1732 ======================================================================== 1732 To his Mother LINCOLN COLLEGE, February 28, 1732. DEAR MOTHER,--In the week after Easter I hope to find you a little better recovered, else our visit will give us small entertainment. Were it not that we desire to have as much as we can of yours and my father’s company while we are yet alive together, we should scarce be induced to go an hundred and twenty miles to see Epworth steeple. One consideration is enough to make me assent to his and your judgment concerning the Holy Sacrament; which is, that we cannot allow Christ’s human nature to be present in it, without allowing either con- or trans-substantiation. But that His divinity is so united to us then, as He never is but to worthy receivers, I firmly believe, though the manner of that union is utterly a mystery to me. That none but worthy receivers should find this effect is not strange to me, when I observe how small effect many means of improvement have upon an unprepared mind. Mr. Morgan and my brother were affected, as they ought, by the observations you made on that glorious subject; but though my understanding approved what was excellent, yet my heart did not feel it. Why was this, but because it was pre-engaged by those affections with which wisdom will not dwell because the animal mind cannot relish those truths which are spiritually discerned Yet I have those writings which the Good Spirit gave to that end! I have many of those which He hath since assisted His servants to give us; I have retirement to apply these to my own soul daily; I have means both of public and private prayer; and, above all, of partaking in that sacrament once a week. What shall I do to make all these blessings effectual, to gain from them that mind which was also in Christ Jesus To all who give signs of their not being strangers to it, I propose this question (and why not to you rather than any), -- Shall I quite break off my pursuit of all learning, but what immediately tends to practice I once desired to make a fair show in languages and philosophy, but it is past; there is a more excellent way: and if I cannot attain to any progress in the one without throwing up all thoughts of the other--why, fare it well! Yet a little while, and we shall all be equal in knowledge, if we are in virtue. You say you ’ have renounced the world.’ And what have I been doing all this time What have I done ever since I was born Why, I have been plunging myself into it more and more. It is enough. ’Awake, thou that sleepest.’ Is there not ’one Lord, one Spirit, one hope of our calling’ one way of attaining that hope Then I am to renounce the world, as well as you. That is the very thing I want to do; to draw off my affections from this world, and fix them on a better. But how What is the surest and the shortest way Is it not to be humble Surely this is a large step in the way. But the question recurs, How am I to do this To own the necessity of it is not to be humble. In many things you have interceded for me and prevailed. Who knows but in this too you may be successful If you can spare me only that little part of Thursday evening which you formerly bestowed upon me in another manner, I doubt not but it would be as useful now for correcting my heart as it was then for forming my judgment. [See Telford’s Wesley, p. 21.] When I observe how fast life flies away, and how slow improvement comes, I think one can never be too much afraid of dying before one has learned to live; I mean, even in the course of nature. For were I sure that ’the silver cord’ should not be violently ’loosed,’ that ’the wheel’ should not ’ be broken at the cistern,’ till it was quite worn away by its own motion, yet what a time would this give for such a work A moment to transact the business of eternity ! What are forty years in comparison of this So that were I sure of what never man yet was sure of, how little would it alter the case! How justly still might I cry out: Downward I hasten to my destined place; There none obtain Thy aid, none sing Thy praise! Soon shall I lie in death’s deep ocean drowned: Is mercy there, is sweet forgiveness found O save me yet, while on the brink I stand; Rebuke these storms, and set me safe on land ! O make my longings and Thy mercy sure! Thou art the God of power. [Prior’s Considerations on Part of the 88th Psalm.] A year ago Mr. Morgan was exceedingly well pleased with the thought of dying shortly. He will not now bear to have it named, though he can neither sleep, read, stand, nor sit. Yet without hands, or feet, or head, or heart, he is very sure his illness is not increased. Surely now he is a burthen to himself and almost useless in the world; his discharge cannot be far off. Dear mother, there is but one cause of uneasiness which I sometimes find in your behavior towards me. You perform the noblest offices of love for me, and yet blame the Fountain from whence they flow. You have more than once said you loved me too well and would strive to love me less. Now this it is I complain of. You do not think natural affection evil in itself; far from it. But you say you have but little time to stay in the world, and therefore should not have much affection for anything in it. Most true: not any of those things which perish with the world. But am I one of those If you think I am’ sick unto death,’ love me the more, and you will the more fervently pray for me that I may be healed. If you rather incline to think that there is hope of my recovery, then what if you are to leave the world in a little time Whom God hath joined can Death put asunder According to your supposition that unbodied spirits still minister to those who were their kindred according to the’ flesh, not a moment! Certainly, not long. Yet a little while, and if you return not to me, you will certainly be overtaken by Your dutiful and affectionate Son. From Richard Morgan to his Son William DUBLIN, March 15, 1732. You shall no longer be tied to any fixed allowance; what sums are necessary for your health shall immediately be remitted. But then I must tell you, it is for those uses alone, your health and education, that I mean to supply you. You must leave me to judge for myself what portion of my substance it is fit for me to dispose of to charitable uses, of which I will be the distributor myself. You have no substance of your own; and it is but common justice that what I put into your hands should be disposed of according to my directions. I am told by a most worthy clergyman that it is sinful to do otherwise. Perhaps you may think your exhibition so much your own that you may dispose of it as you please. But that is not so; because what I put into your hands is an addition to it, to afford you physic and a comfortable subsistence with reasonable and moderate recreations, which I willingly allow you. You may imagine I am not thus particular without some grounds. You can’t conceive what a noise that ridiculous Society which you are engaged in has made here. Besides the particulars of the great follies of it at Oxford, which to my great concern I have often heard repeated, it gave me sensible trouble to hear that you were noted for your going into the villages about Holt, entering into poor people’s houses, calling their children together, teaching them their prayers and catechism, and giving them a shilling at your departure. I could not but advise with a wise, pious, and learned clergyman. He told me that he has known the worst of consequences follow from such blind zeal, and plainly satisfied me that it was a thorough mistake of true piety and religion. I proposed writing to some prudent and good man at Oxford to reason with you on those points and to convince you that you were in a wrong way. He said in a generous mind, as he took yours to be, the admonition and advice of a father will make deeper impression than all the exhortation of others. He concluded that you was young as yet, and that your judgment was not come to its maturity; but as soon as your judgment improved, and on the advice of a true friend, you would see the error of the way you was in_, and think (as he does) that you may walk uprightly and safely without endeavoring to outdo all the good bishops, clergy, and other pious and good men of the present and past ages; which God Almighty give you grace and sense to understand aright. From Richard Morgan to Charles Wesley DUBLIN, September 5, 1732. From the intimacy which I understood to have been contracted between you and my dear son, I make no doubt but that you must have some concern upon you at the reading the account of his death, as I have the greatest in writing it. His distemper threw him into a fever, of which he died the 26th past about four in the morning. The Wesleys he raved of most of all in his sickness. This is the soonest that I could attempt writing anything about him since my affliction was consummated. [After giving orders for disposing of his son’s goods, he goes on:] You see I make very free with you. But the candor and generosity which I have heard you commended for embolden me to it; and I shall (I hope) find some opportunities to make some amends, and beg you will upon all occasions let me know when I can be serviceable to you in anything in this kingdom. If I can, you may be assured I will. This is a melancholy subject which I am obliged to write’ to you upon. I must therefore conclude, and for this time subscribe myself Your afflicted but affectionate humble servant, RICHARD MORGAN. To Richard Morgan OXON, October 18, 1732 SIR, -- The occasion of my giving you this trouble is of a very extraordinary nature. On Sunday last I was informed (as no doubt you will be ere long) that my brother and I had killed your son; that the rigorous fasting which he had imposed upon himself by our advice had increased his illness and hastened his death. Now, though, considering it in itself, ’ it is a very small thing with me to be judged by man’s judgment’; yet, as the being thought guilty of so mischievous an imprudence might make me less able to do the work I came into the world for, I am obliged to clear myself of it by observing to you, as I have done to others, that your son left off fasting about a year and an half since; and that it is not yet half a year since I began to practice it. I must not let slip this occasion of doing my part towards giving you a juster notion of some other particulars, relating both to him and myself, which have been industriously misrepresented to you. In March last he received a letter from you, which, being then not able to read, he desired me to read to him; several of the expressions whereof I perfectly remember, and shall do till I too am called hence. I then determined that, if God was pleased to take away your son before me, I would justify him and myself; which I now do with all plainness and simplicity, as both my character and cause require. In one practice for which you blamed your son, I am only concerned as a friend, not as a partner. That, therefore, I shall consider first. Your own account of it was in effect this: ’He frequently went into poor people’s houses in the villages about Holt, called their children together, and instructed them in their duty to God, their neighbor, and themselves. He likewise explained to them the necessity of private as well as public prayer, and provided them with such forms as were best suited to their several capacities. And being well apprised how much the success of his endeavors depended on their goodwill towards him, to win upon their affections he sometimes distributed among them a little of that money which he had saved from gaming and the other fashionable expenses of the place.’ This is the first charge against him; upon which all that I shall observe is, that I will refer it to your own judgment whether it be fitter to have a place in the catalogue of his faults or of those virtues for which he is ’now numbered among the sons of God.’ If all the persons concerned in ’that ridiculous Society, whose follies you have so often heard repeated,’ could but give such a proof of their deserving the glorious title [The Holy Club.] which was once bestowed upon them, they would be well contented that their ’ lives ’ too ’ should be counted madness, and their end thought to be without honor.’ But the truth is, their title to holiness. stands upon much less stable foundations; as you will easily perceive when you know the ground of this wonderful outcry, which it seems England is not wide enough to contain. In November 1729, at which time I came to reside at Oxford, your son, my brother and myself, and one more agreed to spend three or four evenings in a week together. Our design was to read over the classics, which we had before read in private, on common nights, and on Sunday some book in divinity. In the summer following, Mr. Morgan told me he had called at the jail, to see a man that was condemned for killing his wife; and that, from the talk he had with one of the debtors, he verily believed that it would do much good if any one would be at the pains now and then of speaking with them. This he so frequently repeated, that on the 24th of August, 1730, my brother and I walked down with him to the Castle. We were so well satisfied with our conversation there, that we agreed to go thither once or twice a week; which we had not done long, before he desired me, August 31, to go with him to see a poor woman in the town who was sick. In this employment too, when we came to reflect upon it, we believed that it would be worth while to spend an hour or two in a week; provided the minister of the parish in which any such person was were not against it. But that we might not depend wholly on our own judgments, I wrote an account to my father of our whole design; withal begging that he, who had lived seventy years in the world, and seen as much of it as most private men have ever done, would advise us whether we had yet gone too far, and whether we should now stand still or go forward. Part of his answer, dated September 28, 1730, was this: And now, as to your own designs and employments, what can I say less of them than Valde probo; and that I have the highest reason to bless God that He has given me two sons together in Oxford to whom He has given grace and courage to turn the war against the world and the devil, which is the best way to conquer them They have but one more enemy to combat with, the flesh; which if they take care to subdue by fasting and prayer, there will be no more for them to do, but to proceed steadily in the same course, and expect the crown which fadeth not away. You have reason to bless God, as I do, that you have so fast a friend as Mr. Morgan, who, I see, in the most difficult service, is ready to break the ice for you. You do not know of how much good that poor wretch who killed his wife has been the providential occasion. I think I must adopt Mr. Morgan to be my son, together with you and your brother Charles; and when I have such a ternion to prosecute that war, wherein I am now miles emeritus, I shall not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate. I am afraid lest the main objection you make against your going on in the business with the prisoners may secretly proceed from flesh and blood. For who can harm you if you are followers of that which is so good, and which will be one of the marks by which the Shepherd of Israel will know His sheep at the last Day though if it were possible for you to suffer a little in the cause, you would have a confessor’s reward. You own none but such as are out of their senses would be prejudiced against your acting in this manner, but say, ’These are they that need a physician.’ But what if they will not accept of one who will be welcome to the poor prisoners Go on, then, in God’s name in the path to which your Savior has directed you, and that track wherein your father has gone before you! For when I was an undergraduate at Oxford, I visited those in the Castle there, and reflect on it with great satisfaction to this day. Walk as prudently as you can, though not fearfully, and my heart and prayers are with you. Your first regular step is to consult with him (if any such there be) who has a jurisdiction over the prisoners; and the next is to obtain the direction and approbation of your Bishop. This is Monday morning, at which time I shall never forget you. If it be possible, I should be glad to see you all three here in the fine end of the summer. But if I cannot have that satisfaction, I am sure I can reach you every day, though you were beyond the Indies. Accordingly, to Him who is everywhere I now heartily commit you, as being Your most affectionate and joyful Father. In pursuance of these directions, I immediately went to Mr. Gerard, the Bishop of Oxford’s chaplain, who was likewise the person that took care of the prisoners when any were condemned to die (at other times they were left to their own care): I proposed to him our design of serving them as far as we could, and my own intention to preach there once a month, if the Bishop approved of it. He much commended our design, and said he would answer for the Bishop’s approbation, to whom he would take the first opportunity of mentioning it. It was not long before he informed me he had done so, and that his lordship not only gave his permission, but was greatly pleased with the undertaking, and hoped it would have the desired success. Soon after, a gentleman of Merton College, who was one of our little company, which now consisted of five persons, acquainted us that he had been rallied the day before for being a member of The Holy Club; and that it was become a common topic of mirth at his college, where they had found out several of our customs, to which we were ourselves utter strangers. Upon this I consulted my father again, in whose answer were these words: December I. This day I received both yours, and this evening in our course of reading I thought I found an answer that would be more proper than any I myself could dictate; though since it will not be easily translated, I send it in the original. as p pepa t paase, pepessea t aa [2 Cor. vii. 4: ’ Great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful.’ (R.V. ’Great is my glorying on your behalf: I am filled with comfort, I overflow with joy.’)] What would you be Would you be angels I question whether a mortal can achieve to a greater degree of perfection than steadily to do good, and for that very reason patiently and meekly to suffer evil. For my part, on the present view of your actions and designs, my daily prayers are that God would keep you humble; and then I m sure that if you continue to suffer for righteousness’ sake, though it be but in a lower degree, the Spirit of grace and glory shall in some good measure ’rest upon you.’ Be never weary of well-doing: never look back; for you know the prize and the crown are before you: though I can scarce think so meanly of you as that you would be discouraged with the crackling of thorns under a pot. Be not high-minded, but fear. Preserve an equal temper of mind under whatever treatment you meet with from a not very just or well-natured world. Bear no more sail than is necessary, but steer steady. The less you value yourselves for these unfashionable duties (as there is no such thug as works of supererogation), the more all good and wise men will value you, if they see your actions are of a piece; or, which is infinitely more, He by whom actions and intentions are weighed will both accept, esteem, and reward you. Upon this encouragement we still continued to sit together as usual; to confirm one another as well as we could in our resolutions to communicate as often as we had an opportunity (which is here once a week); and to do what service we could to our acquaintance, the prisoners, and two or three poor families in the town. But the outcry daily increasing, that we might show what ground there was for it, we proposed to our friends, or opponents, as we had opportunity, these or the like questions: -- I. Whether it does not concern all men of all conditions to imitate Him, as much as they can, ’ who went about doing good’ Whether all Christians are not concerned in that command, ’ While we have time, let us do good to all men’ Whether we shall not be more happy hereafter, the more good we do now Whether we can be happy at all hereafter, unless we have, according to our power, ’fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those that are sick and in prison’; and made all these actions subservient to an higher purpose, even the saving of souls from death Whether it be not our bounden duty always to remember that He did more for us than we can do for Him, who assures us, ’Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me’ II. Whether, upon these considerations, we may not try to do good to our acquaintance Particularly, whether we may not try to convince them of the necessity of being Christians Whether of the consequent necessity of being scholars Whether of the necessity of method and industry, in order to either learning or virtue Whether we may not try to persuade them to confirm and increase their industry, by communicating as often as they can Whether we may not mention to them the authors whom we conceive to have wrote best on those subjects Whether we may not assist them, as we are able, from time to time, to form resolutions upon what they read in those authors, and to execute them with steadiness and perseverance III. Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are hungry, naked, or sick In particular, whether, if we know any necessitous family, we may not give them a little food, clothes, or physic, as they want Whether we may not give them, if they can read, a Bible, Common Prayer Book, or Whole Duty of Man Whether we may not now and then inquire how they have used them; explain what they don’t understand, and enforce what they do Whether we may not enforce upon them more especially the necessity of private prayer and of frequenting the church and sacrament Whether we may not contribute what little we are able toward having their children clothed and taught to read Whether we may not take care that they be taught their Catechism and short prayers for morning and evening IV. Lastly: Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are in prison In particular, Whether we may not release such well-disposed persons as remain in prison for small sums Whether we may not lend smaller sums to those that are of any trade, that they may procure themselves tools and materials to work with Whether we may not give to them who appear to want it most a little money, or clothes, or physic Whether we may not supply as many as are serious enough to read them with a Bible and Whole Duty of Man Whether we may not, as we have opportunity, explain and enforce these upon them, especially with respect to public and private prayer and the blessed sacrament I do not remember that we met with any person who answered any of these questions in the negative, or who even doubted whether it were not lawful to apply to this use that time and money which we should else have spent in other diversions. But several we met with who increased our little stock of money for the prisoners and the poor by subscribing something quarterly to it; so that the more persons we proposed our designs to, the more were we confirmed in the belief of their innocency, and the more determined to pursue them, in spite of the ridicule which increased fast upon us during the winter. However, in spring I thought it could not be improper to desire farther instructions from those who were wiser and better than ourselves; and accordingly (on May 18, 1731) I wrote a particular account of all our proceedings to a clergyman [This was probably Joseph Hoole, Vicar of Haxey, whose young brother, Nathaniel, was Samuel Wesley’s curate, for the benefit of whom he wrote his noble Letter to a Curate. Hoole was in the house at Epworth at the time of the mysterious knockings, and Mrs. Wesley wrote him a full account of the fire in 1709. John Wesley often visited him at Haxey while serving as his father’s curate. See letter of Dec. 6, 1726.] of known wisdom and integrity. After having informed him of all the branches of our design as clearly and simply as I could, I next acquainted him with the success it had met with, in the following words: ’ Almost as soon as we had made our first attempts this way, some of the men of wit in Christ Church entered the lists against us; and, between mirth and anger, made a pretty many reflections upon the Sacramentarians, as they were pleased to call us. Soon after, their allies at Merton changed our title, and did us the honor of styling us The Holy Club. But most of them being persons of well-known characters, they had not the good fortune to gain any proselytes from the sacrament, till a gentleman, eminent for learning, and well esteemed for piety, joining them, told his nephew that if he dared to go to the weekly communion any longer he would immediately turn him out of doors. That argument, indeed, had no success: the young gentleman communicated the next week; upon which his uncle, having again tried to convince him that he was in the wrong way by shaking him by the throat to no purpose, changed his method, and by mildness prevailed upon him to absent from it the Sunday following; as he has done five Sundays in six ever since. This much delighted our gay opponents, who increased their numbers apace; especially when, shortly after, one of the seniors of the College having been with the Doctor, upon his return from him sent for two young gentlemen severally, who had communicated weekly for some time, and was so successful in his exhortations that for the future they proposed to do it only three times a year. About this time there was a meeting (as one who was present at it informed your son) of several of the officers and seniors of the College, wherein it was consulted what would be the speediest way to stop the progress of enthusiasm in it. The result we know not, only it was soon publicly reported that Dr. Terry [’Terry’ is inserted in a copy of the first edition of the Works now in Richmond College. Thomas Terry, of Canterbury, matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford; Proctor 1708-9, Regius Professor of Greek .1712-35, Canon of Christ Church 1713-35’ Chaplain to the King and Rector of Chalfont St. Giles 1725-35. He died Sept. 15, 1735, and was buried in Christ Church Cathedral.] and the censors were going to blow up The Godly Club.’ (This was now our common title; though we were sometimes dignified with that of The Enthusiasts or The Reforming Club.) Part of the answer I received was as follows: GOOD SIR,--A pretty while after the date, yours came to my hand. I waived my answer till I had an opportunity of consulting your father, who, upon all accounts, is a more proper judge of the affair than I am. But I could never find a fit occasion for it. As to my own sense of the matter, I confess I cannot but heartily approve that serious and religious turn of mind that prompts you and your associates to those pious and charitable offices; and can have no notion of that man’s religion, or concern for the honor of the University, that opposes you, as far as your design respects the Colleges. I should be loath to send a son of mine to any seminary where his conversing with virtuous young men, whose professed design of meeting together at proper times was to assist each other in forming good resolutions and encouraging one another to execute them with constancy and steadiness, was inconsistent with any received maxims or rules of life among the members. As to the other branch of your design: as the town is divided into parishes, each of which has its proper incumbent, and as there is probably an ecclesiastic who has the spiritual charge of the prisoners, prudence may direct you to consult them. For though I dare not say you would be too officious, should you of your own mere motion seek out the persons that want your instructions and charitable contributions; yet, should you have the concurrence of their proper pastor, your good offices would be more regular and less liable to censure. Your son was now at Holt: however, we continued to meet at our usual times, though our little affairs went on but heavily without him. But at our return from Lincolnshire in September we had the pleasure of seeing him again; when, though he could not be so active with us as formerly, yet we were exceeding glad to spend what time we could in talking and reading with him. It was a little before this time my brother and I were at London, when going into a bookseller’s shop (Mr. Rivington, in St. Paul’s Churchyard [Charles Rivington published The Christian’s Pattern (Wesley’s translation of Kempis) in 1735. See letter of May 28, 1725,n.]), after some other conversation, he asked us whether we lived in town; and upon our answering, ‘No; at Oxford,’ – ‘Then, gentlemen,’ said he, ‘let me earnestly recommend to your acquaintance a friend I have there, Mr. Clayton, of Brazen-nose.’ [John Clayton, son of a Manchester bookseller, was born in 1709, entered Brasenose in 1726, and was Hulme’s exhibitioner in 1729. He was college tutor. He returned to Manchester in 1733, and became Chaplain of the Collegiate Church. Wesley visited him there on his return from Georgia; but after Wesley’s evangelical conversion Clayton held aloof from him. See Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 24-56.] Of this, having small leisure for contracting new acquaintance, we took no notice for the present. But in the spring following (April 20), Mr. Clayton meeting me in the street, and giving Mr. Rivington’s service, I desired his company to my room, and then commenced our acquaintance. At the first opportunity I acquainted him with our whole design, which he immediately and heartily closed with; and not long after, Mr. Morgan having then left Oxford, we fixed two evenings in a week to meet on, partly to talk upon that subject, and partly to read something in practical divinity. The two points whereunto, by the blessing of God and your son’s help, we had before attained, we still endeavor to hold fast: I mean, the doing what good we can; and, in order thereto, communicating as oft as we have an opportunity. To these, by the advice of Mr. Clayton, we have added a third -- the observing the fasts of the Church, the general neglect of which we can by no means apprehend to be a lawful excuse for neglecting them. And in the resolution to adhere to these and all things else which we are convinced God requires at our hands, we trust that we shall persevere till He calls us too to give an account of our stewardship. As for the names of Methodists, Supererogation Men, and so on, with which some of our neighbors are pleased to compliment us, we do not conceive ourselves under any obligation to regard them, much less to take them for arguments. To the law and to the testimony we appeal, whereby we ought to be judged. If by these it can be proved that we are in an error, we will immediately’ and gladly retract it; if not, we have not so learned Christ as to renounce any part of His service, though men should say all manner of evil against us, with more judgment and as little truth as hitherto. We do, indeed, use all the lawful means we know to prevent the good which is in us from being evil spoken of: but if the neglect of known duties be the one condition of securing our reputation -- why, fare it well; we know whom we have believed, and what we thus lay out He will pay us again. Your son already stands before the judgment-seat of Him who judges righteous judgment; at the brightness of whose presence the clouds remove: his eyes are open, and he sees clearly whether it was ’blind zeal and a thorough mistake of true religion that hurried him on in the error of his way’; or whether he acted like a faithful and wise servant, who, from a just sense that his time was short, made haste to finish his work before his Lord’s coming, that when laid in the balance he might not be found wanting. I have now largely and plainly laid before you the real ground of all the strange outcry you have heard; and am not without hope that by this fairer representation of it than you probably ever received before, both you and the clergyman you formerly mentioned may have a more favorable opinion of a good cause, though under an ill name. Whether you have or no, I shall ever acknowledge my best services to be due to yourself and your family, both for the generous assistance you have given my father, [Richard Morgan subscribed for five copies of Samuel Wesley’s Dissertation on Job; his son also was a subscriber. See letter of Oct. 15 1735.] and for the invaluable advantages your son has (under God) bestowed on, sir, Your ever obliged and most obedient servant. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Mrs. Wesley wrote on February 21, 1732. She was in less pain than she had been in; but she depreciates herself: ’ I never did much good in my life when in the best health and rigor.’ She is much. averse to writing anything about her way of education: ’ It cannot, I think, be of service to any one to know how I, that have lived such a retired life, for so many years (ever since I was with child of you) used to employ my time and care in bringing up my children.’ Her son had told her about a friend’s views as to the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, and she gives her opinion: ’ Surely the divine presence of our Lord, thus applying the virtue and merits of the great Atonement to each true believer, makes the consecrated bread more than a sign of Christ’s body; since, by His so doing, we receive not only the sign but with it the thing signified, all the benefits of His incarnation and passion; but still, however this divine institution may seem to others, to me it is full of mystery.’ For some time Wesley had been concerned about William Morgan’s illness, and told his mother of it. She replies in the same letter: ’ I am heartily sorry. for Mr. Morgan. It is no wonder that his illness should at last affect his mind; it is rather to be wondered that it has not done it long ago. It is a common case, and what all who are afflicted with any indisposition a great while together experience as well as he.’ See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, pp. 167-8; and the next two letters. [2] The Morgan letters are invaluable in tracing the course of Methodism in Oxford. William Morgan, the young Irish student who was one of the first members of the Holy Club in I729, was a Commoner of Christ Church. He led the Wesleys to visit the prisoners at the Castle in Oxford and to engage in visiting the sick. His father, however, did not approve of his charitable gifts, and wrote him this letter, saying that he was only willing to supply money for his health and education. Morgan, who had been in ill-health at Holt in June I731 left Oxford on June 5, 1732, for Dublin, and died on August 25. On September 5 his father sent Charles Wesley an account of the sad event. Samuel Wesley, jun., wrote some beautiful in memoriam verses, which are prefixed to Wesley’s Journal. For further details of Morgan’s illness, see letter of November 22, 1733. [3] On November 25, 1732, Richard Morgan wrote to thank the Wesleys and ’the author of those lines you sent me,’ that is their brother Samuel, for the regard they had shown to his son’s memory. The letter is given in the Journal, viii. 260-1. Wesley printed this letter with some variations as an introduction to his Journal, where valuable notes on it axe given in the Standard Edition. The ’ one more ’ who met with the Wesleys and Morgan in November 1729 was Robert Kirkham; the fifth member of the Holy Club was probably Mr. Boyce. In the letter of December 1, 1730, the Rector also wrote: ’ I hear my son John has the honor of being styled the "Father of the Holy Club": if it be so, I am sure I must be the grandfather of it; and I need not say that I had rather any of my sons should be so dignified and distinguished than to have the title of His Holiness.’ He urged them to show the manly firmness to their persecutors which was highly becoming to a mind conscious of acting well. See Moore’s Wesley, i. 171 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: 16. 1733 ======================================================================== 1733 To his Mother February 15, 1733. DEAR MOTHER,--I am glad to hear that my father continues recovering, though it can be but very slowly, considering how his strength is exhausted. ’Tis well if this time spring does not betray him into a relapse, by tempting him out before his health is confirmed. Of poor Becky my sister Molly says not one word, so I presume she is as she was; and hope I may make the same inference as to you--viz. that you are only half tired to death. The more I think of the reason you gave me at Epworth for speaking little upon religious subjects, the less it satisfies me. ’ We shall all be of your mind when we are of your age.’ But who will assure us that we shall ever be of that age Or suppose we should, is it not better to be of that mind sooner Is not a right faith of use at thirty as well as at sixty and are not the actions that flow from a right faith as rewardable now as then I trust they are, and do therefore earnestly desire that, whatever general or particular rules of life your own reflection and experience have suggested to you, I may be tried whether I will conform to them or no. If I do not, the blame lights on me. At this season especially I would not neglect any help for mortifying the flesh and the lusts thereof, for throwing off the affections of the earthly Adam, and putting on the image of the heavenly. If I am to be surrounded with the snares of flesh and blood yet many years, will you not give me the best advices to break through them that you can If I, as well as you, am soon to be laid in the balance, so much the rather assist me, that I may not be found wanting. You observed when I was with you that I was very indifferent as to having or not having Epworth living. I was, indeed, utterly unable to determine either way; and that for this reason: I knew if I could stand my ground here and approve myself a faithful minister of our blessed Jesus, by honor and dishonor, through evil report and good report, then there was not a place under heaven like this for improvement in every good work. But whether I can stem the torrent which I saw then, but see now much more, rolling down from all sides upon me, that I know not. True, there is One who can yet either command the great water-flood that it shall not come nigh me, or make way for His redeemed to pass through. But then something must be done on my part; and should He give me even that most equitable condition, ’ according to thy faith be it unto thee,’ yet how shall I fulfill it Why, He will look to that too; my father and you helping together in your prayers, that our faith fail us not. --I am, dear mother, Your dutiful and affectionate Son. From Richard Morgan to John Wesley March 10, 1733. DEAR SIR,--I am favored with yours of the 28th past, and am very sorry to find by it that anything has happened to give you any uneasiness. I give you my word and honor that I never read or showed your letter to me of October last to any mortal, but laid it up safe, and have it so still; neither did I communicate to any one the contents of my letter to my poor son which you make mention of: so that they must have come to be known by some other means in England. I have indeed taken occasion to a very few, with whom I had some discourse formerly on the subject of those reports then spread abroad of my son and his associates, to vindicate him and them from those aspersions from the several hints and accounts you was so kind to furnish me with in your epistle, but never produced the letter itself. I am sure that both you and your learned friends in England are much better judges how to manage the pamphlet you mention than I can pretend to be; and am the more at a loss to give any opinion concerning it, because I am not able to collect from your letter whether it is intended as a satire or vindication. I am apt to believe that you are so kind as to be under some concern lest, if this pamphlet should fall into my way, it might give me some trouble. [ An octavo pamphlet of 30 pages: ’The Oxford Methodists: Being an Account of some Young Gentlemen in that City, in Derision so called; setting forth their Rise and Designs, &c.’ By a gentleman who sought an interview with them and defended them against the attack in Fogg’s Weekly Journal of Dec. 9, 1732. The pamphlet appeared in Feb. 1733. See Tyerman’s Wesley, i. 85-8; Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 1.] But pray let no such thought disturb you, for you fully satisfied me before in everything: nothing that your adversaries can say or write can alter my good opinion both of you and your actions. I am really sorry that your good designs should be so misrepresented and misconstrued: I hope in time they may meet with due rewards in this world; I am sure they will in the next. I wrote to your brother (the business follows)--If ever it lies in my power to oblige either him or you, I shall most cheerfully do it; for I am with great sincerity his, and, dear sir, Your very affectionate humble servant, RICHARD MORGAN. To his Father June 13, 1733. The effects of my last journey, [The Diary for May 1733 says, ’Journey to Epworth 1.0.6.’ He spent Sunday with his friend Clayton in Manchester, and then went on to Epworth.] I believe, will make me more cautious of staying any time from Oxford for the future; at least, till I have no pupils to take care of, which probably will be within a year or two. One of my young gentlemen told me at my return that he was more and more afraid of singularity; another, that he had read an excellent piece of Mr. Locke’s;[ 2 John Locke (1632-1704) His nephew, Lord Chancellor King, had a decisive influence on Wesley’s ecclesiastical views (see letter of Dec. 30, 1745, p. 54). The piece referred to is that on’ Authority ’(Essay, folio ed. p. 341): ‘The wrong measure or probability which keeps in ignorance or error more people than all the other together is the giving up our assent to the common received opinions, either. of our friends or party, neighborhood or country.’] which had convinced him of the mischief of regarding authority. Both of them agreed that the observing of Wednesday as a fast was an unnecessary singularity; the Catholic Church (that is, the majority of it) having long since repealed by contrary custom the injunction she formerly gave concerning it. [Robert Nelson, the Nonjuror (1656-1715), whose Festivals and Fasts was much commended in the Holy Club, says of the ’ancient Christians’: ’ Their weekly fasts were kept on Wednesdays and Fridays, because on the one our Lord was betrayed and on the other crucified. These fasts were called their stations, from the military word of keeping their guard, as Tertullian observes.’ See letter of Jan. 13, 1735.] A third, who could not yield to this argument, has been convinced by a fever and Dr. Frewin. [Richard Frewin (1681-1761), of Christ Church, physician. and Camden Professor of Ancient History, 1727, See letter of Jan. 14, 1734.] Our seven-and-twenty communicants at St. Mary’s were on Monday shrunk to five; and the day before, the last of Mr. Clayton’s pupils who continued with us informed me that he did not design to meet us any more. My ill success, as they call it, seems to be what has frightened every one away from a falling house. On Sunday I was considering the matter a little more nearly; and imagined that all the ill consequences of my singularity were reducible to three--diminution of fortune, loss of friends and of reputation. As to my fortune, I well know, though perhaps others do not, that I could not have borne a larger than I have; and as for that most plausible excuse for desiring it, ’ While I have so little, I cannot do the good I would,’ I ask, Can you do the good God would have you do It is enough ! Look no farther. For friends, they were either trifling or serious: if triflers, fare them well -- a noble escape; if serious, those who are more serious are left, whom the others would rather have opposed than forwarded in the service they have done and still do us. If it be said, ’ But these may leave you too; for they are no firmer than the others were ’: first, I doubt that fact; but, next, suppose they should, we hope then they would only teach us a nobler and harder lesson than they have done hitherto--’ It is better to trust in the Lord than to put any confidence in man.’ And as for reputation, though it be a glorious instrument of advancing our Master’s service, yet there is a better than that--a clean heart, a single eye, a soul full of God! A fair exchange, if by the loss of reputation we can purchase the lowest degree of purity of heart 1 We beg my mother and you would not cease to work together with us, that, whatever we lose, we may gain this; and that, having tasted of this good gift, we may count all things else but dung and dross in comparison of it. To his Mother August 17, 1753, The thing that gives offence here is the being singular with regard to time, expense, and company. This is evident beyond exception, from the case of Mr. Smith, [William Smith, Fellow of Lincoln, and apparently one of the Oxford Methodists. On Aug. L x732, Clayton wrote to Wesley (who was then in London, where he was elected a member of the S.P.C.K., and visited William Law at Puthey) that since he had left Oxford no one had attacked Smith and himself. ’ I have gone every day to Lincoln, big with expectations to hear of some mighty attack made upon Mr. Smith; but, I thank God, I have always been disappointed: for not one of the Fellows has once so much as tried to shake him or to convert him from the right way, &c.’ After his return from Georgia, at Oxford on Feb. 11, 1737, Charles Wesley (see his Journal, i. 68) exhorts ’poor languid Smith’ to resume all his rules of holy living.] one of our Fellows, who no sooner began to husband his time, to retrench unnecessary expenses, and to avoid his irreligious acquaintance, but he was set upon, by not only all those acquaintance, but many others too, as if he had entered into a conspiracy to cut all their throats; though to this day he has not advised any single person, unless in a word or two and by accident, to act as he did in any of those instances. It is true, indeed, that ’the devil hates offensive war most ’; and that whoever tries to rescue more than his own soul from his hands, will have more enemies and meet with greater opposition than if he was content with ’having his own life for a prey.’ That I try to do this is likewise certain; but I cannot say whether I ’rigorously impose any observances on others ’ till I know what that phrase means. What I do is this: when I am entrusted with a person who is first to understand and practice, and then to teach, the law of Christ, I endeavor, by an intermixture of reading and conversation, to show him what that law is--that is, to renounce all insubordinate love of the world, and to love and obey God with all his strength. When he appears seriously sensible of this, I propose to him the means God hath commanded him to use in order to that end; and, a week, or a month, or a year after, as the state of his soul seems to require it, the several prudential means recommended by wise and good men. As to the times, order, measure, and manner wherein these are to be proposed, I depend upon the Holy Spirit to direct me, in and by my own experience and reflection, joined to the advices of my religious friends here and elsewhere. Only two rules it is my principle to observe in all cases: first, to begin, continue, and end all my advices in the spirit of meekness, as knowing that’ the wrath ’ or severity’ of man worketh not the righteousness of God ’; and, secondly, to add to meekness longsuffering, in pursuance of a rule which I fixed long since--never to give up any one till I have tried him at least ten years. How long hath God had pity on thee If the wise and good will believe those falsehoods which the bad invent, because I endeavour to save myself and my friends from them, then I shall lose my reputation, even among them, for, though not perhaps good, yet the best actions I ever did in my life. This is the very case. I try to act as my Lord commands: ill men say all manner of evil of me, and good men believe them. There is a way, and there is but one, of making my peace: God forbid I should ever take it! I have as many pupils as I need, and as many friends; when more are better for me, I shall have more. If I have no more pupils after these are gone from me, I shall then be glad of a curacy near you: if I have, I shall take it as a signal that I am to remain here. Whether here or there, my desire is to know and feel that I am nothing, that I have nothing, and that I can do nothing. For whenever I am empty of myself, then know I of a surety that neither friends nor foes, nor any creature, can hinder me from being ’filled with all the fullness of God.’ Let not my father’s or your prayers be ever slack in behalf of Your affectionate Son. From Richard Morgan to Charles Wesley September 6, 1733. DEAR SIR,--Having demonstration of yours and your brother’s sincerity and friendship, I desire your consulting together and to give me your opinion in this nice point. I make no doubt but you have heard from my dear son Will that I have one other, now my only son. It is now three years and a quarter since he left school, having been then fit to enter the University, and at least as good a scholar as his brother was when he went to Oxford. I then purchased an office for him in the Law, which diverted me from sending him to the University. I fear he has read but very little of Greek or Latin since, and that he has forgot a great deal of what he had learned at school; but I don’t think his parts very bad. He was nineteen years of age last July, and is very lusty of his age, I believe 5 foot xo inches high. He has been somewhat gay and gone sometimes to plays and balls, but addicted to no vice. He has often wished rather to have been put forward in his learning than to stick to an office; which, if practicable, I am now inclined to indulge him .in. Then pray be so kind as to give me yours and your brother’s opinion, whether in two years he may attain to a tolerable knowledge of the Latin and Logic and what other learning you think proper to qualify him for the study of the Law, that he may then commence in the Inns of Court; whether you would advise to enter him a Commoner or Gentleman Commoner, and what may be the expense of maintaining him decently in either quality. If it be advisable to put him in this new way of life, you may be sure I can think of no other for his tutor but yourself. I am heartily glad to hear of the recovery of the good old gentleman your father, to whom and your good brother pray my best respects; and believe me to be, Most sincerely and affectionately yours, RICHARD MORGAN. Pray don’t delay favoring me with your answer about my son. The more I think of this new scheme, the fender I am of it, and therefore would lose no more time. Be so kind as to look out for proper chambers for him, at least as good (if to be had) as those his brother had, the rent to commence from next Michaelmas; for I don’t despair of his being with you by that time if you advise it, and will send Mr. Lasher’s money by him when I know how much it is: and pray write immediately to Bristol to stop sending off the books, and order them back to Oxford. My Lord Primate being now in the country, I don’t care to wait for his franking this, the postage of which I will order to be repaid you. Pray let me know if you be yet in Holy Orders, [Charles Wesley was ordained deacon on Sept. 21, and priest Sept. 29, 1735.] or if not when you expect to be, that I may not mistake in addressing to you. From Richard Morgan to Charles Wesley October 20, 1733. DEAR SIR,--Yours and your brother’s favors of the 14th September I received, and most greatly esteem the candor, generosity, and apparent integrity of both of you. I readily acquiesce under your opinions, and I expect that my son will sail to-morrow to make the best of his way to Oxford. My dear son Will’s books, &c., arrived here, which were reshipped to-day, [See previous letter and that of Sept. 5, 1732.] with a few more books and necessaries, for Bristol, with directions to forward them to your brother at Lincoln College. Young lawyers and other gentlemen here have persuaded my son that he should be pointed at and slighted if entered a Commoner at his age and stature. I have reasoned with him of the liberties and inconveniences that Gentlemen Commoners are exposed to. In answer he has given me the greatest assurances that the station shall have no bad influence on him, but that he will be as conformable to all the rules and discipline of the College as if he were a servitor; that he is only desirous to enter a Gentleman Commoner in order to have a little superiority of his contemporaries, that he may not be slighted or despised by them. Therefore I am willing to comply with his desires, and desire he may be entered a Gentleman Commoner of Lincoln under my good friend your brother’s tuition. I have not communicated this my resolution to my son, but told him that I would submit it entirely to Mr. Wesley in what quality to admit him, chiefly that he may think himself under obligations to his tutor for gratifying him in his desires and be the more influenced by his admonitions. He goes as well rigged and with as great a quantity of all sorts of apparel as I believe a Gentleman Commoner need be furnished with, so that I think he will have occasion to buy but little for a year or two to come. You are pleased to say you have 9 5s. 9d. in your hands towards paying Mr. Lasher’s debt of 20 17s. 6d. You observe that there is some expense unknown, and still to be charged, for entering the boxes at the custom-house. I shall send 50 by my son, out of which please to make up Mr. Lasher’s sum and the custom-house expenses; the remainder, after his traveling charges, is to be deposited with his tutor for the necessary uses. He will be so kind as to let me know all further necessary payments and allowances, which shall punctually be answered. I shall not value the quantum, so that it be for my son’s benefit and advantage. I omitted acquainting you with one infirmity of his, that he has a bad sight. I can’t call it the near sight, but a dull optic; so that he will require a good print and the use of glasses in his private reading. He is happy in an extraordinary memory, and people flatter me that his parts are good. He makes the largest promises of diligence, &c., whether Commoner or Gentleman Commoner. I have resolved to pay his tutor 10 guineas a year, and I beg that a proper chamber may be provided for him against his coming. I shall write by myself to your brother, to whom this is designed in conjunction with you. A thousand thanks to you and your good brother from Your most obliged and most affectionate RICHARD MORGAN. From Richard Morgan to John Wesley DUBLIN, November 22, 1733. REVEREND SIR, -- I had the favor of yours, and am very thankful for your care and tenderness about my son, who I am sure will observe your advice and directions in everything. 11y concern about my only son brings the misfortunes of my other son fresh into my mind, and obliges me now to impart to you, and only to you, what I have hitherto concealed from all men as far as it could be kept secret. After he had spent about six weeks with me in Dublin, and the physicians having agreed that the air at Oxford was better for his health than the Irish air, when I was obliged to take a journey with my Lord Primate into his diocese, my dear son was to set out on his journey to England the same day, which he accordingly did. He rode an easy pad, and was to make easy journeys through part of this kingdom to see some relations in the way, and to take shipping at Cork, from which there is a short passage to Bristol, and from thence the journey not great to Oxford. He traveled twelve miles the first day, attended by that careful servant that was with him at Oxford. The servant observed him to act and talk lightly and incoherently that day. He slept little or none at night, but often cried out that the house was on fire, and used other wild expressions. The second day he grew worse, and threw his bridle over the horse’s head, and would neither guide him himself nor let the man guide him, whom he charged to stay behind, saying that God would guide him. The horse turned about, went in side-roads, and went to a disused quarry filled with water to drink, where my poor child fell off, and had then like to have been lost, the servant not daring to do but as he bid him, whom he often beat and struck. The servant then, finding him deprived of all understanding and outrageous, by great art and management brought him back to Dublin. Two of our most eminent physicians and the Surgeon-General were brought to attend him; an express was sent after me, with whom I hastened back to town. He was put into a room [up] two pair of stairs and the sashes nailed down; yet he found an opportunity to run to one of the windows, tore it down, though nailed, and was more than half out, before he could be catched, but was happily saved. He was raving mad, and three men set over him to watch him and hold, and by the direction of the physicians he was threatened with ropes and chains, which were produced to him and rattled. In his madness he used frequently to say that enthusiasm was his madness, repeated often ’Oh religious madness!’ that they had hindered him from being now with God, meaning their hindering him from throwing himself out at the window, and named some other persons and things that I shan’t mention; but in his greatest rage never cursed or swore or used any profane expressions. Some have told me since that they looked upon him to be disordered some time before in his head. But God was pleased to take him to Himself in seven days’ time, which no doubt the blisterings and severities used by the physicians and surgeon for his recovery precipitated. These are melancholy reflections, which make me earnestly desire that my surviving son should not go into those over-zealous ways which (as is apprehended) contributed to this great misfortune which finished my other son. I would have him live a sober, virtuous, and religious life, and to go to church and sacrament according to the statutes and customs of his College; but for young people to pretend to be more pure and holy than the rest of mankind is a dangerous experiment. As to charitable subscriptions and contributions, I wholly debar him from making any because he has not one shilling of his own but what I give him; which I appropriate wholly to his maintenance, education, and moderate and inoffensive recreation and pleasures; and I believe as a casuist you will agree with me that it is injustice, and consequently sinful rather than virtue, to apply my money any other way than as I appropriate it. He must leave me to measure out my own charities, and to distribute them in such manner and proportion as I shall think proper. I hope you will not suspect, from anything I have said, that I intend the least reflection or disrespect to you; for if I did not think very well of you, and had not a great opinion of your conduct and abilities, I should not put my only son under your tuition, which I think is the best proof a man can give of his good esteem and opinion of another. The tragical account I give you of my poor deceased son, my son Richard can inform you of as well as I; which I charged him to say nothing of at Oxford, but now he may to you, if you think proper to inquire of him about it: and I hope I may be excused for being solicitous to prevent my present son’s falling into extremes, which it is thought were so prejudicial to my other. I sent a bill of 5o by the last post to Mr. James Huey, merchant, in Aldermanbury, London, with directions to transmit the value to you, which I hope is done. I shall begrudge no money that is for my son’s benefit and advantage. I would have him live as decently as other gentlemen of his station. I am very desirous that he should keep a regular account, that he may attain to a habit of it, knowing the great use and benefit of accounts to all men. I shall depend upon you letting me know when a further supply will be wanting. Pray my respects to your brother, and believe me to be, Your very affectionate and most humble servant, RICHARD MORGAN. To Richard Morgan December 17, 1733. SIR,--The bank-note sent by Mr. Huey was exchanged today. I have paid Mr. Lasher 11 17s. 6d. of the 50 (and the 9 in my brother’s hands), the Bursar 24 for caution-money, and 40s. the usual fee for his admission into the common-room. Mr. Morgan usually rises about six, and has not yet been wanting in diligence. He seldom goes out of college unless upon business or to walk for his health, which I would willingly persuade him to do every day. He loses no time at taverns or coffee-houses, and avoids as much as possible idle company, which every gentleman here will soon be pestered with if he has not some show of resolution. Some evenings every week he spends in the common-room, and others with my brother and me. Of his being admitted into our Society (if it deserves so honorable a title) there is no danger. All those gentlemen whom I have the happiness to converse with two or three times a week upon a religious account would oppose me to the utmost should I attempt to introduce among them at those important hours one of whose prudence I had had so short a trial and who was so little experienced in piety and charity. Several of the points you mention deserve a fuller consideration than I have leisure to give them. I shall ever own myself extremely obliged for the freedom with which you mention them, and have endeavored to answer you with the same freedom, which I am persuaded will not be disagreeable to you. That my dear friend, now with God, was much disordered in his understanding. I had often observed long before he left England. That he was likewise sincerely religious, all observed; but whoever had seen his behavior in the successive stages of his illness might as easily have mistaken darkness for light as his madness for his religion. They were not only different, but opposite too; one counteracting the other from its beginning. I cannot better describe his religion than in the words of the person who wrote his elegy: Mild, sweet, serene, and tender was her mood, Nor grave with sternness, nor with lightness free! Against example resolutely good, Fervent in zeal and warm in charity! Who ne’er forsook her faith for love of peace, Nor sought with fire and sword to show her zeal; Duteous to rulers when they most oppress, Patient in bearing ill, and doing well. [Description of Divine Religion, from The Battle of the Sexes, stanza xxxv., by his brother Samuel. For ’tender’ (line 1) read ’cheerful,’ for ’rulers’ (line 7) ’princes.’ Wesley quotes the last line in the obituary of Robert Swindells (Minutes, x783).] Directly contrary to every article of this was his madness. It was harsh, sour, cloudy, and severe. It was sometimes extravagantly light and sometimes sternly serious. It undermined his best resolutions by an absurd deference to example. It damped the fervor of his zeal and gradually impaired the warmth of his charity. It had not, indeed, as yet attacked his duteous regard for his superiors, nor drove him to exterminate sin by fire and sword; for when it had so obscured that clear judgment whereon his holiness stood that his very faith and patience began to be in danger, the God whom he served came to his rescue and snatched him from the evil to Come. ’But though his religion was not the same with his madness, might it not be the cause of it ’ I answer, No. ’Tis full as reasonable to believe that light is darkness as that it is the cause of it. We may just as well think that mildness and harshness, sweetness and sternness, gentleness and fury are the same thing, as that the former are the causes of the latter, or have any tendency thereto. ’But he said himself his distemper was religious madness, and who should know better than himself’ Who should know the truth better than one out of his senses Why, any one that was in them, especially any one that had observed the several workings of his soul before the corruptible body pressed it down; when his apprehension was unclouded, his’ judgment sound, and his reason cool and unimpaired. Then it was that he knew himself and his Master; then he spoke the words of truth and soberness, and justified by those words the wisdom he loved, only not as much as he adorned it by his life. True it is God was pleased, for the trial both of him and us, to visit him with a grievous illness. As his illness increased his reason declined, and consequently his religion built upon it. Till that melancholy effect of his disease, I challenge all the fools who counted his preceding life madness to point out one extreme he was in of any sort or one instance of his zeal which was not according to knowledge. ’Tis easy for any of them to declaim in general against enthusiasm and carrying things too far, and even to prevail upon an unwary mind, shattered by sickness, to plead guilty to the accusation. But let them come to particulars, and I do hereby undertake to prove that every fact they allege against him is either absolutely false or that it is agreeable to the strictest rules both of piety and Christian prudence. His fasting (or abstinence rather, for I do not know that he ever fasted one day) I least of all ’except; as being firmly persuaded, from careful and repeated observations, that had he continued it he had been alive to this day. Nor are there wanting as great names for this opinion as any that advised on the contrary, who believe that wine and free diet to one in his circumstances was as sure a recipe as shooting him through the head. I acknowledge your goodness in having a far better opinion of me than I deserve, or, I trust in God, shall ever desire. I have many things to add when time permits, but one I dare not defer a moment. ’Tis absolutely necessary to guard your surviving son against the least suspicion of my over-great zeal or strictness. You are fully sensible he is in no danger of either. But if he once fancies I am, that fancy will cut me off from all possibility of doing him any substantial service. whatever advice I may have occasion to give with regard to his moral conduct, ’ much religion hath made thee mad ’ will be a sufficient answer to all. For your sake and his I beg to know (what I should otherwise not think it worth while to bestow one thought upon) any overt acts of my enthusiasm which pass current in Ireland either with the gay or the serious part of the world. My brother gladly joins with me in acknowledging all your favors both to him and to, good sir, Your obliged and obedient servant. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Samuel Wesley’s strength was failing, and he was anxious about his family and his parish. He wanted his eldest son to succeed him; but he declined to leave his schoolmaster’s life, and the father turned to John. The subject was talked over when he was at Epworth in January 1733. He was not sure whether he could stand his ground at Oxford, where his own pupils and those of Clayton were cutting themselves loose from the Methodists. See Tyerman’s Samuel Wesley, pp. 417-21; and letter of June 13. [2] Despite the painful history of his first son, Morgan showed his absolute confidence in John and Charles Wesley’s judgment and good sense by committing to John the care of his only-surviving son when he entered Oxford University. These letters of introduction and young Richard Morgan’s early impressions are of extraordinary interest. [3] One of the saddest features of William Morgan’s illness was the mental derangement that accompanied it. He played such an important part in the story of Oxford Methodism, that his father’s pathetic letter to Wesley must be given at length. See Journal, viii. 263-4. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: 17. 1734 ======================================================================== 1734 From Richard Morgan to his Father Oxon, January 14, 1734. HONOURED SIR, -- I received your kind letter of the 22nd November, which came free. I perused yours to Mr. Wesley very carefully, then sealed it and delivered it to him. When he had read it over two or three times, he desired me to breakfast with him next morning. His whole discourse turned on the contents of your letter. He said he did not know what to make of it, and was surprised that a father should show so great concern lest his son should not be wicked enough, and went on after that odd manner, He endeavored to prove that my brother did not weaken his constitution by his great abstinence and strictness in religion; though my brasier’s wife, an intimate of Mr. Wesley’s, told me she has often heard Dr. Frewin [See letter of June 13, 1753.] say that, while he persisted in that rigid course of life, he could be of no service to him. There is a Society of gentlemen, consisting of seven members, whom the world calls Methodists, of whom my tutor is President. They imagine they cannot be saved if they do not spend every hour, nay minute, of their lives in the service of God. And to that end they read prayers every day in the common jail, preach every Sunday, and administer the sacrament once every month. They almost starve themselves to be able to relieve the poor and buy books for their conversion. They endeavor to reform notorious whores and allay spirits in haunted houses. They fast two days in the week, which has emaciated them to that degree that they are a frightful sight. One of them had like to have lost his life lately by a decay, which was attributed to his great abstinence. They rise every day at five of the clock, and till prayers, which begin at eight, they [In another copy it reads ’spend in singing Psalms, and reading the Bible and Nelson’s Works. They also receive the holy sacrament every Sunday. In short, they have made themselves so particular that they are the jest, not only of the scholars, but of the Fellows and the whole University. They meet at each other’s rooms at six of the clock five nights in the week, the other two they spend in private.’] sing psalms, and read some piece of divinity. They meet at each other’s rooms at six of the clock five nights in the week, and from seven to nine read a piece of some religious book. In short, they are so particular that they are become the jest of the whole University. When I came to college, my tutor gave me two rules in writing, which he expected I should follow. The first was to have no company but what he approved of, and the second to read no books but of his choosing. In compliance with the first, I have spent every evening of their meeting from seven to nine in their company till I received your letter. From six to seven they read over the petitions of poor people and relieve their wants, dispose of pious books, and fix the duties of the ensuing day. They told me very solemnly that, when I had acquired a pretty good stock of religion, they would take me in as an assistant. When we are all met, my tutor reads a collect to increase our attention; after that a religious book is read all the time we are together. They often cry for five minutes for their sins; then lift up their heads and eyes, and return God thanks for the great mercies He has showed them in granting them such repentance, and then laugh immoderately as if they were mad. The greatest blessing next to that is being laughed at by the world, which they esteem a sufficient proof of the goodness and justness of their actions, for which they also return thanks as aforesaid. Though some of them are remarkable for eating very heartily on gaudy-days, they stint themselves to two pence meat, and a farthing bread, and a draught of water when they dine at their own expense; and as for supper, they never eat any. There is a text in the Revelation which says that a man had better be very wicked than lukewarm. This Mr. Wesley explained thus: that there is no medium in religion; that a man that does not engage himself entirely in the practice of religion is in greater fear of damnation than a notorious sinner. When I considered that I was in the middle state, I grew very uneasy, and was for several days in a kind of religious madness, till I was convinced by a sermon of Dr. Young’s, which gives those words a quite different meaning. Mr. Wesley often says that it is madness in any man to leave off reading at the end of the eleventh hour if he can improve himself by the twelfth. This rule he expects his pupils to observe. I have not been an hour idle since I came to college but when I walk for my health, which he himself advises. He also expects that I should spend an hour every day before prayers in reading Nelson’s Works, which I have complied with. He has lectured me scarce in anything but books of devotion. He has given me a book of Mr. Nelson to abridge this Christmas. By becoming his pupil I am stigmatized with the name of a Methodist, the misfortune of which I cannot describe. For what they reckon the greatest happiness, namely, of being laughed at, to me is the greatest misery. I am as much laughed at and despised by the whole town as any one of them, and always shall be so while I am his pupil. The whole College makes a jest of me, and the Fellows themselves do not show me common civility, so great is their aversion to my tutor. In short, laboring under all these disadvantages, I am grown perfectly melancholy, and have got such an habit of sighing, which I cannot avoid, that it must certainly do me great mischief. Soon after I came to college the Rector favored me with his company and cautioned me against Mr. Wesley’s strict notions of religion, and told me that the character of his Society prevented several from entering in the College. You are pleased in both your letters to express a great regard for my welfare; for which I hope you shall find a grateful return in me. And as I myself ought to contribute all in my power thereto, I think it incumbent upon me to inform you that it is my opinion that if I am continued under Mr. Wesley I shall be ruined. For though you should caution him ever so much, he will endeavor to make me as strict as himself; and will say, as he did to part of your letter, that we are not obliged to obey our fathers in anything that contradicts the laws of God. We have but one tutor more in the College, who is reckoned one of the best tutors in the University; and my Lord Lichfield has so great an opinion of him, that he will send his eldest son to be taken care of by him. He has what few are in college (except one Gentleman Commoner and two servitors who are Mr. Wesley’s pupils) under his tuition. The character which I presume Mr. Wesley has given of me will, I hope, convince you that I have no view of being idle to occasion this removal. I am so well assured that any prospect I can have of enjoying any part of your fortune depends so much on my good behavior, that I would not propose it if I thought I would not be as diligent under him as Mr. Wesley. Though I have the greatest desire to improve myself, I would choose to return to my office, and forgo the advantages of an University education, rather than suffer what I do at present by being his pupil. To Richard Morgan Oxon, January 15, 1734. SIR, -- Going yesterday into your son’s room, I providentially cast my eyes upon a paper that lay upon the table, and, contrary to my custom, read a line or two of it, which soon determined me to read the rest. It was a copy of his last letter to you; whereby, by the signal blessing of God, I came to the knowledge of his real sentiments, both with regard to myself and to several other points of the highest importance. In the account he gives of me and those friends who are as my own soul, and who watch over it that I may not be myself a castaway, are some things true: as, that we imagine it is our bounden duty to spend our whole lives in the service of Him that gave them, or, in other words, ’whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, to do all to the glory of God’; that we endeavor, as we are able, to relieve the poor by buying books and other necessaries for them; that some of us read prayers at the prison once a day; that I administer the sacrament once a month, and preach there as often as I am not engaged elsewhere; that we sit together five evenings in a week; and that we observe, in such manner as our health permits, the fasts of the Church. Some things are false, but taken up upon trust, so that I hope Mr. Morgan believed them true: as, that we almost starve ourselves; that one of us had like lately to have lost his life by too great abstinence; that we endeavor to reform notorious whores and to lay spirits in haunted houses; that we all rise every day at five o’clock; and that I am President of the Society. And some things are not only false, but I fear were known so to be when he related them as true (inasmuch as he had then had the repeated demonstration of both his eyes and ears to the contrary): such as that the Society consists of seven members (I know no more than four of them); that from five to eight in the morning they sing psalms and read some piece of divinity; and that they are emaciated to such a degree that they are a frightful sight. As to the circumstance of the brasier’s wife (no intimate of mine) I am in doubt; though she positively denies she ever said so. As strange as it may appear that one present upon the spot should so far vary from the truth in his relation, I can easily account, not only for his mistake, but for his designed misrepresentation too. The company he is almost daily with (from whom, indeed, I should soon have divided him, had not your letter’s coming in the article of time tied my hands) abundantly accounts for the former; as his desire to lessen your regard for me, and thereby obviate the force of any future complaint, which he foresaw I might some time have occasion to make to you, does for the latter. And, indeed, I am not without apprehension that some such occasion may shortly come. I need not describe that apprehension to you. Be pleased to reflect what were the sentiments of your own heart when the ship that took your son from you loosed from shore; and such (allowing for the superior tenderness of a parent) are mine. Such were my father’s before he parted from us; when, taking him by the hand, he said, ’Mr. Morgan between this and Easter is your trial for life: I even tremble when I consider the danger you are in; and the more because you do not yourself perceive it.’ Impute not, sir, this fear either to the error of my youth or to the coldness of his age. Is there not a cause Is he not surrounded, even in this recess, with those who are often more pernicious than open libertines -- men who retain something of outward decency, and nothing else; who seriously idle away the whole day, and reputably revel till midnight, and ff not drunken themselves, yet encouraging and applauding those that are so; who have no more of the form than of the power of godliness, and though they do pretty often drop in at public prayers, coming after the most solemn part of them is over, yet expressly disown any obligation to attend them. ’Tis true they have not yet laughed your son out of all his diligence; but how long it will be before they have, God knows. They zealously endeavor it at all convenient opportunities; and temporal views are as unable to support him under such an attack as his slender notions of religion are; of which, he often says, he thinks he shall have enough if he constantly says his prayers at home and in the chapel. As to my advice on this or any other head, they had secured him pretty wall before; and your authority added to theirs has supplied him with armor of proof against it. I now beg to know what you would have me do. Shall I sit still, and let him swim down the stream Or shall I plunge in, bound as I am hand and foot, and oppose myself to his company, his inclinations, and his father Why, you say I am to incite him to live a sober, virtuous, and religious life. Nay, but first let us agree what religion is. I take religion to be, not the bare saying over so many prayers, morning and evening, in public or in private; not anything superadded now and then to a careless or worldly life; but a constant ruling habit of soul, a renewal of our minds in the image of God, a recovery of the divine likeness, a still-increasing conformity of heart and life to the pattern of our most holy Redeemer. But if this be religion, if this be that way to life which our blessed Lord hath marked out for us, how can any one, while he keeps close to this way, be charged with running into extremes ’Tis true there is no going out of it, either to the right hand or to the left, without running into an extreme; and, to prevent this, the wisdom of the Church has in all ages appointed guides for the unexperienced, lest they should wander into by-paths and seek death in the error of their life. But while he is in the right way, what fear is there of your son’s going too fast in it I appeal to your own experience. Have you observed any such disposition in him as gives you ground to suspect he will love God too well or keep himself too ’unspotted from the world’ Or has his past life been such as that you have just reason to apprehend the remainder of it should too much resemble that of our blessed Master I will go farther. Have you remarked, in the various scenes you have gone through, that youth in general is apt to run into the extreme of piety Is it to this excess that the fervor of their blood and the impetuosity of their passions hurry them But we may not stop here. Is there any fear, is there any possibility, that any son of Adam, of whatever age or degree, should too faithfully do the will of his Creator or too exactly tread in the steps of his Redeemer Suppose the time now come when you feel within yourself that the silver cord of life is loosed, that the dust is returning to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it. The snares of death overtake you. Nothing but pain is on the one hand, eternity on the other. The tears of the friends that surround your bed bear witness with the pangs of your own heart that it has few pulses more to beat before you launch out into the sea without a shore, before the soul shall part from your quivering lips and stand naked before the judgment-seat of God. Will you then be content with having served God according to the custom of the place you was in Will you regret your having been, even from your youth, ’ more pure and holy than the rest of mankind’ Will you complain to the ministering spirits who receive your new-born soul that you have been ’over-zealous in the love of your Master’ Ask not me, a poor, fallible, sinful mortal, never safe either from the snares of ill example or the treachery of my own heart; but ask them, ask Him who died to make you and me and your son zealous of good works, whether you may be excused for your solicitude, your too successful solicitude, to prevent his falling into this extreme! How needless has he made that solicitude already ! But I spare you. The good God be merciful to us both! Think not, sir, that interest occasions the concern I show. I despise and abhor the thought. From the moment my brother told me, ’Mr. Morgan will be safer with you than me; I have desired he may be sent to you,’ I determined (though I have never mentioned it to him) to restore to him whatsoever is paid me upon Mr. Morgan’s account. It is, with regard to me, an accursed thing. There shall no such cleave unto me. I have sufficient motives without this to assist your son, so long as he will accept of my assistance. He is the brother of my dear friend, the son of one that was my friend till great names warped him from his purpose; and, what is infinitely more, the creature of my God, and the redeemed and fellow heir of my Savior. That neither the cares of the world, nor the fair speeches and venerable titles of any who set up their rest therein, may prevent our attaining our better inheritance, is the earnest prayer of, sir, Your most obliged and most obedient servant., I beg, if you favor me with another letter, it may not be enclosed in Mr. Morgan’s. From Richard Morgan to John Wesley DUBLIN, January 31, 1734. REVEREND SIR, I am favored with yours of the 15th, and am very sorry that my last letter has been the occasion of any disquietude to you, which I am sure I never designed. When, out of the friendship that had been contracted between us, and the good opinion I had both of yours and your brother’s sincerity and judgment, I determined chiefly on your advice to send my son to the University, I did not imagine that it would be expected he should join in that strict Society which it was known I disliked in my other son; upon this confidence you know I did not offer the least caution against it in my former letters, nor did you in your first letter give any intimation that you expected it, having only expostulated on both sides on the subject of his learning, and thus, preliminaries being, as I thought, happily fixed, I was easy. But afterwards I was greatly surprised and alarmed to find you insist in your letter of the 6th of November that he must keep company with those and only those whom you approve of, with other hints tending that way. Then, indeed, the melancholy end of my other son, and the hazard of my only son being led the same way, made deep impressions on me, and my friends observed me melancholy upon it for some time; my fears and trouble increasing when I saw a letter from Mr. Buttely of Christ Church,[Oliver, son of Nicholas Buttely (or Butteicy) of Canterbury, matriculated June 8, 1716, age 19, D.D. 1734, Junior Proctor 1731. Samuel, son of John Buttely of Horringer, Suffolk, matriculated Dec. 13, 1733, age 17. See Foster’s Allumni Oxonienses, where both names appear.] complaining that he had twice invited my son to his chambers, but that he did not come. Then I concluded from the expressions in your letter that he was to be confined to the company of the gentlemen of that Society. Yet, under all these apprehensions and uneasiness, I forbore in my letter to you to make any reflections upon the words of your letter, but urged only from the tragical experience in my other son the danger I apprehended of young people’s engaging in the same way; and I thought that the dismal account I gave of my poor son (which nothing but my fears about my other son would have made me mention) would rather have met with pity to me than reproaches. Now, I must tell you that I respect and adore both you and every gentleman of that strict religious Society that you are engaged in, and doubt not but you will meet with an exalted seat in heaven. I could even wish to be among you, as I formerly hinted to you; yet I must be of the same opinion still, that it is a dangerous experiment for young people to venture upon, which I think the example I gave you in my last sufficiently proves; and if it were necessary, I could give you several other examples how too great a zeal for piety and religion has carried injudicious people into madness. But, supposing it be a doubtful case whether it be advisable for a youth to unite in this Society or not (as sure it must at least be allowed to be from the diversity of opinions about it), how must I determine the question You argue very rationally and piously for it; and five able divines, some of them bishops, men of remarkable piety and learning, of my intimate acquaintance, warn me of the danger of it: then surely from the common ends of prudence and judgment, it is plain how I ought to determine. I agree with you in one thing, that from my son’s gaiety and inclination to pleasures (I cannot say more than were innocent) I had the less reason to fear his falling into too strict a course of life, and this I observed to a certain divine in discoursing with him on that subject, when he heard that you were to be his tutor; but he answered that the danger was the greater, that, if such a volatile temper should take a turn that way, he might plunge into deeper extremes than graver persons, and that I did not know what the influence of a tutor might bring to pass. God grant that he does and will continue to do what he has told you, viz. constantly say his prayers at home and in the chapel; and then I will venture to say {though I am no divine), if he also avoids sins of commission, that he may be ranked in the class of good Christians. It is neither my province, nor am I any way equal to you, to manage this point of controversy; therefore I beg we may drop it for the future. If I have said anything in this or my former letter that is disagreeable to you (for I assure you I would do nothing willingly to disoblige you), I hope you will forgive me and impute it to my too great anxiety for the welfare of my son, and believe that there is nothing I covet more than his living a good life and doing his duty both to God and man, which I think is generally the wish of even a wicked parent; and as I am not notoriously so, I hope I am not to be suspected as encouraging my son to depart from the right way. The enclosed letter, which I have left open for your perusal, shows how desirous I am that he should obediently submit to your authority and government, &c. I would never have sent him to the University, trusting to the common care of a tutor, after the long habit he had of pleasure and idleness. My dependence on yours or your brother’s more than ordinary care of him made me venture upon it, and I hope nothing has happened to create any indifference in you towards him. The former part of your letter I am come now to answer in the last place, and do assure you that I never received the letter you mention, of which you saw the rough draft upon his table, nor any-th’mg like it. His last letter that I received was of the 6th of November, and in that, and in every letter that he made any mention of you in, he did it with great respect to you, and expressions of your civilities and kindness to him. I now conclude with all fervent wishes, and desire for his and all our happiness in this and the next world, dear sir, Your truly affectionate, most obliged, humble servant, RICHARD MORGAN. [The following is part of Morgan’s letter to his son enclosed in the above to Wesley:] January 31, 1734. What, Dick, did you so soon forget our stipulations and conditions on your going to the University, as to carry a greyhound with you to Oxford, and to attempt keeping him in your college, contrary to the rules of it Did not you promise to stick to your studies and be as subservient to your tutor as if you were a servitor I vowed to you before, and now I vow again, that if you follow an idle, vicious, or extravagant life, you shall never inherit my fortune. You are now in the hands of a gentleman (it is my happiness and so you may reckon it too) that has more honor and conscience than to conceal your faults from me. Your duty to God is always in the first place to be duly attended. Go to bed by times; rise early. Omit no one college duty. Squander not away the morning in tea and chat. Never be seen out of your chamber in studying hours. For the rest I refer to your good tutor, who I am sure will not be wanting in his instructions to you without engaging you in that Society which I am not for. Banish your dog immediately. Quid de quoque viro, et cui discus saepe cavito. [Horace’s Epistles, I. xviii. 68: ’ Beware what you say about any one and to whom you say it.’] Always imagine what you do will be known. To Richard Morgan March 15, 1734. SIR, -- A journey which I was obliged to begin very soon after the receipt of yours was the occasion of my delaying so long to answer it, which I should otherwise have done immediately. I am satisfied you never designed to give me any uneasiness, either by your last or any of your preceding letters, and am very sensible that the freedom you used therein proceeded from a much kinder intention. And should you ever say anything which I could not approve of, I should as soon as possible mention it to you as the only sure way either to prevent any misunderstanding between us, or at least to hinder its long continuance. As to your son’s being a member of our little Society, I once more assure you with all plainness that, were you as much for it as you appear to be against it, I should think it my duty to oppose it to the utmost. I do not conceive him to be any ways qualified for it, and would as soon advise one of his dispositions to go and convert the Indies as to minister to his fellow Christians in the manner wherein my dear friends by the grace of God endeavor to do. I have over and over pressed him to cultivate his acquaintance with Mr. Batteley, [See letter of Jan. 31.] and several other gentlemen of Christ Church, whose characters I am well acquainted with, though little or not at all with their persons. I have seen an answer from Mr. Hulton of Chester to his letter concerning the greyhound, which I hope we shall very shortly have an opportunity of returning to him. Mr. Morgan constantly attends public prayers, nor do I know that he omits private, or willfully runs into any known sins of commission; and I trust he never will. Whether a person who goes thus far, who uses public and private prayer and avoids sins of commission, be a good Christian, is a question which you beg we may drop for the future, because it is not your province to determine it. Alas, sir, you ask what I have no power to grant. When both the glory of my Savior and the safety of your soul so loudly require me to speak, I may not, I dare not, I cannot be silent, especially when I consider the reason you give for my being so--viz. that it is not your province to manage this point of controversy. No! Are you not, then, in covenant with Christ And is it not your province to know the terms of that covenant ’This do, and thou shalt live,’ saith the Lord of life. Is it not your business to understand what this is Though you are no divine, is it not your concern to be assured what it is to be a Christian If on this very point depends your title either to life or death eternal, how shall I avoid giving you what light I can therein without the deepest wound to my own conscience, the basest ingratitude to my friend, and the blackest treachery to my Master The question, then, must be determined some way; and for an infallible determination of it, to the law and to the testimony we appeal: at that tribunal we ought to be judged; if the oracles of God are still open to us, by them must every doubt be decided. And should all men contradict them, we could only say, ’ Let God be true, and every man a liar.’ We can never enough reverence those of the Episcopal Order. They are the angels of the Church, the stars in the right hand of God. Only let us remember he was greater than those who said, ’ Though I or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed.’ Now, the gospel we have received does in no wise allow him to be a follower of Christ, to do his duty to God and man, who is constant in public and private prayer and avoids sins of commission. It supposes there are such things as sins of omission too. Nay, it is notoriously evident that in our Lord’s account of His own proceedings at the Great Day there is no mention of any other. It is for what they have not done that the unprofitable servants are condemned to utter darkness. O sir, what would it avail in that day could you confront our Lord with five thousand of His own ambassadors protesting with one voice against His sentence, and declaring to those on the left hand that He had never said any such thing: that He condemned them for omitting what He had nowhere required them to do; that they were faithful because they were only unprofitable servants; that they ought to be ranked in the class of good Christians because they had only broken all the positive laws of Christ; that they had done their duty both to God and man, for they had prayed to God and done neither good nor harm to their neighbor. For God’s sake, sir, consider, how would this plea sound Would it really be received in arrest of judgment or would the Judge reply, ’ Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked and slothful servant! Did I require nothing to be done, as well as to be avoided Was an eternal reward promised to no-work Were My positive laws no laws at all Was the pattern I set thee negative only But thou hast done thy duty to God at least, for thou hast prayed to Him! What didst thou pray for For My Spirit to help thy infirmities For strength to tread in My steps For power, not only to avoid all sin, but to fulfill all righteousness Didst thou pray that thy righteousness might exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees -- might not rest in externals, but be an inward vital principle Didst thou pray for a clean heart for the renewal of thy mind for a right spirit duly conformed to My image Didst thou pray for a soul continually ardent to do My will on earth as it is done in heaven If thou prayedst for anything short of this, or if praying for this thy heart went not along with thy lips, thou prayedst as a fool or an heathen prayed; and thy prayer itself was the greatest of thy abominations. If thou didst pray for this power which I had promised not to any particular order but to every one of My disciples earnestly desiring it, why went not thy endeavor along with thy prayer Because great men, the chief priests and eiders, said it need not Whom, then, oughtest thou to have believed, Me or them Behold, I had told thee before: obey God rather than men. Thy blood be on thy own head.’ Whether divines and bishops will agree to this I know not; but this I know, it is the plain word of God. God everywhere declares (x) that without doing good as well as avoiding evil shall no flesh living be justified; (2) that as good prayers without good works attending them are no better than a solemn mockery of God, so are good works themselves without those tempers of heart from their subserviency to which they derive their whole value; (3) that those tempers which alone are acceptable to God, and to procure acceptance for which our Redeemer lived and died, are (i) Faith, without which it is still impossible either to please Him or to overcome the world; (if) Hope, without which we are alienated from the life of God and strangers to the covenant of promise; and (iii) Love of God and our neighbor for His sake, without which, though we should give all our goods to feed the poor, yea and our bodies to be burned, if we will believe God, it profiteth us nothing. I need say no more to show with what true respect and sincerity I am, dear sir, Your most obliged and ever obedient servant. [This closes the important Morgan correspondence. It is pleasant to add that after a time Richard Morgan was led to take a different view of religious matters. John Gumbold says James Hervey’s easy and engaging conversation gained the young man’s heart to the best purpose. Charles Wesley tells his brother Samuel on July 31, 1734: ’ Mr. Morgan is in a fairer way of becoming a Christian than we ever yet knew him ’ (Priestley’s Letters, p. 16). When the Wesleys sailed for Georgia, Morgan bade them good-bye at Gravesend and helped to carry on their work at Oxford. He wrote to Wesley in i735 expressing an earnest desire to go to Georgia, but returned to Ireland, where he married Miss Dorothy Mellor, and settled in Dublin, He was called to the Bar, and was associated with his father in the office of Second Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer, which became his exclusively on his father’s death in 1752. Wesley visited his ’ old friend’ on July 15, 1769. See Journal, viii. 264, 268; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 12; W.H.S. iii. 49; and letter of April 28, 1775.] To William Law LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXON, June 16, 1754. REVEREND SIR, -- I must earnestly beg your immediate advice in a case of the greatest importance. Above two years since, I was entrusted with a young gentleman of good sense, an even generous temper, and pretty good learning. [See letter of June 11, 1731, to his father. Wesley’s anxiety about this student and also concerning Richard Morgan shows how faithfully he watched over them. At the end of July Charles Wesley tells his brother Samuel that John had spent the last week ’at London, chiefly in consulting Mr. Law about one of his pupils; but he found time, notwithstanding, to dispatch three sheets of Job while there, and still goes on with much more expedition than my father did while upon the spot.’ This letter to Law evidently led to a personal consultation.] Religion he had heard little of; but Mr. Jackson’s Practice of Devotion, [Lawrence Jackson (1691-1772), Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, 1716; Prebendary of Lincoln 1747.] your two treatises, and Thomas Kempis, by the blessing of God, awakened him by degrees to a true notion and serious practice of it. In this he continued sensibly improving till last Lent; at the beginning of which I advised him to do as he had done the year before--viz. to obey the order of the Church, by using such a sort and measure of abstinence as his health permitted and his spiritual wants required. He said ’ he did not think his health would permit to use that abstinence which he did the year before.’ And, notwithstanding my reply, ’ that his athletic habit could be in no danger by only abstaining from flesh and using moderately some less pleasing food,’ he persisted in his resolution of not altering his food at all. A little before Easter, perceiving he had much contracted the time he had till then set apart for religious reading, I asked him whether he was not himself convinced that he spent too much time in reading secular authors. He answered he was convinced any time was too much, and that he should be a better Christian if he never read them at all. I then pressed him earnestly to pray for strength, according to that conviction; and he resolved to try for a week. When that was expired, he said his desire of classical reading was not inflamed, but a little abated; upon which I begged him to repeat his resolution for a week or two longer. He said it signified nothing; for he could never part with the classics entirely. I desired him to read what you say in the Christian Perfection on reading vain authors. He read it, agreed to every word of it, but still in his practice denied it; though appearing in most other particulars an humble, active, zealous Christian. On Tuesday, April 3, being one of the days the statutes require us to communicate at St. Mary’s, I called upon him just before church, being to set out for Lincolnshire as soon as the service was over. I asked whether he still halted between two opinions; and, after exhorting him as I could to renounce himself and serve his Master with simplicity, I left him. He did not communicate that day. On my return, May 21, I immediately inquired what state he was in, and found he had never communicated since, which he used to do weekly; that he had left off rising early, visiting the poor, and almost all religious reading, and entirely given himself up to secular. When I asked him why he had left off the holy eucharist, he said fairly, because to partake of it implied a fresh promise to renounce himself entirely and to please God alone; and he did not design to do so. I asked whether he was well convinced he ought to do so. He said, ’Yes.’ Whether he wished he could design it. He answered, No, he did not design it. From time to time, particularly a few days ago, I urged him to tell me upon what he grounded his hope of salvation. He replied, after some pause, that ’Christ died for all men; but if none were saved by Him without performing the conditions, His death would not avail one in a thousand, which was inconsistent with the goodness of God.’ But this answer, and every part of it, he soon gave up; adding with the utmost seriousness that he cared not whether it was true or no: he was very happy at present, and he desired nothing farther. This morning I again asked him what he thought of his own state. He said he thought nothing about it. I desired to know whether he could, if he considered it ever so little, expect to be saved by the terms of the Christian covenant. He answered, he did not consider it at all; nor did all I could say in the least move him. He assented to all, but was affected with nothing. He grants with all composure that he is not in a salvable state, and shows no degree of concern, while he owns he can’t find mercy. I am now entirely at a loss what step to take: pray he can’t, or won’t. When I lent him several prayers, he returned them unused, saying he does not desire to be otherwise than he is, and why should he pray for it I do not seem so much as to understand his distemper. It appears to me quite incomprehensible. Much less can I tell what remedies are proper for it. I therefore beseech you, sir, by the mercies of God, that you will not be slack; according to the ability He shall give, to advise and pray for him and, reverend sir, Your most obliged servant. From Mrs. Pendarves July, 2, 1734. I never began a letter with so much confusion to anybody as I do this to Cyrus. I can’t recollect that I ever used any one so ill {if my being silent may be called ill-usage), and at the same time must confess no one deserves it so little. What to do to extenuate my fault I do not know, which has truly been disadvantageous only to myself; did I not find it absolutely necessary to my conduct (in that part of my life which ought to be my greatest concern) to renew this correspondence, I own I am so overcome with shame for what is past that I should not dare to put you in mind of my unworthiness. I give you now an opportunity of showing your forgiveness and generosity; not that you want extraordinary occasions to set those qualities in a proper light. Is it not some degree of grace to own one’s faults frankly But do I not destroy all merit by supposing I have any When I sate down to write I thought I could have acquitted myself better, but I find it impossible to say anything in my justification. What will avail my saying I have constantly had an esteem for you You have no reason to suppose that I have so much as barely remembered you. The more I consider the obligations I had to continue my correspondence with one who hath showed so many marks of an unfeigned desire to assist and promote my eternal happiness, the deeper is my concern for having forfeited so great an advantage. I am so sincerely sorry for the ill impression I have given you of myself, that I shall shun you as a criminal would a judge; and whatever indulgence your goodness may incline you to show me, I never shall imagine you can have any regard for one that has so ungratefully neglected your friendship. To tell you my engagements with the world have engrossed me, and occasioned my not writing to you, will be enlarging my condemnation. I must say one thing more: that my going to Longleat (where for some time I was much indisposed, and not very well able to write), and then removing to London to a new unfurnished house, put me into a great hurry. I waited for a leisure hour that I might write to you at large; till shame seized me so violently that I had not courage to write, but at last have broke through it, and choose to suffer any reproach rather than lose the advantage of your friendship, without at least regretting that I have brought this mortification on myself. I would desire my compliments to Araspes, but I fear they can’t be acceptable from one that has behaved herself so ill to Cyrus. Adieu. Your happiness will ever be sincerely desired by ASPASIA. To Mrs. Pendarves [July 1734.] Alas, Aspasia! are you, indeed, convinced that I can be of any service to you I fear you have not sufficient ground for such a conviction. Experience has shown how far my power is short of my will. For some time I flattered myself with the pleasing hope, but I grow more and more ashamed of having indulged it. You need not the support of so weak an hand. How can I possibly think you do (though that thought tries now and then still to obtrude itself) since you have so long and resolutely thrust it from you I dare not, therefore, blame you for so doing. Doubtless you acted upon cool reflection; you declined the trouble of writing, not because it was a trouble, but because it was a needless one. And if so, what injury have you done yourself As for me, you could do me no injury by your silence. It did, indeed, deprive me of much pleasure, and of a pleasure from which I ought to have received much improvement. But still, as it was one I had no title to but your goodness, to withdraw it was no iniustice. I sincerely thank you for what is past; and may the God of my salvation return it sevenfold into your bosom: and if ever you should please to add to those thousand obligations any new ones, I trust they shall neither be unrewarded by Him nor unworthily received by Aspasia’s Faithful friend and servant, CYRUS. Araspes, too, hopes you will never have reason to tax him with ingratitude. Adieu! [A letter given under September 24, 1736, and the Journal Diary for June 16, 1737, show that Wesley still kept up some correspondence with Miss Ann Granville. Miss Hamilton says that at Bulstrode on December 14, 1783 (Auto. and Corr. vi. 175) Mrs. Delany ’told me she had known the two Mr. Wesleys (the Methodist preachers); she knew them when they were young men. They lived near her sister when they were students at Oxford. They were of a serious turn, and associated with such as were so. These brothers joined some other young men at Oxford, and used to meet of a Sunday evening and read the Scriptures, and find out objects of charity to relieve. This was a happy beginning, but the vanity of being singular and growing enthusiasts made them endeavor to gain proselytes and adopt that system of religious doctrine which many reasonable people thought pernicious.’ On June 9, 1743, Mrs. Pendarves was married to Dr. Delany, who in May 1744 became Dean of Down; the deanery was worth 2,500 a year, and he had other preferments. He died at Bath on May 6, 1768, and Mrs. Delany on April 15, 1788. She was buried in a vault of St. James’s, Piccadilly, where there is a tablet on one of the columns to her memory. She enjoyed the special friendship of George III and Queen Charlotte, and was described by Edmund Burke as ’ the highest-bred woman in the world and the woman of fashion of all ages.’ ’ She was fond of drawing and painting and was a genuine lover of good music, including that unpopular Italian opera against which her master Hogarth had pointed his sharpest etching-needle.’ See Austin Dobson’s Side-walk Studies, p. 115; and for Miss Granville, the heading to letter of September 24, 1736. An exquisite needlework pocket-book made by Mrs. Delany with a letter from Queen Charlotte to her was sold for 40 in December 1927.] To his Father OXON December 10, 1734. DEAR SIR, -- 1. The authority of a parent and the call of Providence are things of so sacred a nature that a question in which these are any ways concerned deserves the most serious consideration. I am therefore greatly obliged to you for the pains you have taken to set ours in a clear light; which I now intend to consider more at large, with the utmost attention of which I am capable. And I shall the more cheerfully do it, as being assured of your joining with me in earnestly imploring His guidance who will not suffer those that bend their wills to His to seek death in the error of their life. 2. I entirely agree that ’ the glory of God and the, different degrees of promoting it are to be our sole consideration and direction in the choice of any course of life’; and consequently that it must wholly turn upon this single point, whether I am to prefer a college life or that of a rector of a parish. I do not say the glory of God is to be my first or my principal consideration, but my only one; since all that are not implied in this are absolutely of no weight: in presence of this they all vanish away; they are less than the small dust of the balance. 3. And indeed, till all other considerations were set aside, I could never come to any clear determination; till my eye was single, my whole mind was full of darkness. Every consideration distinct from this threw a shadow over all the objects I had in view, and was such a cloud as no light could penetrate. Whereas, so long as I can keep my eye single and steadily fixed on the glory of God, I have no more doubt of the way wherein I should go than of the shining of the sun at noonday. 4. That course of life tends most to the glory of God wherein we can most promote holiness in ourselves and others. I say in ourselves and others, as being fully persuaded that these can never be put asunder. For how is it possible that the good God should make our interest inconsistent with our neighbor’s that He should make our being in one state best for ourselves, and our being in another best for the Church This would be making a strange schism in His body; such as surely never was from the beginning of the world. And if not, then whatever state is best on either of these accounts is so on the other likewise. If it be best for others, then it is so for us; if for us, then for them. 5. However, when two ways of life are proposed, I should choose to begin with that part of the question, Which of these have I rational ground to believe will conduce most to my own improvement And that not only because it is every physician’s concern to heal himself first, but because it seems we may judge with more ease, and perhaps certainty too, in which state we can most promote holiness in ourselves than in which we can most promote it in others. 6. By holiness I mean not fasting (as you seem to suppose), or bodily austerity, or any other external means of improvement, but the inward temper, to which all these are subservient, a renewal of the soul in the image of God. I mean a complex habit of lowliness, meekness, purity, faith, hope, and the love of God and man. And I therefore believe that, in the state wherein I am, I can most promote this holiness in myself, because I now enjoy several advantages which are almost peculiar to it. 7. The first of these is daily converse with my friends. I know no other place under heaven where I can have always at hand half a dozen persons nearly of my own judgment and engaged in the same studies: persons who are awakened into a full and lively conviction that they have only one work to do upon earth; who are in some measure enlightened so as to see, though at a distance, what that one work is -- viz. the recovery of that single intention and pure affection which were in Christ Jesus; who, in order to this, have according to their power renounced themselves, and wholly and absolutely devoted themselves to God; and who suitably thereto deny themselves, and take up their cross daily. To have such a number of such friends constantly watching over my soul, and according to the variety of occasions administering reproof, advice, or exhortation with all plainness and all gentleness, is a blessing I have not yet found any Christians to enjoy in any other part of the kingdom. And such a blessing it is, so conducive, if faithfully used, to the increase of all holiness, as I defy any one to know the full value of till he receives his full measure of glory. 8. Another invaluable blessing which I enjoy here in a greater degree than I could anywhere else is retirement. I have not only as much, but as little, company as I please. I have no such thing as a trifling visitant, except about an hour in a month, when I invite some of the Fellows to breakfast. Unless at that one time, no one ever takes it into his head to set foot within my door, except he has some business of importance to communicate to me or I to him. And even then, as soon as he has dispatched his business, he immediately takes his leave. 9. Both these blessings, the continual presence of useful and uninterrupted freedom from trifling acquaintance, are exceedingly endeared to me, whenever I have spent but one week out of this place. The far greatest part of the conversation I meet with abroad, even among those whom I believe to be real Christians, turns on points that are absolutely wide of my purpose, that no way forward me in the business of life. Now, though they may have time to spare, I have none; it is absolutely necessary for such an one as me to follow, with all possible care and vigilance, that excellent advice of Mr. Herbert: Still let thy mind be bent, still plotting where, And when, and how the business may be done. [George Herbert’s The Temple, ’The Church Porch,’ stanza 57.] And this, I bless God, I can in some measure do, so long as I avoid that bane of piety, the company of good sort of men, lukewarm Christians (as they are called), persons that have a great concern for but no sense of religion. But these undermine insensibly all my resolutions, and quite steal from me the little fervor I have; and I never come from among these saints of the world (as J. Valdesso [Juan de Valdes (Ital. Valdesso), born about 1500 at Cuenca in Castile, labored unceasingly by tongue and pen for religious reform. In his Alfabeto Christiano he insists that the soul must choose between God and the world. He died in 1540 or 1541.] calls them) faint, dissipated, and shorn of all my strength, but I say, ’ God deliver me from an half-Christian.’ 10. Freedom from care I take to be the next greatest advantage to freedom from useless and therefore hurtful company. And this too I enjoy in greater perfection here than I can ever expect to do anywhere else. I hear of such a thing as the cares of this world, and I read of them, but I know them not. My income is ready for me on so many stated days, and all I have to do is to count and carry it home. The grand article of my expense is food, and this too is provided without any care of mine. I have nothing to do but at such an hour to take and eat what is prepared for me. My laundress, barber, &c., are always ready at quarter-day; so I have no trouble on account of those expenses. And for what I occasionally need, I can be supplied from time to time without any expense of thought. Now, to convince me what an help to holiness this is (were not my experience abundantly sufficient) I should need no better authority than St. Paul’s: ’ I would have you be without carefulness. This I speak for your own profit, that ye may attend upon the Lord’ without distraction.’ Happy is he that careth only for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. He may be holy both in body and spirit, after the Apostle’s judgment; and I think that he had the Spirit of God. 11. To quicken me in making a thankful and diligent use of all the other advantages of this place, I have the opportunity of public prayer twice a day and of weekly communicating. It would be easy to mention many more, and likewise to show many disadvantages, which a person of greater courage and skill than me could scarce separate from a country life. But whatever one of experience and resolution might do, I am very sensible I should not be able to turn aside one of the thousand temptations that would immediately rush upon me. I could not stand my ground, no, not for one month, against intemperance in sleeping, eating, and drinking; against irregularity in study, against a general lukewarmness in my affections and remissness in my actions; against softness and self-indulgence, directly opposite to that discipline and hardship which become a soldier of Jesus Christ. And then, when my spirit was thus dissolved, I should be an easy prey to whatever impertinent company came in my way. Then would the cares of the world and the desire of other things roll back with a full tide upon me. It would be no wonder if, while I preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. I cannot, therefore, but observe that the question does not relate barely to degrees of perfection, but to the very essence and being of it. Agitur de vita et sanguine Turni. [Virgil’s Aeneid, xii. 765 (Turni de vita et sanguine certant): ‘They contend about the life and blood of Turnus.’] The point is, whether I shall or shall not work out my salvation, whether I shall serve Christ or Belial. 12. What still heightens my fear of this untried state is that, when I am once entered into it, be the inconveniences of it found more or less -- vestigia nulls retrorsum [‘No retracing one’s steps’ (Aesop’s ‘The Fox and the Sick Lion’).] -- when I am there, there I must stay. If this way of life should ever prove less advantageous, I have almost continual opportunities of quitting it; but whatever difficulties occur in that, whether foreseen or unforeseen, there is no returning, any more than from the grave. When I have once launched out into that unknown sea, there is no recovering my harbor; I must on among whatever whirlpools or rocks or sands, though all the waves and storms go over me. 13. Thus much as to myself. But you justly observe that we are not to consider ourselves alone; since God made us all for a social life, to which academical studies’ are only preparatory. I allow, too, that He will take an exact account of every talent which He has lent us, not to bury them, but to employ every mite we have received in diffusing holiness all around us. I cannot deny that every follower of Christ is in his proportion the light of the world; that whoever is such can no more be concealed than the sun in the midst of heaven; that, being set as a light in a dark place, his shining out must be the more conspicuous; that to this very end was his light given, that it might shine at least to all that look towards him; and, indeed, that there is one only way of hiding it, which is to put it out. Neither can I deny that it is the indispensable duty of every Christian to impart both light and heat to all who are willing to receive it. I am obliged likewise, unless I lie against the truth, to grant that there is not so contemptible an animal upon earth as one that drones away life, without ever laboring to promote the glory of God and the good of men; and that whether he be young or old, learned or unlearned, in a college or out of it. Yet, granting the superlative degree of contempt to be on all accounts due to a college drone; a wretch that hath received ten talents, and yet employs none; that is not only promised a reward by his gracious master, but is paid beforehand for his work by his generous founder, and yet works not at all;--allowing all this, and whatever else can be said (for I own it is impossible to say enough) against the drowsy ingratitude, the lazy perjury of those who are commonly called harmless or good sort of men (a fair proportion of whom I must, to our shame, confess are to be found in colleges)--allowing this, I say, I do not apprehend it will conclude against a college life in general. For the abuse of it does not destroy the use; though there are some here who are the lumber of the creation, it does not follow that others may not be of more service to the world in this station than they could in any other. 14. That I in particular could, might, it seems, be inferred from what has been proved already -- viz. that I could be holier here myself than anywhere else if I faithfully used the blessings I enjoy; for, to prove that the holier any man is himself the more shall he promote holiness in others, there needs no more than this one postulatum, the help which is done on earth God does it Himself. If so, if God be the sole agent in healing souls, and man only the instrument in His hand, there can no doubt be made but that the more holy a man is He will make use of him the more: because he is more willing to be so used; because the more pure he is, he is the fitter instrument for the God of purity; because he will pray more and more earnestly that he may be employed, and that his service may tend to his Master’s glory; because all his prayers, both for employment and success therein, will the more surely pierce the clouds; because, the more his heart is enlarged, the wider sphere he may act in without carefulness or distraction; and, lastly, because, the more his heart is renewed in the image of God, the more God can renew it in others by him, without destroying him by pride or vanity. 15. But for the proof of every one of these weighty truths experience is worth a thousand reasons. I see, I feel them every day. Sometimes I cannot do good to others because I am unwilling to do it: shame or pain is in the way; and I do not desire to serve God at so dear a rate. Sometimes I cannot do the good I desire to do because I am in other respects too unholy. I know within myself, were I fit to be so employed, God would employ me in this work. But my heart is too unclean for such mighty works to be wrought by my hands. Sometimes I cannot accomplish the good I am employed in, because I do not pray more, and more fervently; and sometimes, even when I do pray, and that instantly, because I am not worthy that my prayer should be heard. Sometimes I dare not attempt to assist my neighbor, because I know the narrowness of my heart, that it cannot attend to many things without utter confusion and dissipation of thought. And a thousand times have I been mercifully withheld from success in the things I have attempted, because, were one so proud and vain enabled to gain others, he would lose his own soul. 16. From all this I conclude that, where I am most holy myself, there I could most promote holiness in others; and consequently that I could more promote it here than in any place under heaven. But I have likewise other reasons besides this to think so; and the first is, the plenteousness of the harvest. Here is, indeed, a large scene of various action. Here is room for charity in all its forms. There is scarce any way of doing good to our fellow creatures for which here is not daily occasion. I can now only touch on the several heads: here are poor families to be relieved; here are children to be educated; here are workhouses wherein both young and old want, and gladly receive, the word of exhortation; here are prisons to be visited, wherein alone is a complication of all human wants; and, lastly, here are the schools of the prophets--here are tender minds to be formed and strengthened, and babes in Christ to be instructed and perfected in all useful learning. Of these in particular we must observe that he who gains only one does thereby as much service to the world as he could do in a parish in his whole life, for his name is legion; in him are contained all those who shall be converted by him. He is not a single drop of the dew of heaven, but a ’ river to make glad the city of God.’ 17. ‘But Epworth is yet a larger sphere of action than this; there I should have the care of two thousand souls.’ Two thousand souls ! I see not how any man living can take care of an hundred. At least I could not; I know too well quid valeant humeri. [‘How much I can bear.’] Because the weight that I have akeady upon me is almost more than I am able to bear, ought I to increase it tenfold Imponere Pelio Ossam Scilicet, atque Ossae frondosum involvere Olympum. [Vigil’s Georgics, i. 281-2.That is, to impose Ossa upon Pelion, and to roll leafy Olympus upon Ossa.] Would this be the way to help either myself or my brethren up to heaven Nay; but the mountains I reared would only crush my own soul, and so make me utterly useless to others. 18. I need not but just glance upon several other reasons why I am more likely to be useful here than anywhere else: as, because I have the joint advice of many friends in any difficulty, and their joint encouragement in any dangers; because the good Bishop and Vice-Chancellor are at hand to supply (as need is) their want of experience; because we have the eyes of multitudes upon us, who, even without designing it, perform the most substantial office of friendship, apprising us where we have already fallen, and guarding us from falling again; lastly, because we have here a constant fund (which I believe this year will amount to near eighty pounds) to supply the bodily wants of the poor, and thereby prepare their souls to receive instruction. 19. If it be said that the love of the people at Epworth balances all these advantages here, I ask, How long will it last Only till I come to tell them plainly that their deeds are evil, and, to make a particular application of that general sentence, to say to each, Thou art the man! Alas, sir, do I not know what love they had for you at first And how have they used you since Why, just as every one will be used whose business it is to bring light to them that love to sit in darkness. 20. Notwithstanding, therefore, their present prejudice in my favor, I cannot quit my first conclusion, that I am not likely to do that good anywhere, not even at Epworth, which I may do at Oxford; and yet one terrible objection lies in the way: Have you found it so in fact What have you done there in so many years Nay, have not the very attempts to do good, for want either of a particular turn of mind for the business you engaged in or of prudence to direct you in the right method of doing it, not only been unsuccessful, but brought such contempt upon you as has in great measure disqualified you for any future success And are there not men in Oxford who are not only better and holier than you, but who, having preserved their reputation, who, being universally esteemed, are every way fitter to promote the glory of God in that place 21. I am not careful to answer in this matter. It is not my part to say whether God has done any good by my hands; whether I have a particular turn of mind for this or not; or whether the want of success in my past attempts was owing to want of prudence, to ignorance of the right method of acting, or to some other cause. But the latter part of the objection, that he who is despised can do no good, that without reputation a man cannot be useful in the world, being the stronghold of all the unbelieving, the vainglorious, and the cowardly Christians (so called), I will, by the grace of God, see what reason that has thus continually to exalt itself against the knowledge of Christ. 22. With regard to contempt, then (under which term I include all the passions that border upon it, as hatred, envy, &c., and all the fruits that flow from them, such as calumny, reproach, and persecution in any of its forms), my first position, in defiance of worldly wisdom, is this: Every true Christian is contemned, wherever he lives, by all who are not so, and who know him to be such -- i.e. in effect, by all with whom he converses; since it is impossible for light not to shine. This position I prove both from the example of our Lord and from His express assertions. First, from His example: if the disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord, then, as our Master was despised and rejected of men, so will every one of His true disciples. But the disciple is not above his master, and therefore the consequence will not fail him an hair’s breadth. Secondly, from His own express assertions of this consequence: ’If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household I ’ (Matt. x. 25); ’ Remember (ye that would fain forget or evade it) the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.’ And as for that vain hope that this belongs only to the first followers of Christ, hear ye Him: ’ All these things will they do to you, because they know not Him that sent Me’; and again, ’ Because ye are not of the world, therefore the world hateth you’ (John xv. 19). Both the persons who are hated, and the persons who hate them, and the cause of their hating them, are here clearly determined. The hated are all that are not of this world, that are born again in the knowledge and love of God: the haters are all that are of this world, that know not God so as to love Him with all their strength; the cause of their hatred is, the entire irreconcilable differences between their desires, judgments, and affections; --- because these know not God, and those are determined to know and pursue nothing besides Him; because these esteem and love the world, and those count it dung and dross, and singly desire that love of Christ. 23. My next position is this: Until he be thus contemned, no man is in a state of salvation. And this is no more than a plain inference from the former; for if all that are not of the world are therefore contemned by those that are, then till a man is so contemned he is of the world -- i.e. out of a state of salvation. Nor is it possible for all the trimmers between God and the world, for all the dodgers in religion, to elude this consequence, which God has established, and not man, unless they could prove that a man may be of the world -- i.e. void both of the knowledge and love of God--and yet be in a state of salvation. I must therefore, with or without leave of these, keep close to my Savior’s judgment, and maintain that contempt is a part of that cross which every man must bear if he will follow Him; that it is the badge of his discipleship, the stamp of his profession, the constant seal of his calling; insomuch that, though a man may be despised without being saved, yet he cannot be saved without being despised. 24. I should not spend any more words about this great truth, but that it seems at present quite voted out of the world: the masters in Israel, learned men, men of renown, seem absolutely to have forgotten it; nay, censure those who have not forgotten the words of their Lord as setters forth of strange doctrines. And hence it is commonly asked, How can these things be How can contempt be necessary to salvation I answer, As it is a necessary means of purifying souls for heaven; as it is a blessed instrument of cleansing them from pride, which else would turn their very graces into poison; as it is a glorious antidote against vanity, which would otherwise pollute and destroy all their labors; as it is an excellent medicine to heal ’the anger and impatience of spirit apt to insinuate into their best employments; and, in a word, as it is one of the choicest remedies in the whole magazine of God against love of the world, in which whosoever liveth is counted dead before Him. 25. And hence (as a full answer to the preceding objection) I infer one position more: That our being contemned is absolutely necessary to our doing good in the world. If not to our doing some good (for God may work by Judas), yet to our doing so much as we otherwise should. For since God will employ those instruments most who are fittest to be employed; since, the holier a man is, the fitter instrument he is for the God of holiness; and since contempt is so glorious a means of advancing holiness in him that is exercised thereby; nay, since no man can be holy at all without it, -- who can keep off the consequence The being contemned is absolutely necessary to a Christian’s doing his full measure of good in the world. Where, then, is the scribe where is the wise where is the dispurer of this world where is the replier against God with his sage maxims ’He that is despised can do no good in the world; to be useful, a man must be esteemed; to advance the glory of God, you must have a fair reputation.’ Saith the world so But what saith the Scripture Why, that God hath laughed all the heathen wisdom to scorn. It saith that twelve despised followers of a despised Master, all of whom were of no reputation, who were esteemed as the filth and offscouring of the world, did more good in it than all the tribes of Israel. It saith that the despised Master of these despised followers left a standing direction to us and to our children: ’ Blessed are ye (not accursed with the heavy curse of doing no good; of being useless in the world,) when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil of you falsely for My name’s sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad; for great is your reward in heaven.’ 26. These are part of my reasons for choosing to abide (till I am better informed) in the station wherein God’ has placed me. As for the flock committed, to your care, whom for many years you have diligently fed with the sincere milk of the Word, I trust in God your labor shall not be in vain, either to yourself or them: many of them the great Shepherd has by your hand delivered from the hand of the destroyer; some of whom are already entered into peace, and some remain unto this day. For yourself, I doubt not, but when your warfare is accomplished, when you are made perfect through sufferings, you shall come to your grave, not with sorrow, but as a ripe shock of corn, full of years and victories. And He that took care of the poor sheep before you was born will not forget them when you are dead..’ Ended December 19, 1734. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Young Richard Morgan brought a greyhound with him to Oxford, and wished to have a gay time, He told his father that he had delivered his letter of November 22 to John Wesley, who asked him to breakfast next morning. He had spent his evenings with the Oxford Methodists, of whose meetings he gives many details. He thinks that if he continues under Wesley’s tuition he will be ruined, ‘for he will endeavor to make me as strict as himself.’ This rather petulant letter gives the young Irishman’s first impressions of the Holy Club, and helps us to understand the feeling about the Oxford Methodists in University circles. [2] Morgan replied to this letter on April 27, thanking Wesley for the pains he had been at in explaining the duty of a Christian, and giving his own views on the subject. He says he has received a very obliging letter from the Rector of Epworth. The stress Wesley lays on doing good is illustrated at a later stage by his Rules for the Methodist Societies. [3] The writings of William Law (1686-1761), the celebrated Nonjuror and Mystic, which Wesley read after he became Fellow of Lincoln, produced a profound impression on his mind. He visited Law at Putney in the summer of 1732. He tried to order his life on the lines laid down in the Serious Call, and regularly preached after the model of Law’s books. Among his expenses for 1732 he enters: ’ May, Law’s Serious Call, 5s.; July, Thos. Kempis, 1s. 6d.; Dec. Vind. Law, 2s.’ This letter shows how fittingly Wesley was called the Father of the Holy Club. [4] Wesley was at Gloucester in May 1732, where he saw a good deal of Mrs. Granville and Selima. His notebook shows that the journey cost 1 0s. 2d. Mrs. Pendarves (Auto. and Corr. i. 343) tells her sister (Dublin, March 11, 1732): ’ Cyrus by this time has blotted me out of his memory; or if he does remember me, it can only be to reproach me. What can I say for myself What can I indeed say to myself, that have neglected so extraordinary a correspondent I only am the sufferer, but I should be very sorry to have him think my silence proceeded from negligence; I declare ’tis want of time! Then there’s poor Sally too, who I think of every day, but cannot find a moment to tell her so, though soon I will endeavor to acquit myself in a proper manner to them both. I can’t put myself into better hands for making an excuse for me than in yours.’ Mrs. Pendarves stayed in Ireland till April 1733, and writes to her sister (ibid. i. 410) from Dangan on the 11th of that month: ’As for the ridicule Cyrus has been exposed to, I do not at all wonder at it; religion in its plainest dress suffers daily from the insolence and ignorance of the world; then how should that person escape who dares to appear openly in its cause He will meet with all the mortification such rebels are able to give, which can be no other than that of finding them willfully blinding themselves and running headlong into the gulf of perdition; a melancholy prospect for the honest-hearted man who earnestly desires the salvation of his fellow creatures.’ She was in London in May, and at Longleat with Lady Weymouth in July, whence she went to stay at Gloucester with her mother and sister. Lady Llanover (ibid. i. 271) refers to Wesley as ’ a man of whom it has been justly observed that he "was one of the most extraordinary characters that ever existed"; whether considered as a various and voluminous writer, a zealous and indefatigable preacher, or the founder of one of the most numerous sects in the Christian world.’ [5] The Rector of Epworth wrote to his son on November 20, 1734 (see Priestley’s Letters, pp. 48-50), pleading that, to preserve the fruit of his forty years’ labor and on account of ’ the dear love and longing which this poor people has for you,’ he would accept the living. This letter in reply (which is condensed in the Journal, ii, I59) marks a critical point in Wesley’s history. Had he gone to Epworth, Methodism might never have passed beyond its Oxford stage. Wesley evidently yielded to family pressure, and afterwards was willing to take the living; but it was given to another. That probably had its influence in his going to Georgia. See Tyerman’s Life and Times of Wesley, i. 102-4. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: 18. 1735 ======================================================================== 1735 To his Mother OXON, January 13, 1735 DEAR MOTHER, -- Give my leave to say once more that our folks do, and will I supose to the end of the chapter, mistake the question. Supposing him changed Say they. Right: but that supposition has not proof yet – whether it may have: when it has, then we may come to our other point, whether all this be not providence, i.e. blessing. And whether we are empowered so to judge, condemn, and execute an imprudent Christian, as God forbid I should ever use a Turk or Deist. I have had a great deal of a conversation lately on the subject of Christian liberty, and should be glad of your thoughts as to the several notions of it which good men entertain. I perceive different persons take it in at least six different senses: (1) For liberty from willful sin, in opposition to the bondage of natural corruption. (2) For liberty as to rites and points of discipline. So Mr. Whiston says, though the stations were constituted by the Apostles, yet the liberty of the Christian law dispenses with them on extraordinary occasions. [William Whiston (1667-1752) succeeded Newton as Lucasian Professor in 1703. The reference is to his book, The Primitive Eucharist Revived; or, an account of the doctrine and practice of the two first centuries. The ’ stations’ were the fasts: see letter of June 13, 1753, n.] (3) For liberty from denying ourselves in little things; for trifles, ’tis commonly thought, we may indulge in safety, because Christ hath made us free. This notion, I a little doubt, is not sound. (4) For liberty from fear, or a filial freedom in our intercourse with God. A Christian, says Dr. Knight, [ James Knight, Vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, London. See letter of May 8, 1739.] is free from fear on account of his past sins; for he believes in Christ, and hope frees him from fear of losing his present labor or of being a castaway hereafter. (5) Christian liberty is taken by some for a freedom from restraint as to sleep or food. So they would say, your drinking but one glass of wine, or my rising at a fixed hour, was contrary to Christian liberty. Lastly, it is taken for freedom from rules. If by this be meant making our rules yield to extraordinary occasions, well: if the having no prudential rules, this liberty is as yet too high for me; I cannot attain unto it. We join in begging yours and my father’s blessing, and wishing you an Happy Year. -- I am, dear mother, Your dutiful and affectionate Son. To Mrs. Wesley, At Epworth. To be left at the Post-house in Gainsborough. By London. To his Brother Samuel OXON, January 15, 1735. DEAR BROTHER,--Had not my brother Charles desired it might be otherwise, I should have sent you only an extract of the following letter.[ To his father on Dec. 10, 1734.] But if you will be at the pains, you will soon reduce the argument of it to two or three points, which, if to be answered at all, will be easily answered. By it you may observe my present purpose is founded on my present weakness. But it is not, indeed, probable that my father should live till that weakness is removed. Your second argument I had no occasion to mention before. To it I answer, that I do not, nor ever did, resolve against undertaking a cure of souls. There are four cures belonging to our College, and consistent with a Fellowship: I do not know but I may take one of them at Michaelmas. Not that I am clearly assured that I should be false to my engagement were I only to instruct and exhort the pupils committed to my charge. But of that I should think more. I desire your full thoughts upon the whole, as well as your prayers, for, dear brother, Your obliged and affectionate Brother. To his Brother Samuel OXON, February 13, 1735. DEAR BROTHER, --Neither you nor I have any time to spare; so I must be as short as I can. There are two questions between us; one relating to being good, the other to doing good. With regard to the former: 1. You allow I enjoy more of friends, retirement, freedom from care, and divine ordinances than I could do elsewhere: and I add (1) I feel all this to be but just enough; (2) I have always found less than this to be too little for me; and therefore (3) whatever others do, I could not throw up any part of it without manifest hazard to my salvation. As to the latter: 2. I am not careful to answer ’what good I have done at Oxford,’ because I cannot think of it without the utmost danger. ’ I am careful about what I may do at Epworth,’ (1) because I can think of it without any danger at all; (2) because I cannot, as matters now stand, avoid thinking of it without sin. 3. Another can supply my place at Epworth better than at Oxford, and the good done here is of a far more diffusive nature. It is a more extensive benefit to sweeten the fountain than to do the same to particular streams. 4. To the objection, You are despised at Oxford, therefore you can do no good there, I answer: (1) A Christian will be despised anywhere. (2) No one is a Christian till he is despised. (3) His being .despised will not hinder his doing good, but much further it by making him a better Christian. Without contradicting any of these propositions, I allow that every one to whom you do good directly must esteem you, first or last. -- N.B. A man may despise you for one thing, hate you for a second, and envy you for a third. 5. God may suffer Epworth to be worse than before. But I may not attempt to prevent it, with so great hazard to my own soul. Your last argument is either ignoratio elenchi, or implies these two propositions: (1) ’You resolve against any parochial cure of souls.’ (2) ’The priest who does not undertake the first parochial cure that offers is perjured.’ Let us add a third: ’ The tutor who, being in Orders, never accepts of a parish is perjured.’ [That was Samuel Wcsley’s own case.] And then I deny all three. --I am, dear brother, Your obliged and affectionate Brother. To his Brother Samuel Oxon, March 4, 1735. DEAR BROTHER, -- I had rather dispute, if I must dispute, with you than with any man living, because it may be done with so little expense of time and words. The question is now brought to one point, and the whole of the argument will be in a single syllogism: Neither hope of doing greater good nor fear of any evil ought to deter you from what you have engaged yourself to. But you have engaged yourself to undertake the cure of a parish: Therefore neither that hope nor that fear ought to deter you from it. The only doubt is whether I have engaged myself or not. You think I did at my ordination, ’ before God and His high-priest.’ I think I did not. However, I own I am not the proper judge of the oath I then took. It being certain and allowed by all-- ’Verbis in quibus quis jurejurando adigitur, sensum genuinum, ut et obligationem sacramenti et modum et mensuram praestari a mente non praestantis, sed exigentis juramentum.’ [The words are probably a quotation from an English Canonist, and have been thus translated: ’To words in which any one is caused to take an oath, the true meaning, and also the manner and extent of the obligation of the oath, is supplied from the mind, not of the taker of the oath, but of him who demands it.’ See Journal, i. 29.] Therefore it is not I, but the high-priest of God before whom I contracted that engagement, who is to judge of the nature and extent of it. Accordingly the post after I received yours I referred it entirely to him,[ Dr. Potter, trs. to Canterbury1737.] proposing this single question to him, Whether I had at my ordination engaged myself to undertake the cure of any parish or no His answer runs in these words: REVD. SIR, -- It doth not seem to me that at your ordination you engaged yourself to undertake the cure of any parish, provided you can as a clergyman better serve God and His Church in your present or some other station. Now, that I can as a clergyman better serve God and His Church in my present station I have all reasonable evidence. [See letters of Feb. 15, 1733, and Dec. 10, 1734.] To John Robson [] September 30, 1735. DEAR SIR, -- The dining in the hall on Friday seems to me utterly unjustifiable. It is giving offense in the worst sense, giving men occasion to think that innocent which is grossly sinful. The plausible pretenses for throwing off the very form of godliness that must be esteemed if we will do good; that we must keep those things private wherein we differ from the world, and so on, you will find fully examined in Nicodemus. [Wesley read Nicodemus; or, A Treatise on the Fear of Man, by August H. Francke, on his voyage to Georgia. He abridged it for Methodist readers in 1739. See Diary in Journal, i. 121, 300-1; Green’s Wesley Bibliography, No. 12.] The Bishops can no more dispense with the law (the reason of which still subsists) than you or I can. Fasting is not a means of chastity only, but of deadness to pleasure, and heavenly-mindedness, and consequently necessary (in such measure as agrees with health) to all persons in all times of life. Had I been less strict, as ’tis called, I should have not only not done more good than I have (that is, God by me), but I never should have done any at all, nor indeed desired to do any. Till a man gives offense he will do no good; and the more offense he gives by adhering to the gospel of Christ the more good he will do, and the more good he does the more offense he will give. As to lukewarm company, I can only advise you (1) to keep out of it -- as much as you can; (2) when you cannot, to pray before, after, and during your stay in it fervently and without ceasing: but this you can’t do---I know it; but God can make you able to do it, and in Him you must put your trust. I am not satisfied (as I have told the Rector for this twelvemonth past) that the Wednesday fast [See letter of June 13, 1733.] is strictly obligatory; though I believe it very ancient, if not apostolical. He never saw what I writ upon it. Dr. Tilly’s sermons [William Tilly’s Sixteen Sermons preached before the University of Oxford at St. Mary’s (Phil. ii. 12-13). ’The grace of God shown to be not only consistent with the liberty of man’s will, but the strongest obligation to our own endeavors’ (2 Sermons. 1712).] on Free Will are the best I ever saw. His text is, ’Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.’ May you all assist one another so to do, and be not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. aaae te , &c. Bear ye one another’s burdens. I charge Mr. Robson in the name of the Lord Jesus that he no longer halt between two opinions. If the Lord be God, serve Him, love Him with all your heart, serve Him with all your strength; and pray for us that faith and utterance may be given us, that we may speak boldly as we ought to speak. THE GEORGIA LETTERS OCTOBER 10, 1735, TO NOVEMBER 26, 1737 To Dr. Burton October 10, 1735. DEAR SIR, -- I have been hitherto unwilling to mention the grounds of my design of embarking for Georgia, for two reasons,---one, because they were such as I know few men would judge to be of any weight: the other, because I was afraid of making favorable judges think of me above what they ought to think; and what a snare this must be to my own soul I know by dear-bought experience. But, on farther reflection, I am convinced that I ought to speak the truth with all boldness, even though it should appear foolishness to the world, as it has done from the beginning; and that, whatever danger there is in doing the will of God, He will support me under it. In His name, therefore, and trusting in His defense, I shall plainly declare the thing as it is. My chief motive, to which all the rest are subordinate, is the hope of saving my own soul. I hope to learn the true sense of the gospel of Christ by preaching it to the heathen. They have no comments to construe away the text; no vain philosophy to corrupt it; no luxurious, sensual, covetous, ambitious expounders to soften its unpleasing truths, to reconcile earthly-mindedness and faith, the Spirit of Christ and the spirit of the world. They have no party, no interest to serve, and are therefore fit to receive the gospel in its simplicity. They are as little children, humble, willing to learn, and eager to do the will of God; and consequently they shall know of every doctrine I preach whether it be of God. By these, therefore, I hope to learn the purity of that faith which was once delivered to the saints; the genuine sense and full extent of those laws which none can understand who mind earthly things. A right faith will, I trust, by the mercy of God, open the way for a right practice; especially when most of those temptations are removed which here so easily beset me. Toward mortifying the desire of the flesh, the desire of sensual pleasures, it will be no small thing to be able, without fear of giving offense, to live on water and the fruits of the earth. This simplicity of food will, I trust, be a blessed means, both of preventing my seeking that happiness in meats and drinks which God designed should be found only in faith and love and joy in the Holy Ghost; and will assist me---especially where I see no woman but those which are almost of a different species from me--to attain such a purity of thought as suits a candidate for that state wherein they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Neither is it a small thing to be delivered from so many occasions, as now surround me, of indulging the desire of the eye. They here compass me in on every side; but an Indian hut affords no food for curiosity, no gratification of the desire of grand or new or pretty things: though, indeed, the cedars which God hath planted round it may so gratify the eye as to better the heart, by lifting it to Him whose name alone is excellent and His praise above heaven and earth. If by the pride of life we understand the pomp and show of the world, that has no place in the wilds of America. If it mean pride in general, this, alas ! has a place everywhere: yet there are very uncommon helps against it, not only by the deep humility of the poor heathens, fully sensible of their want of an instructor, but that happy contempt which cannot fail to attend all who sincerely endeavor to instruct them, and which, continually increasing, will surely make them in the end as the filth and offscouring of the world. Add to this, that nothing so convinces us of our own impotence as a zealous attempt to convert our neighbor; nor, indeed, till he does all he can for God, will any man feel that he can himself do nothing. Farther: a sin which easily besets me is unfaithfulness to God in the use of speech. I know that this is a talent entrusted to me by my Lord, to be used, as all others, only for His glory. I know that all conversation which is not seasoned with salt, and designed at least to administer grace to the hearers, is expressly forbid by the Apostle, as corrupt communication, and as grieving the Holy Spirit of God; yet I am almost continually betrayed into it by the example of others striking in with my own bad heart. But I hope, from the moment I leave the English shore, under the acknowledged character of a teacher sent from God, there shall no word be heard from my lips but what properly flows from that character: as my tongue is a devoted thing, I hope from the first hour of this new era to use it only as such, that all who hear me may know of a truth the words I speak are not mine but His that sent me. The same faithfulness I hope to show through His grace in dispensing the rest of my Master’s goods, if it please Him to send me to those who, like His first followers, have all things common. What a guard is here against that root of evil, the love of money, and all the vile attractions that spring from it ! One in this glorious state, and perhaps none but he, may see the height and depth of that privilege of the first Christians, ’as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing all things.’ I then hope to know what it is to love my neighbor as myself, and to feel the powers of that second motive to visit the heathens, even the desire to impart to them what I have received--a saving knowledge of the gospel of Christ. But this I dare not think on yet. It is not for me, who have been a grievous sinner from my youth up, and am yet laden with foolish and hurtful desires, to expect God should work so great things by my hands; but I am assured, if I be once fully converted myself, He will then employ me both to strengthen my brethren and to preach His name to the Gentiles, that the very ends of the earth may see the salvation of our God. But you will perhaps ask: ’Cannot you save your own soul in England as well as in Georgia ’ I answer,--No; neither can I hope to attain the same degree of holiness here which I may there; neither, if I stay here, knowing this, can I reasonably hope to attain any degree of holiness at all: for whoever, when two ways of life are proposed, prefers that which he is convinced in his own mind is less pleasing to God and less conducive to the perfection of his soul, has no reason from the gospel of Christ to hope that he shall ever please God at all or receive from Him that grace whereby alone he can attain any degree of Christian perfection. To the other motive--the hope of doing more good in America--it is commonly objected that ’there are heathens enough in practice, if not theory, at home; why, then, should you go to those in America ’ Why For a very plain reason: because these heathens at home have Moses and the Prophets, and those have not; because these who have the gospel trample upon it, and those who have it not earnestly call for it; ’ therefore, seeing these judge themselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, I turn to the Gentiles.’ If you object, farther, the losses I must sustain in leaving my native country, I ask,--Loss of what of anything I desire to keep No; I shall still have food to eat and raiment to put on--enough of such food as I choose to eat and such raiment as I desire to put on; and if any man have a desire of other things, or of more food than he can eat, or more raiment than he need put on, let him know that the greatest blessing which can possibly befall him is to be cut off from all occasions of gratifying those desires, which, unless speedily rooted out, will drown his soul in everlasting perdition. ’But what shall we say to the loss of parents, brethren, sisters--nay, of the friends which are as my own soul, of those who have so often lifted up my hands that hung down and strengthened my feeble knees, by whom God hath often enlightened my understanding and warmed and enlarged my heart ’ What shall we say Why, that if you add the loss of life to the rest, so much the greater is the gain; for though ’ the grass withereth and the flower fadeth, the word of our God shall stand for ever.’ Say that, when human instruments are removed, He, the Lord, will answer us by His own self; and the general answer which He hath already given us to all questions of this nature is: ’ Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left father, or mother, or lands, for My sake, but shall receive an hundredfold now in this time with persecutions, and in the world to come eternal life.’ To his Brother Samuel GRAVESEND, ON BOARD THE ‘SlMMONDS,’ October 15, 1735. DEAR BROTHER, -- I presented Job to the Queen on Sunday, and had many good words and smiles. [A folio volume in Latin, entitled Dissertationes in Librum Jobi, by his father, and dedicated by permission to Queen Caroline. John Wesley presented a copy to her Majesty on Oct. 12, 1735. Dr. Clarke (Wesley Family, i. 330) says that Wesley told him that when he was introduced the Queen was romping with her maids of honor. She stopped her play, heard him graciously, and when he presented the book on bended knee she looked at the outside, said ’ It is very prettily bound,’ and laid it down in a window without opening a leaf. He rose, bowed, and retired. The Queen bowed, smiled, spoke several kind words, and immediately resumed her sport.] Out of what is due to me on that account, I beg you would first pay yourself what I owe you; and if I live till spring, I can then direct what I would have done with the remainder. The uncertainty of my having another opportunity to tell you my thoughts in this life obliges me to tell you what I have often thought of, and that in as few and plain words as I can. Elegance of style is not to be weighed against purity of heart; purity both from the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life. Therefore whatever has any tendency to impair that purity is not to be tolerated, much less recommended, for the sake of that elegance. But of this sort (I speak not from the reason of the thing only, nor from my single experience) are the most of the classics usually read in great schools; many of them tending to inflame the lusts of the flesh (besides Ovid, Virgil’s Aeneid, and Terence’s Eunuch), and more to feed the lust of the eye and the pride of life. I beseech you, therefore, by the mercies of God, who would have us holy, as He is holy, that you banish all such poison from your school; that you introduce in their place such Christian authors as will work together with you in building up your flock in the knowledge and love of God. For assure yourself, dear brother, you are even now called to the converting of heathens as well as I. So many souls are committed to your charge by God, to be prepared for a happy eternity. You are to instruct them, not only in the beggarly elements of Greek and Latin, but much more in the gospel. You are to labor with all your might to convince them that Christianity is not a negation or an external thing, but a new heart, a mind conformed to that of Christ, ’ faith working by love.’ We recommend you and yours to God. Pray for us. -- I am Your affectionate Brother and servant in Christ. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Samuel Wesley wrote to his brother on Christmas Day, 1734, saying that he had heard from his father that John was resolved not to accept the living at Epworth. Samuel told him that he was not at liberty to resolve against undertaking a cure of souls. See Priestley’s Letters, pp. 17-19. [2] Samuel replied on February 8: ’The order of the Church stakes you down, and, the more you struggle, will hold the faster.’ To this Wesley answers: [3] On October 14 Wesley took boat for Gravesend, where he boarded the Simmonds, and on the 21st sailed for Georgia. This letter is a farewell to his Oxford life. John Robson, the son of a gentleman in Sockbourne, co. Durham, entered Lincoln College in x732, at the age of seventeen. He took his degree in 1735. Wesley writes to him with the frankness of an old tutor, and one who had himself faced his friend’s difficulties. His allusion to his own efforts to do good and the strictness which had given offense to some of his contemporaries is of special interest. He looks back on the memorable years spent at the University since he became a student at Christ Church on June 24, 1720, a week after his seventeenth birthday. His undergraduate days; his ordination as deacon and priest in Christ Church Cathedral; his election to his Fellowship at Lincoln College on March 17, 1726, and all the spiritual experiences of Oxford Methodism, must have crowded in upon him as he faced the New World, which was to complete his training for the work of the Evangelical Revival. [4] John Burton was born in 1696 at Wembworthy, in Devonshire, where his father was rector. He was a scholar of Corpus Christi College, and soon after taking his degree in 1717 became a tutor there. He enjoyed a greater reputation than any other don of his time; but his ’ incurable recklessness in money matters ’ made him little better off at the end of his term than at the beginning. As Master of the Schools he introduced the study of Locke and other modern philosophers. He was a distinguished classical scholar. Among his pupils were the sons of Dr. Bland, through whose influence he was made Fellow of Eton College in 1733. The same year he was presented to the valuable living of Mapledurham, where he married the widow of his predecessor, Dr. Edward Littleton. She was the daughter of Mr. Geede, under-master of Eton, and was left with three infant daughters and without money or home. She was ’ handsome, ingenious, elegant, and had great sweetness of temper.’ She died in 1748. He spent the greater part of his time at Eton College. In 1755 Dr. Burton became Rector of Worplesdon, Surrey, where he resided during a portion of the year, and was the means of getting a causeway built by which the parishioners could reach Guildford in all weathers. He was with Oglethorpe at Corpus Christi, and in 1732 preached a sermon before the Trustees of Georgia and Dr. Bray’s Associates. His Account of the Designs of the late Dr. Bray was published in 1764, and was often republished. He died on February 11, 1771, and was buried at the entrance to the Inner Chapel at Eton, under the organ-left. An inscription in Latin describes him as ’A man among the most eminent for learning, genius, piety, and contempt of wealth, and an admirable tutor of inglorious youth.’ He published an edition of five Greek tragedies, and many pamphlets, tracts, and sermons. He was one of the most influential Georgia trustees, and introduced Wesley to Oglethorpe. On September 8, 1735, he writes: ’Your short conference with Mr. Oglethorpe has raised the hopes of many good persons that you and yours would join in an undertaking which cannot be better executed than by such instruments.’ On September 18 he says: ‘’’Tis a happy circumstance that you should offer yourselves on this occasion. May your hands be strengthened and your endeavors prospered!’ He invites Wesley to spend the night with him at Mapledurham, whence he would convey him to London and introduce him to his friends. On September 28 he sent a beautiful letter of advice as to his work on shipboard and in Savannah. Dr. Burton’s letters to Wesley are given in the Journal, viii. 285-8. He went with the Wesleys from Westminster to Gravesend when they set out on their voyage. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: 19. 1736 ======================================================================== 1736 To Dr. Burton ON BOARD THR SHIP ’ SIMMONDS,’ January 20, 1736. HONOURED SIR,--Your prayers have not been in vain, for God hath greatly prospered us ever since we set out from London. We have wanted no manner of thing that is good. Plenty of temporal conveniences have been added to higher blessings, even those which we least expected. In the midst of the sick our health has been preserved. When the strong men fainted, and the experienced in this way of life fell down, I was not more affected than if I had been on land, nor ever prevented for one hour from reading, writing, or pursuing any other employment. Whilst we were in Cowes Road, there were several storms, in one of which two ships were cast away on the back of the island, as we should have been had it not pleased God to detain us in that safe station. By this means, too, we have many opportunities of instructing and exhorting the poor passengers, most of whom at their embarking knew little more of Christianity than the name. But God has so assisted our little endeavors in catechizing the children, explaining the Scriptures, and applying them in private conversation, that we have reason to hope a great part of them are throughly awakened and determined to pursue the prize of their high calling. We can’t be sufficiently thankful to God for Mr. Oglethorpe’s presence with us. There are few if any societies in England more carefully regulated than this is. The very sailors have for some time behaved in a modest, regular manner. The knowing that they are constantly under the eye of one who has both power and will to punish every offender keeps even those who, it is to be feared, have no higher principle, from openly offending against God or their neighbor; so that we have an appearance at least of Christianity from one end of the ship to the other, and those who do not love it rarely show their dislike, unless in a corner among their intimates. May the good God show them too, in this their day, the things that make for their peace! We have had but one storm since we were at sea, and that lasted but a few hours. One unaccustomed to the sea would have imagined the ship would have been swallowed up every moment. A single wave covered it over, burst into the cabin where we were with a noise and shock almost like that of a cannon, and, after having steeped one or two of us from head to foot, passed through into the great cabin, from which we emptied it out at the windows. This too I hope was not a little blessing, the fright it occasioned in several persons having made them more susceptible of useful impression. May He who hath helped us and poured His benefits upon us continue to have you and yours under His protection! May He prosper all the designs of your Societies for His glory, and strengthen your hands against all the power of the enemy! He shall repay the kindness you have shown us for His sake, especially by making mention of us in your prayers: whereas none stands more in need than, honored sir, Your most obliged and obedient servant. On January 23, 1736, Wesley wrote to Sir John Thorold, whom he had succeeded in the Fellowship at Lincoln College. That letter has been lost; but Sir John’s reply, on May 24, 1736, is given in the Journal, viii. 298-302. To Count Zinzendorf COMITI DE ZINZENDORF JOHANNES WESLEY. SALUTEM IN CHRISTO SEMPITERNAM. Graviora tua negotia literis meis interpellare non auderem, nisi te crederem illius esse discipulum, qui linum ardens non extingui vult, neque calamum quassatum confringi. Id vero quum persuasum habeam, maximopere te obtestor, ut et tuis et Ecclesiae tecum peregrinantis precibus Deo cornmender, in vera spiritus pauperrate, mansuetudine, fide, ac amore Dei proximique erudiendus. Et si quando tibi paululum otii suppetat, breve illud votum Deo offerre ne dedigneris, quod a fratribus tuis (utinam et meis) Savannensibus saepius oblatum audivi: Einen Helden muth Der da Gut und Blut Gem um deinetwillen lasse Und des Fleisches Ltlste hasse, Gieb ibm, Hchstes Gut, Durch dein theares Blut. [The last verse of Freylinghausen’s Wer ist wohl wie Du (No. 30 in the Herrnhut Gesang-Buch of 1737); the hymn which Wesley translated as ’O Jesu, Source of calm repose.’ This is the verse which he rendered: A patient, a victorious mind, That life and all things casts behind, Springs forth obedient to Thy call, A heart that no desire can move, But still to adore, believe, and love, Give me, my Lord, my Life, my All!] SAVANNAE, Mart. 15, v.s. 1736. [Translation] SAVANNAH, March 15, 1736. JOHN WESLEY TO COUNT ZINZENDORF. ETERNAL WELL-BEING IN CHRIST. I should not dare to interrupt your more weighty affairs with a letter of mine, did I not hold you to be a disciple of Him who would not have the smoking flax quenched nor the bruised reed broken. But since I am entirely convinced of this, I beg of you that in your prayers and the prayers of the Church that sojourns with you, I may be commended to God, to be instructed in true poverty of spirit, in gentleness, in faith, and love of God and my neighbor. And, whenever you have a little leisure, do not disdain to offer to God this short prayer, which I have heard frequently offered by your brethren at Savannah (would they were mine also!): Then the dauntless mind Which, to Jesus joined, Neither life nor treasure prizes, And all fleshly lusts despises, Grant him, Highest Good, Through Thy precious blood. To his Mother SAVANNAH, March 18, 1736. DEAR MOTHER, -- I doubt not but you are already informed of the many blessings which God gave us in our passage; as my brother Wesley [Wesley began a long letter to his brother Samuel on Jan. 21, which he finished next day. Samuel would no doubt have sent it to their mother (Journal, i. 139d).] must before now have received a particular account of the circumstances of our voyage, which he would not fail to transmit to you by the first opportunity. We are likely to stay here some months. The place is pleasant beyond imagination; and, by all I can learn, exceeding healthful -- even in summer, for those who are not intemperate. It has pleased God that I have not had a moment’s illness of any kind since I set my foot upon the continent; nor do I know any more than one of my seven hundred parishioners who is sick at this time. Many of them, indeed, are, I believe, very angry already: for a gentleman, no longer ago than last night, made a ball; but public prayers happening to begin about the same time, the church was full, and the ball-room so empty that the entertainment could not go forward. I should be heartily glad if any poor and religious men or women of Epworth or Wroot would come over to me. And so would Mr. Oglethorpe too: he would give them land enough, and provisions gratis till they could live on the produce of it. I was fully determined to have wrote to my dear Emmy to-day; but time will not permit. O hope ye still in God; for ye shall yet give Him thanks, who is the help of your countenance and your God! Renounce the world; deny yourselves; bear your cross with Christ, and reign with Him! My brother Harper, [John Wesley married his sister Emilia to Robert Harper, an apothecary of Epworth, shortly before he sailed for Georgia. It was an unfortunate marriage. His business was not a success, and absorbed a large part of what his wife made by her boarding- school at Gainsborough. See letter of June 18, 1725.] too, has a constant place in our prayers. May the good God give him the same zeal for holiness which He has given to a young gentleman at Rotterdam, who was with me last night.[ He had a long, close interview with Mr. Appee, a young Dutchman, in the house and in the garden. Appee proved to be unscrupulous and irreligious. See Journal, i. 180-1d; C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 36-41.] Pray for us, and especially for, dear mother, Your dutiful and affectionate Son. To Mrs. Wesley, In Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. To his Brother Charles SAVANNAH, March 22, 1736. DEAR BROTHER, -- How different are the ways wherein we are led! Yet, I hope, toward the same end. I have hitherto no opposition at all. All is smooth and fair and promising. Many seem to be awakened. All are full of respect and commendation. We can’t see any cloud gathering. But this calm cannot last; storms must come hither too: and let them come, when we are ready to meet them. ’Tis strange so many of our friends should still trust in God. I hope, indeed, whoever turns to the world, Mr. Tackner and Betty, with Mr. Hird’s family and Mr. Burk, will zealously aim at the prize of their high calling. These especially I exhort, by the mercies of God, that they be not weary of well-doing, but that they labor more and more to be meek and lowly, and daily to advance in the knowledge and love of God. I hope, too, Mr. Weston, Mr. Moore, Mr. Allen, and Mr. White, as well as Mr. Ward and his wife, continue in the same wise resolutions. I must not forget Mr. Reed and Mr. Daubry, both of whom I left fully determined to shake off every weight, and with all their might to pursue the one thing needful. Conciones omnes meas jamnunc habes, praeter istas quas misi. Aliquae in pyxide sunt (de qua ne verbum scribis) una cum Bibliis in quarto. Liber de Disciplina quam celerrime potes, remittendus est. Quanta est concordia fratrum! Tui vole et fratris Bi. [‘You have now all my sermons, beside those which I have sent. Some are in the box (of which you write not a word) together with the Bible in quarto. The Book of Discipline must be sent back as soon as possible. How great is the concord of brethren! I mean of thee and brother B’ (Benjamin Ingham).] You are not, I think, at liberty stfesa e t ‘, ‘e sfta s ‘aps se. [’ To turn to the Gentiles till your own countrymen shall cast you out.’] If that period comes soon, so much the better. Only in the meanwhile reprove and exhort with all authority, even though all men should despise thee. pseta s e at. [’It shall turn to thee for a testimony ’: see Luke xxi. 13.] I conjure you, spare no time or address or pains to learn the true cause t pa d t f . [’Of the former distress of my friend.’] I much doubt you are the right. t ‘a ’t p at. Ge, fss sta d. Gfe , p e d fe p at. [’God forbid that she should again in like manner miss the mark. Watch over her, keep her as much as possible. Write to me, how I ought to write to her.’] If Mr. Ingham [Benjamin Ingham had gone to Prederica with General Oglethorpe on Feb. 16, and welcomed Charles on his landing there in March.] were here, I would try to see you. But omit no opportunity. of writing. de pasa ‘a. ‘ te es ae, etea, stea, fea t e. se, ‘a ta at s at sa. [’I stand in jeopardy every hour. Two or three are women, younger, refined, God-fearing. Pray that I know none of them after the flesh.’] Let us be strong and very courageous; for the Lord our God is with us, and there is no counsel or might against Him Adieu! To his Brother Charles SAVANNAH, April 20, 1736. I still extremely pity poor Mrs. Hawkins; but what can I do more, till God show me who it is that continually exasperates her against me Then I may perhaps be of some service to her. There is surely someone who does not play us fair; but I marvel not at the matter. He that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there is that is mightier than they. Yet a little while, and God will declare who is sincere. Tarry thou the Lord’s leisure and be strong, and He shall comfort thy heart. To General Oglethorpe SAVANNAH, April 20, 1736. Savannah never was so dear to me as now. I believe, knowing by whom I send, I may write as well as speak freely. I found so little either of the form or power of’ religion at Frederica, that I am sincerely glad I am removed from it. [He was there from April 10 to 17.] Surely never was any place, no, not London itself, freer from one vice; I mean hypocrisy. O curvae in terris animae, et coelestium inanes! [Persius’ Satires, ii. 61: ’O grovelling souls, and void of things divine!’] ’Jesus, Master, have mercy upon them!’ There is none of those who did run well whom I pity more than Mrs. Hawkins. Her treating me in such a manner would indeed have little affected me, had my own interests only been concerned. I have been used to be betrayed, scorned, and insulted by those I had most labored to serve. But when I reflect on her condition, my heart bleeds for her. Yet with Thee nothing is impossible! With regard to one who ought to be dearer to me than her, I cannot but say that the more I think of it, the more convinced I am that no one, without a virtual renouncing of the faith, can abstain from the public as well as the private worship of God. All the prayers usually read morning and evening at Frederica and here, put together, do not last seven minutes. These cannot be termed long prayers; no Christian assembly ever used shorter; neither have they any repetitions in them at all. If I did not speak thus plainly to you, which I fear no one else in England or America will do, I should by no means be worthy to call myself, sir, Yours, &c. To Archibald Hutchinson SAVANNAH, July 23, 1736. By what I have seen during my short stay here, I am convinced that I have long been under a great mistake in thinking no circumstances could make it the duty of a Christian priest to do anything else but preach the gospel. On the contrary, I am now satisfied that there is a possible case wherein a part of his time ought to be employed in what less directly conduces to the glory of God and peace and goodwill among men. And such a case, I believe, is that which now occurs; there being several things which cannot so effectually be done without me; and which, though not directly belonging to my ministry, yet are by consequence of the highest concern to the success of it. It is from this conviction that I have taken some pains to inquire into the great controversy now subsisting between Carolina and Georgia, and in examining and weighing the letters wrote and the arguments urged on both sides of the question. And I cannot but think that’ the whole affair might be clearly stated in few words. A Charter was passed a few years since, establishing the bounds of this province, and empowering the Trustees therein named to prepare laws which, when ratified by the King in Council, should be of force within those bounds. The Trustees have prepared a law, which has been so ratified, for the regulation of the Indian trade, requiring that none should trade with the Indians who are within this province till he is licensed as therein specified. Notwithstanding this law, the governing part of Carolina have asserted, both in conversation, in writing, and in the public newspapers, that it is lawful for any one not so licensed to trade with the Creek, Cherokee, or Chicasaw Indians. [See next letter. The Journal (i. 248-50) shows that some Chicasaw Indians were in Savannah for several days, and Wesley had a conference with them.] They have passed an ordinance, not only asserting the same, but enacting that men and money shall be raised to support such traders; and, in fact, they have themselves licensed and sent up such traders, both to the Creek and Chicasaw Indians. This is the plain matter of fact. Now, as to matter of right, when twenty more reams of paper have been spent upon it, I cannot but think it must come to this short issue at last: (1) Are the Creeks, Cherokees, and Chicasaws within the bounds of Georgia or no (2) Is an Act of the King in Council, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, of any force within these bounds or not That all other inquiries are absolutely foreign to the question a very little consideration will show. As to the former of these, the Georgian Charter, compared with any map of these parts which I have ever seen, determines it. The latter I never heard made a question of but in the neighborhood of Carolina. Mr. Johnson’s brother has been with us some days. [Mr. Johnson is referred to in Journal, i. 250d. His brother had been on board the Simmonds, and complained that he was inconvenienced by the public prayers in the great cabin. Fortunately he left the ship at Cowes (ibid. i. 114, 124). The father had been Governor of South Carolina.] I have been twice in company with him at Mr. Oglethorpe’s; and I hope there are in Carolina, though the present proceeding would almost make one doubt it, many such gentlemen as he seems to be--men of good nature, good manners, and understanding. I hope God will repay you sevenfold for the kindness you have shown to my poor mother, and in her to, sir, Your most obliged, most obedient servant. To James Vernon SAVANNAH, July 23, 1736. As short a time as I have for writing, I could not pardon myself if I did not spend some part of it in acknowledging the continuance of your goodness to my mother; which, indeed, neither she nor I can ever lose the sense of. The behavior of the people of Carolina finds much conversation for this place. I dare not say whether they want honesty or logic most: it is plain a very little of the latter, added to the former, would show how utterly foreign to the point in question all their voluminous defenses are. Here is an Act of the King in Council, passed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, forbidding unlicensed persons to trade with the Indians in Georgia. Nothing, therefore, can justify them in sending unlicensed traders to the Creek, Cherokee, and Chicasaw Indians, but the proving either that this Act is of no force or that those Indians are not in Georgia. Why, then, are these questions so little considered by them, and others so largely discussed I fear for a very plain though not a very honest reason -- that is, to puzzle the cause. I sincerely wish you all happiness in time and in eternity, and am, sir, &c. To General Oglethorpe SAVANNAH, August 23, 1736. SIR, -- I choose to write rather than speak, that I may not say too much. I find it utterly impossible anything should be kept secret unless both parties are resolved upon it. What fell out yesterday is already known to every family in Frederica; but to many it has been represented in such a light that ’tis easy to know whence the representation comes. Now, sir, what can I do more Though I have given my reputation to God, I must not absolutely neglect it. The treatment I have met with was not barely an assault: you know one part of it was felony. I can’t see what I can do but desire an open hearing in the face of all my countrymen of this place. If you (to whom I can gladly entrust my life and my all in this land) are excepted against as partial, let a jury be empanelled, and upon a full inquiry determine what such breaches of the law deserve. -- I am, sir, Your obliged and obedient servant. To George Whitefield and his Friends at Oxford SAVANNAH, September 10, 1736. I had long since begun to visit my parishioners in order from house to house.. But I could not go on two days longer; the sick were increasing so fast as to require all the time I had to spare, from one to five in the afternoon. Nor is even that enough to see them all, as I would do, daily. In Frederica and all the smaller settlements there are above five hundred sheep almost without a shepherd. He that is unjust must be unjust still, Here is none to search out and lay hold on the mollia ternpora fandi, [‘Apt times for speech.’] and to persuade him to save his soul alive. He that is a babe in Christ may be so still. Here is none to attend the workings of grace upon his spirit, to feed him by degrees with food convenient for him, and gently lead him till he can follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. Does any err from the right way here is none to recall him; he may go on to seek death in the error of his life. Is any wavering here is none to confirm him. Is any falling there is none to lift him up. What a single man can do is neither seen nor felt. Where are ye who are very zealous for the Lord of hosts Who will rise up with me against the wicked who will take God’s part against the evil-doers Whose spirit is moved within him to prepare himself for publishing glad tidings to those on whom the Sun of Righteousness never yet arose, by laboring first for those his countrymen who are else without hope as well as without God in the world Do you ask what you shall have why, all you desire: food to eat, raiment to put on, a place where to lay your head (such as your Lord had not), and a crown of life that fadeth not away! Do you seek means of building up yourselves in the knowledge and love of God I know of no place under heaven where there are more, or perhaps so many, as in this place. Does your heart burn within you to turn many others to righteousness Behold the whole land, thousands of thousands are before you! I will resign to any of you all or any part of my charge. Choose what seemeth good in your own eyes. Here are within these walls children of all ages and dispositions. Who will bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, till they are meet to be preachers of righteousness Here are adults from the farthest parts of Europe and Asia and the inmost kingdoms of Africa; add to these the known and unknown nations of this vast continent, and you will indeed have a great multitude which no man can number. To James Vernon SAVANNAH, September 11, 1736. You have a just claim to my repeated acknowledgments not only for continuance of your regard to my mother, but for your strengthening my hands, and encouraging me not to look back from the work wherein I am engaged. I know that if it shall please our Great God to give it His blessing, the god of this world will oppose in vain; and that therefore the whole depends on our approving our hearts before Him, and placing all our confidence in His power and mercy. Mr. Ingham has made some progress in the Creek language, but a short conversation I had with the chief of the Chickssaws (which my brother I presume has informed you of) moves me to desire rather to learn their language, if God shall give me opportunity. The generality of that despised and almost unheard-of nation, if one may judge from the accounts given either by their own countrymen or strangers, are not only humble and peaceable qualities, scarce to be found among any other of the Indian nations, but have so firm a reliance on Providence, so settled a habit of looking up to a Superior Being in all the occurrences of life, that they appear the most likely of all the Americans to receive and rejoice in the glorious-Gospel of Christ. What will become of this poor people, a few of whom now see the light and bless God for it, when I am called from among them, I know not. Nor indeed what will become of them while I am here; for the work is too weighty for me. A parish of above two hundred miles in length laughs at the labors of one man. Savannah alone would give constant employment for five or six to instruct, rebuke and exhort as need requires. Neither durst I advise any single person to take charge of Frederica, or indeed to exercise his Ministry there at all unless he was an experienced soldier of Jesus Christ, that could rejoice in Reproaches, Persecutions, Distresses for Christ’s sake. I bless God for what little of them I have met with here, and doubt not but they were sent for my soul’s health. My Heart’s Desire for this place is, not that it may be a Famous or a Rich, but that it may be a Religious Colony, and then I am sure it cannot fail of the Blessing of God, which includes all real goods, Temporal and Eternal.--I am, sir, Your much obliged and obedient servant. To Ann Granville SAVANAH, September 24, 1736. The mutual affection, and indeed the many other amiable qualities of those two sisters, [The Misses Bovey, of Savannah. Miss Becky died suddenly on July 10 (see Journal, i. 239-46’ 270-80d; C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 34). Her sister said: ’All my afflictions are nothing to this. I have lost not only a sister, but a friend. But this is the will of God. I rely on Him, and doubt not but He will support me under it.’] one of whom is lately gone to an happier place, would not have suffered me to be unmindful of your friend and you, had I had nothing else to remind me of you. I am persuaded that heavy affliction will prove the greatest blessing to the survivor which she ever yet received. She is now very cheerful, as well as deeply serious. She sees the folly of placing one’s happiness in any creature, and is fully determined to give her whole heart to Him from whom death cannot part her. I often think how different her way of life is at Savannah from what it was at St. James’s; and yet the wise, polite, gay world counts her removal thence a misfortune. I should not be at all grieved if you were fallen into the same misfortune, far removed from the pride of life, and hid in some obscure recess, where you were scarcely seen or heard of, unless by a few plain Christians and by God and His angels. Mr. Rivington [His London publisher, who had visited the Granvilles at Gloucester.] will send your letter, if you should ever have leisure to favor with a few lines Your sincere friend and most obedient servant. Do you still watch and strive and pray that your heart may be fight before God Can you deny yourself, as well as take up your cross Adieu! To Mr. Verelst [The date and the person to whom when the Standard Edition of the this letter was sent were not known Journal was published.] SAVANNAH, November 10, 1736. SIR,--I return you thanks for your favor. The good I have found here has, indeed, been beyond my expectations: the contrary behavior of many was no more than 1 looked for; being convinced, several years before I left England, that in every city or country under heaven the majority of the people are not the wisest or the best part. But we have an advantage here, which is not frequent in other places--that is, a Magistracy not only regular in their own conduct, but desirous and watchful to suppress as far as in them lies whatever is openly ill in the conduct of others. I am obliged to you for the hint you give as to the regulating that too-prevailing neglect in the case of administering public oaths. Without doubt it should be done with all possible solemnity. For surely no hurry of business can excuse any want of reverence towards the God to whom all our business should be consecrated: since it is for His sake that we ought to undertake everything as wen as perform everything as in His sight. Pray, when you send me any books, send a letter of advice. I have received no books from you since I came hither. --I am, dear sir, Your most humble servant. To his Brother Samuel Te e, a t psp, a, pat ‘ a ssta. [’Those who remember God will remember both the episcopacy and every good work.’] SAVANNAH, November 23, 1736. DEAR BROTHER, -- O pray write, and, if it may be, speak, that they may remember Him again who did run well but are now hindered ! I think the rock on which I had the nearest made shipwreck of the faith was the writings of the Mystics; under which term I comprehend all, and only those, who slight any of the means of grace. I have drawn up a short scheme of their doctrines, partly from conversations I have had, and letters, and partly from their most approved writers, such as Tauler, Molinos, and the author of Theologia Germanica. [Wesley read the Theologia Germanica and other Mystic books on the advice of William Law. For his judgement as to their influence, see Journal, ’i. 420, and ii. 515 for his estimate of the book; see also letter of May 14, 1738, to Law.] I beg your thoughts upon it as soon as you can conveniently; and that you would give me them as particularly, fully, and strongly as your time will permit. They may be of consequence not only to all this province but to nations of Christians yet unborn. ’All means are not necessary for all men; therefore each person must use such means, and such only, as he finds necessary for him. But since we can never attain our end by being wedded to the same means; therefore we must not obstinately cleave unto anything, lest it become an hindrance, not an help. ’Observe, farther, when the end is attained, the means cease. Now, all the other things enjoined are means to love; and love is attained by them who are in the inferior way, who are utterly divested of free will, of self-love, and self-activity, and are entered into the passive state. These deified men, in whom the superior will has extinguished the inferior, enjoy such a contemplation as is not only above faith, but above sight, such as is entirely free from images, thoughts, and discourse, and never interrupted by sins of infirmity or voluntary distractions. They have absolutely renounced their reason and understanding, else they could not be guided by a divine light. They seek no clear or particular knowledge of anything; but only an obscure, general knowledge, which is far better. They know it is mercenary to look for a reward from God, and inconsistent with perfect love. ’Having thus attained the end, the means must cease. Hope is swallowed up in love. Sight, or something more than sight, takes place of faith. All particular virtues they possess in the essence, being wholly given up to the divine will, and therefore need not the distinct exercise of them. They work likewise all good works essentially, not accidentally, and use all outward means only as they are moved thereto; and then to obey superiors or to avoid giving offense, but not as necessary or helpful to them. ’Public prayer, or any forms, they need not; for they pray without ceasing. Sensible devotion in any prayer they despise, it being a great hindrance to perfection. The Scripture they need not read; for it is only His letter with whom they converse face to face. And if they do read it now and then, as for expounders, living or dead, reason, philosophy (which only puffs’ up, and vainly tries to bind God by logical definitions and divisions), as for knowledge of tongues, or ancient customs, they need none of them, any more than the Apostles did, for they have the same Spirit. Neither do they need the Lord’s supper, for they never cease to remember Christ in the most acceptable manner, any more than fasting, since, by constant temperance, they can keep a continual fast. ’You that are to advise them that have not yet attained perfection, press them to nothing, not to self-denial, constant private prayer, reading the Scriptures, fasting, communicating. If they love heathen poets, let them take their full swing in them. Speak but little to them in the meantime of eternity. If they are affected at any time with what you say, say no more; let them apply it, not you. You may advise them to some religious books, but stop there; let them use them as they please, and form their own reflections upon them without your intermeddling. If one who was religious falls off, let him alone. Either a man is converted to God or not: if he is not, his own will must guide him, in spite of all you can do; if he is, he is so guided by the Spirit of God as not to need your direction. ’You that are yourselves imperfect, know love is your end, All things else are but means. Choose such means as lead you most to love; those alone are necessary for you. The means that others need are nothing to you: different men are led in different ways. And be sure be not wedded to any means. When anything helps you no longer, lay it aside; for you can never attain your end by cleaving obstinately to the same means: you must be changing them continually. Conversation, meditation, forms of prayer, prudential rules, fixed return of public or private prayer, are helps to some; but you must judge for yourself. Perhaps fasting may help you for a time, and perhaps the holy communion. But you will be taught by the Holy Spirit and by experience how soon, how often, and how long it is good for you to take it. Perhaps, too, you may need the Holy Scripture. But if you can renounce yourself without reading, it is better than all the reading in the world. And whenever you do read it, trouble yourself about no helps; the Holy Ghost will lead you into all truth. ’As to doing good, take care of yourself first.’ When you are converted, then strengthen your brethren. Beware of (what is incident to all beginners) an eager desire to set others a good example. Beware of earnestness to make others feel what you feel yourself. Let light shine as nothing to you. Beware of a zeal to do great things for God. Be charitable first; then do works of charity; do them when you are not dissipated thereby, or in, danger of losing your soul by pride and vanity. Indeed, till: then you can do no good to men’s souls; and without that all done to their bodies is nothing. The command of doing good concerns not you yet. Above all, take care never to dispute about any of these points. Disputing can do no good. Is the man wicked Cast not pearls before swine. Is he imperfect He that disputes any advice is not yet ripe for it. Is he good All good men agree in judgment: they differ only in words, which all are in their own nature ambiguous.’ May God deliver you and yours from all error and all unholiness! My prayers will never, I trust, be wanting you. -- I am, dear brother, My sister’s and your most affectionate Brother. Pray remember me to Philly. [His brother’s daughter, who married Mr. Earle of Barnstaple.] Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This letter shows with what devotion Wesley labored for those who sailed with him on the Simmonds. In his Journal for January 17 (i. 138) he describes the storm. At nine that night the sea burst through the windows of General Oglethorpe’s state cabin, where three or four were sitting with a sick woman. It covered her all over. Wesley was sheltered by a bureau from the main shock. As to the storm in Cowes Road, Charles Wesley tells James Hutton on November 28, 1735, that, if they had been in the Channel, they would in all probability have finished their course as ’ two vessels did and were actually wrecked.’ [2] Zinzendorf became Bishop of the Moravians in x737, and died at their Herrnhut settlement on his estate in 1760. He said on his death-bed: ’ As for the heathen, I only asked for the firstfruits, and, behold, a harvest 1 ’ This first letter from Wesley was dated the day on which he moved into the minister’s house which his predecessor, the Rev. Samuel. Quincey, had occupied (see Journal, i. 185). The Count told him when they met at Gray’s Inn Gardens on September 3, 1741: ’ Ego, cure ex Georgia ad me scripsisti, te dilexi plurimum. Tum corde simplicem te agnovi’ (ibid. ii. 488). ’When you wrote to me from Georgia, I esteemed you very deeply; it was then that I recognized you as of a single heart.’ This letter, with other correspondence, is preserved in the Moravian Archives at Herrnhut. The authorities allowed the Rev. Nehemiah Curnock to photograph these documents, and the negatives are now in the possession of the Methodist Publishing House. See Methodist Recorder, November 11, 1915, P. 8; W.H.S. xiii. 147-8. [3] Charles Wesley reached Frederica, the chief place on St. Sireoh’s Island, a hundred miles south of Savannah, on March 9. (For a description of the place, see Journal, i. 403n.) He was General Oglethorpe’s secretary, and had spiritual charge of the settlers, who were busy laying out the town and building houses. This letter shows with what care the Wesleys watched over all their parishioners. The persons named in it had come out with them on the Simmonds. Wesley baptized Ambrosius Tackher, aged thirty, who had been baptized by a layman. Charles Wesley found him in an ’excellent temper’ at Frederies (C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 3). Betty was his wife (Journal, i. 123d). Wesley also baptized on the voyage Thomas and Grace Hird, with their son Mark, who was twenty-one, and their daughter Phoebe, about seventeen. The young people had been educated among the Quakers (ibid. i. 117). Burk was one of the converts on the Sirnrnonds (i. 233d). Francis Moore’s letters about the voyage were afterwards published. His wife was one of Oglethorpe’s servants (i. I25). Mr. Reed was a courageous friend, who had done good work as a lay pastor (i. 125d). Charles Wesley slept on the ground in a common hut at Frederica (i. 195d). Mrs. Welch had been meek and teachable on board the Simrnonds; but Charles Wesley says she was now ’ so willful, so un-tractable, so fierce, that I could not bear to stay near her.’ This letter is given in Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 14-16, and Moore’s Wesley, i. 293-4; but both omit the last two sentences in Greek, through which already looms the ominous figure of Sophia Hopkey, whom Wesley first met on March 13. Charles Wesley was beset with difficulties at Frederica, and General Oglethorpe was unfriendly. (See Telford’s Charles Wesley, p. 49.) The correspondence between the brothers was liable to be opened and read. Hence the Latin and Greek interspersed. Later Byrom’s shorthand was used. Charles sent Benjamin Ingham to Savannah on March 28, and early in April Wesley was able to visit his brother. [4] On March 30 Ingham brought word of the situation in Fredetlon, and John Wesley set out on April 4, reaching there on the 10th. This letter was written on the day of his return. Mrs. Hawkins was the wife of the surgeon. Wesley took great pains to help her on the voyage to Savannah. She is described in the Journal as ’ a gay young woman,’ and caused the brothers much trouble at Fredetlon (i. 117d). [5] James Edward Oglethorpe (1696-1785) obtained a Charter for the new colony of Georgia in June 1732, and that autumn sailed with a hundred and twenty pioneer settlers. German Protestants driven out from Saltzburgh, Scottish Highlanders, and Moravians followed. The Wesleys went out with the fifth company of settlers. Oglethorpe had been a friend of the Rector of Epworth, and was anxious to secure the help of his sons. He defended the colony against the Spaniards, and returned to England in 1743. The last paragraph suggests that Oglethorpe excused himself from attending public prayers. [6] On August 3, I732, Oglethorpe reported to the Georgia Trustees that certain gentlemen were desirous to encourage his design. The third name is that of Archibald Hutchinson, Esquire. He and James Vernon (see next letter) took special care of Susanna Wesley, who was living with her children. To him this letter seems to have been addressed. [7] James Vernon, Commissioner of Excise, Grosvenor Street, London, was one of the Georgia Trustees. He presided at the meeting which appointed Wesley to Savannah. Oglethorpe said to Charles Wesley: ’If there is a friend to be depended upon, he is one. His interest is next to Sir Robert’s. Whatever you ask within his power, he will do for you, your brother, and your family.’ Samuel Wesley (in a letter in the Colman Collection) tells John on April 29 that he has paid 30 to save his mother, who had been arrested for debt, and 15 more to Mrs. Knight, ’ who threatened the same usage.’ Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Vernon have sent my mother ten guineas apiece.’ See Journal, viii. 283-5, 297-8; C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 19; and reference to Sir Robert Walpole in letter of February 24, 1737. [8] This letter shows what scandal and intrigue the Wesleys had to face in Georgia. It helps one to understand the difficulties Charles met with at Frederica, where Oglethorpe himself was for a while estranged from him by these evil reports. See Journal, i. 260-6. [9] George Whitefield was born at the Bell Inn, Gloucester, in December 1714, and became a servitor at Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1732. He joined the Methodists there through the influence of Charles Wesley, and was the means of leading John Wesley to begin field-preaching at Bristol in I739. His matchless eloquence was a mighty influence in the Evangelical Revival. See Tyerman’s Life of Whitefield. This letter (probably directed to Whitefield for himself and other friends) has peculiar interest, as it led him to enter upon his great work in America in 1738. Whitefield says that some time in December he also heard from Wesley: ’Only Mr. Delamotte is with me, till God shall stir up the hearts of some of His servants, who, putting their lives in His hands, shall come over and help us, where the harvest is so great and the laborers so few. What if thou art the man, Mr. Whitefield’ ’Upon reading this,’ writes Whitefield in his Journal, p. 29, ’my heart leaped within me, and, as it were, echoed to the call.’ Having weighed the suggestion and prayed over it, he says: ’I at length resolved within myself to embark for Georgia.’ He adds: ’ Mr. Wesley was my dear friend; Georgia was an infant, and likely to be an increasing colony.’ His way was clearer because Charles Kinchin, Dean of Corpus Christi College (see letter of April 28, 1758,n, to Charles Wesley), willingly took charge of the Oxford prison work. Charles Wesley set out for England in August. Charles Delamotte, son of a Middlesex magistrate, went with Wesley to Georgia, and remained there for a time after he left for England (Journal, i. 413). [10] Lady Llanover says: ’ The following letter is without signature: it was preserved among the MSS. of Mary Granville, and was evidently from some person who belonged to the party of Religionists occasionally mentioned in this correspondence as endeavoring to put a stop to all innocent amusement at Gloucester. The fact of its preservation, and of the writer being a friend of persons valued by Ann Granville, gives it interest independent of the peculiarity of the style, which very much resembles that of an early missionary.’ ’ The seal of this letter was a cross; and the English post-mark 7th December.’ See Autobiography and Correspondence of Mrs. Delany, i. 580-1. Charles Wesley’s Journal shows that he met Miss Granville and her brother at Mrs. Pendarves’ house in Little Brook Street, London, on March 17, 1737. Mr. Granville ’pressed me to bear him company to Mickleton.’ On March 22, at three, he set out in the Oxford coach with Mr. and Miss Granville and Mr. John Dewes. They reached Mickleton on Thursday night. ’ We passed the time agreeably enough in walking, conversing, and reading.’ On the 30th he ’ rode over to Stanton, where they were all overjoyed to see me; especially my first of friends, Varanese.’ On April 6 he had some conversation with Miss Granville ’ about the fewness of those that are saved. How little is she advanced in the school of Christ who is not convinced of this truth I ’ On the Saturday evening Mr. Granville was ’ much affected with a chapter he had been reading of Mr. Law’ (probably the 14th, on Daily Prayer). ’ He desired his sister might hear it. I read it a second time, and took that opportunity of pressing upon him a daily retirement.’ On Thursday he took horse with Mr. Granville and Dewes. The former left us at Compton, and we rode on towards Spilsbury.’ Miss Granville married Mr. Dewes in 1740, and settled at a small country house at Bradley in Gloucestershire. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: 20. 1737 ======================================================================== 1737 To Sophia Christiana Hopkey February 6, 1737. I find, Miss Sophy, I can’t take fire into my bosom, and not be burnt. I am therefore retiring for a while to desire the direction of God. Join with me, my friend, in fervent prayer that He would show me what is best to be done. To John Hutchings SAVANNAH, AMERICA, February 16, 1737. DEAR SIR, --- Mr. Ingham has left Savannah for some months, and lives at an house built for him a few miles hence, near the Indian town. I have now no fellow laborer but Mr. Delamotte, who has taken the charge of between thirty and forty children. There is therefore great need that God should put it into the hearts of some to come over to us and labour with us in His harvest. But I should not desire any to come, unless on the same views and conditions with us--without any temporal wages other than food and raiment, the plain conveniences of life. For one or more in whom was this mind there would be full employment in the province, either in assisting Mr. Delamotte or me while we were present here or in supplying our places when abroad, or in visiting the poor people in the smaller settlements, as well as at Frederica, all of whom are as sheep without a shepherd. By these labors of love might any that desired it be trained up for the harder task of preaching the gospel to the heathen. The difficulties he must then encounter, God only knows; probably martyrdom would conclude them: but those we have hitherto met with have been small, and only terrible at a distance. Persecution, you know, is the portion of every follower of Christ, wherever his lot is cast; but it has hitherto extended no farther than words with regard to us (unless in one or two inconsiderable instances); yet it is sure every man ought, if he would come hither, to be willing and ready to embrace (if God should see good) the severer kinds of it. He ought to be determined not only to leave parents, sisters, friends, houses, and land for his Master’s sake, but to take up his cross too, and cheerfully submit to the fatigue and danger of (it may be) a long voyage, and patiently to endure the continual contradiction of sinners and all the inconveniences which it often occasions. Would any one have a trial of himself how he can bear this If he has felt what reproach is, and can bear that for but a few weeks as he ought, I shall believe he need fear nothing. Other trials will afterwards be no heavier than that little one was at first; so that he may then have a well-grounded hope that he will be enabled to do all things through Christ strengthening him. May the God of peace Himself direct you to all things conducive to His glory, whether it be by fitter instruments, or even by Your friend and servant in Christ. To General Oglethorpe SAVANNAH, February 24, 1737. SIR, -- You apprehended strong opposition before you went hence; and, unless we are misinformed, you have found it. Yesterday morning I read a letter from London, wherein it was asserted that Sir Robert had turned against you [He sailed for England on Nov. 23, 1736, and evidently found Walpole unfriendly. Oglethorpe’s work for Georgia was ’ marred by some faults of temper and tact, but it was on the whole able, energetic, and fortunate ’ (Lecky’s England, ii. 132). Wesley’s loyalty to Oglethorpe did not blind him to some blemishes in his behavior in Georgia; but he highly appreciated his work and policy there (Journal, i. 252-3n). Walpole was then First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.] ; that the Parliament was resolved to make a severe scrutiny into all that has been transacted here; that the cry of the nation ran the same way; and that even the Trustees were so far from acknowledging the service you have done, that they had protested your bills, and charged you with misapplying the moneys you had received, and with gross mismanagement of the power wherewith you was entrusted. Whether these things are so or no I know not; for it is ill depending on a single evidence. But this I know, that if your scheme was drawn (which I shall not easily believe) from that first-born of hell, Nicholas Machiavel, as sure as there is a God that governs the earth, He will confound both it and you. If, on the contrary (as I shall hope, till strong proof appear), your heart was right before God, that it was your real design to promote the glory of God, by promoting peace and love among men, let not your heart be troubled; the God whom you serve is able to deliver you. Perhaps in some things you have shown you are but a man; perhaps I myself may have a little to complain of: but oh, what a train of benefits have I received to lay in the balance against it! I bless God that ever you was born. I acknowledge His exceeding mercy in casting me into your hands. I own your generous kindness all the time we were at sea: I am indebted to you for a thousand favors here. Why, then, the least I can say is, -- Though all men should revile you, yet, if God shall strengthen me, will not I: yea, were it not for the poor creatures whom you have as yet but half redeemed from their complicated misery, I could almost wish that you were forsaken of all; that you might clearly see the difference between men of honor and those who are in the very lowest rank the followers of Christ Jesus. Oh where is the God of Elijah Stir up Thy strength, and come and help him! If the desire of his heart be to Thy name, let all his enemies flee before him! Art Thou not He who hast made him a father to the fatherless, a mighty deliverer to the oppressed Hast Thou not given him to be feet to the lame, hands to the helpless, eyes to the blind Hath he ever withheld his bread from the hungry, or hid his soul from his own flesh Then, whatever Thou withholdest from him, O Thou lover of men, satisfy his soul with Thy likeness; renew his heart in the whole image of Thy Christ; purge his spirit from self-will, pride, vanity, and fill it with faith and love, gentleness and longsuffering. Let no guile ever be found in his mouth, no injustice in his hands! And, among all your labors of love, it becomes me earnestly to entreat Him that He will not forget those you have gone through for, sir, Your obliged and obedient servant. To Dr. Bray’s Associates SAVANNAH, February 26, 1737. Our general method is this: A young gentleman, who came with me, teaches between thirty and forty children to read, write, and cast accounts. Before school in the morning, and after school in the afternoon, he catechizes the lowest class, and endeavors to fix something of what was said in their understandings as well as their memories. In the evening he instructs the larger children. On Saturday, in the afternoon, I catechize them all. The same I do on Sunday before the evening service. And in the church, immediately after the Second Lesson, a select number of them having repeated the Catechism and been examined in some part of it, I endeavor to explain at large, and enforce that part, both on them and the congregation. Some time after the evening service, as many of my parishioners as desire it meet at my house (as they do also on Wednesday evening), and spend about an hour in prayer, singing, and mutual exhortation. A smaller number (mostly those who design to communicate the next day) meet here on Saturday evening; and a few of these come to me on the other evenings, and pass half an hour in the same employment. To the Georgia Trustees SAVANNAH, March 4, 1737. GENTLEMEN,--When the account of the mission expenses, commencing March 1, 1736, and brought down to the end of November, was delivered to me, I was much surprised to find it amount to (in Carolina currency) 666 17 0, which, reduced to sterling, is 090 02 04 (90 2s. 4d.). A day or two since, I received a second account, brought down to March 1, 1737; which being added to the former, the total expense of the year was 726 07 03 (sterling 098 08 01). But upon reading over both I observed, as you will be pleased to do: (1) That of the sum above mentioned 191 19 06 was paid Mr. Quincey, partly for a bed, hangings, and furniture; partly for making a cellar, building a hut, and improvements, by him made in and about the house. (2) That 86 06 09 has been since expended at several times, for necessary repairs of the cellar (which was fallen in), the house and fences round it and the garden, a great part of which fell down, being quite decayed. (3) That 98 10 09 was expended in three journeys to Frederica, twice by water and once by land; whither not my own pleasure, but the desire of some of that desolate people, and the need of all, called me. (4) That 26 01 09 was expended at several times in clothing for Mr. Ingham. These particulars, together amounting to 402 18 09, the expense of Mr. Ingham’s food for two or three months, and of mine and Mr. Delamotte’s subsistence from March 1, 1736, to March 1, 1737, amounts to Carol. 323 08 6 (sterling 044 04 04). I thought, gentlemen, before I left England, that from the little knowledge you had of my manner of conversation, you would not easily believe me capable of embezzling yours, any more than my own goods. But since it is otherwise, since you have sent orders to limit my expenses to the Society’s 50 a year, be it so: I accept it, and (during my stay here) desire to have neither less nor more. One thing farther I desire, that whenever I am accused to you, on this or any other head (and it is necessary that offences should come), you would allow me the justice due to a common criminal, the knowing my accuser (which I must insist upon before God and man), and the being heard before I am condemned. I can’t but acknowledge the readiness of the Magistrates here, Mr. Causton in particular, in assisting me, so far as pertains to their office, both to repress open vice and immorality, and to promote the glory of God by establishing peace and mutual goodwill among men. And I trust their labors have not been quite in vain. Many ill practices seem to lose ground daily, and a general face of decency and order prevails, beyond what I have seen anywhere else in America. Gentlemen, my prayer to God for you is, that you may with one heart and one mind glorify God our Savior in all things, that neither open nor covert opposition may ever be able to disjoin your hearts or weaken your hands; but that you may calmly and steadily pursue His work, even though men should therefore cast out your names as evil. And the God of glory shall accept your service, and reward every one of you sevenfold into his bosom. -- I am, gentlemen, Your most obedient servant. To William Wogan SAVANNAH, March 28, 1737. DEAR SIR, -- The more particularly you will at any time express your thoughts, the greater obligation you will lay upon me. I hope no difference of opinion, especially as to smaller points, will ever occasion any coolness between us; I can almost engage it will not cause any on my part, neither do I apprehend it will on yours. I entirely agree with you that religion is love and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; that as it is the happiest, so it is the cheerfullest, thing in the world; that it is utterly inconsistent with moroseness, sourness, severity, and indeed with whatever is not according to the softness, sweetness, and gentleness of Jesus Christ. I believe it is equally contrary to all preciseness, stiffness, affectation, and unnecessary singularity; and those I call unnecessary which do not either directly or indirectly affect their progress in holiness who use them. I allow, too, that prudence as well as zeal is of the utmost importance in the Christian life; but I do not yet see any possible case wherein trifling conversation can be an instance of it. In the following scriptures I take all such to be flatly forbidden: ’Verily, verily, I say unto you, every idle word (it is , not p, wicked because idle) that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof at the day of judgment.’ ’Neither foolish talking, nor jesting (etapea, literally wit, witty conversation, facetiousness), which are not convenient (or befitting our calling).’ ’ Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.’ But what conversation is corrupt The opposite will tell us --that which is not ’ good to the use of edifying, fit to minister grace to the hearers.’ Lastly, ’ let your conversation be always in grace (ptte t),’ steeped, as it were, therein, thoroughly impregnated thereby, not sprinkled only, but ’ seasoned (t) with this salt’; which meat can by no means be said to be, till every particle of it has lost its freshness and contracted this new flavor. That I shall be laughed at for all this, I know; so was my Master.’ But that I shall catch the favor of men I know not. If I do any, it is not my strength or prudence. ’ No man cometh to Me, except the Father draw him.’ But this I am determined, never to ’ catch them with guile’ -- an imputation St. Paul expresses a strong abhorrence of, as any one may observe, from the manner wherein he clears himself of that crime, which some, it seems, had accused him of to the Corinthians. Not that I am for a stern, austere manner of conversing neither. No: let all the cheerfulness of faith be there; all the joyfulness of hope; all the amiable sweetness, the winning easiness, of love. If we must have art, Hic mihi erunt artes: so soon as God shall adorn my soul with them, and without any other than these, with the power of the Holy Ghost preventing, accompanying, and following me, I know that I (that is, the grace of God which is in me) shall save both myself and those that hear me. Dear sir, continue your prayers for Your obliged and very affectionate servant in Jesus Christ. To William Wogan, Esq., In Spring Gardens, London. To Mrs. Chapman SAVANNAH, March 29, 1737. True friendship is doubtless stronger than death, else yours could never have subsisted still in spite of all opposition, and even after thousands of miles are interposed between us. In the last proof you gave of it there are a few things which I think it lies on me to mention: as for the rest, my brother is the proper person to clear them up, as I suppose he has done long ago. You seem to apprehend that I believe religion to be inconsistent with cheerfulness and with a sociable, friendly temper. So far from it, that I am convinced, as true religion or holiness cannot be without cheerfulness, so steady cheerfulness, on the other hand, cannot be without holiness or true religion. And I am equally convinced that true religion has nothing sour, austere, unsociable, unfriendly in it; but, on the contrary, implies the most winning sweetness, the most amiable softness and gentleness. Are you for having as much cheerfulness as you can So am I. Do you endeavor to keep alive your taste for all the truly innocent pleasures of life So do I likewise. Do you refuse no pleasure but what is an hindrance to some greater good or has a tendency to some evil It is my very rule; and I know no other by which a sincere, reasonable Christian can be guided. In particular, I pursue this rule in eating, which I seldom do without much pleasure. And this I know is the will of God concerning me: that I should enjoy every pleasure that leads to my taking pleasure in Him, and in such a measure as most leads to it. I know that, as to every action which is naturally pleasing, it is His will that it should be so; therefore, in taking that pleasure so far as it tends to this end (of taking pleasure in God), I do His will. Though, therefore, that pleasure be in some sense distinct from the love of God, yet is the taking of it by no means distinct from His will. No; you say yourself it is His will I should take it. And here, indeed, is the hinge of the question, which I had once occasion to state in a letter to you, and more largely in a sermon on the Love of God. [This was his sermon on Love from 1 Cor. xiii. 3, which he preached at Savannah on Feb. 20, 1736, and in London at St. Andrew’s, Holborn, on Feb. 12, 1738 (see Journal, i. 438; Works, vii. 492-9, and also 45-57). The sermon gives a touching account of his father’s death-bed.] If you will read over those, I believe you will find you differ from Mr. Law and me in words only. You say the pleasures you plead for are distinct from the love of God, as the cause from the effect. Why, then they tend to it; and those which are only thus distinct from it no one excepts against. The whole of what he affirms, and that not on the authority of men but from the words and example of God incarnate, is: There is one thing needful -- to do the will of God; and His will is our sanctification: our renewal in the image of God, in faith and love, in all holiness and happiness. On this we are to fix. our single eye at all times and in all places; for so did our Lord. This one thing we are to do; for so did our fellow servant, Paul, after His example: ’ Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we are to do all to the glory of God.’ In other words, we are to do nothing but what directly or indirectly leads to our holiness, which is His glory; and to do every such thing with this design, and in such a measure as may most promote it. I am not mad, my dear friend, for asserting these to be the words of truth and soberness; neither are any of those, either in England or here, who have hitherto attempted to follow me. I am, and must be, an example to my flock; not, indeed, in my prudential rules, but in some measure (if, giving God the glory, I may dare to say so) in my spirit and life and conversation. Yet all of them are, in your sense of the word, unlearned, and most of them of low understanding; and still, not one of them has been as yet entangled in any case of conscience which was not solved. And as to the nice distinctions you speak of, it is you, my friend, it is the wise, the learned, the disputers of this world, who are lost in them, and bewildered more and more, the more they strive to extricate themselves. We have no need of nice distinctions; for I exhort all, Dispute with none. I feed my brethren in Christ, as He giveth me power, with the pure, unmixed milk of His Word. And those who are as little children receive it, not as the word of man, but as the word of God. Some grow thereby, and advance apace in peace and holiness: they grieve, it is true, for those who did run well, but are now turned back; and they fear for themselves, lest they also be tempted; yet, through the mercy of God, they despair not, but have still a good hope that they shall endure to the end. Not that this hope has any resemblance to enthusiasm, which is an hope to attain the end without the means: this they know is impossible, and therefore ground their hope on a constant, careful use of all the means. And if they keep in this way, with lowliness, patience, and meekness of resignation, they cannot carry the principle of pressing toward perfection too far. Oh may you and I carry it far enough! Be fervent in spirit. ’Rejoice evermore; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks.’ Do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus. Abound more and more in all holiness, and in zeal for every good word and work. To the Georgia Trustees SAVANNAH, March 31, 1737. GENTLEMEN, -- Robert Hows, a freeholder of this place, has officiated here as parish clerk, not only ever since I came, but, as I am informed, for above two years before. He constantly attends both the morning and evening service (a little before sunrise and after sunset) on other days as well as Sundays, and is in the whole of his behavior a sober, industrious man. But sickness in his family had reduced him to straitness of circumstances even before the 24th instant, on which (while he was employed in the public work) his house was burnt to the ground, and all that was in it (except two saws) consumed. I therefore, gentlemen, take the liberty to recommend him to your favor and assistance: as to the manner of which (whether by way of salary or otherwise) you are the proper judges. I recommend you and all your labors to Him in whose steps you tread, the great Helper of the friendless; and am, gentlemen, Your most obedient servant. To James Hutton SAVANNAH, June 16, I737. DEAR SIR, -- I think our Lord is beginning to lift up His standard against the flood of iniquity which hath long covered the earth. Even in this place it hath pleased Him in some measure to stir up His might and come and help us. There is a strange motus animorum, as it seems, continually increasing. Those ’who fear the Lord speak often together,’ and many of them are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ in the midst of an adulterous and sinful generation. The enemy hath great wrath, and rageth much. May it be a sign that his time is short ! One or two whom he has long seemed to lead captive at his will are just now recovering out of his snare, and declare openly without fear or shame that they will not serve him but the living God. Likewise’ out of the mouth of babes and sucklings is He perfecting praise.’ Not only young men and maidens praise the name of the Lord, but children too (in years, though, in seriousness and understanding, men) are not terrified from bearing the reproach of Christ. Indeed, the little share of persecution which as yet falls to me plainly shows I have no strength. Who, then, will rise up with me against the ungodly You, I trust, for one, when the time is come. Till then, strive mightily with God, you and all your father’s house, that I may not, when I have preached to others, be myself a castaway! To Mr. James Hutton, At Mr. Innys’, In St. Paul’s Churchyard, London. To Mr. Verelst, Accountant to the Georgia Trustees SAVANNAH, June 1737. SIR,--I have received the four boxes of which you was so kind as to give me advice, as well as the bundles from Mr. Causton. I can’t imagine how you can support yourself under such a weight of business as lies upon you. May He who alone is able so support you that, in the greatest hurry of temporal things, you may never forget there are things eternal. --I am, sir, Your most obedient servant. To Mr. Verelst [The date and the person to whom this letter was sent were not known when the Standard Edition of the Journal was published.] SAVANNAH, November 10, 1736. SIR,--I return you thanks for your favor. The good I have found here has, indeed, been beyond my expectations: the contrary behavior of many was no more than I looked for; being convinced, several years before I left England, that in every city or country under heaven the majority of the people are not the wisest or the best part. But we have an advantage here, which is not frequent in other places--that is, a Magistracy not only regular in their own conduct, but desirous and watchful to suppress as far as in them lies whatever is openly ill in the conduct of others. I am obliged to you for the hint you give as to the regulating that too-prevailing neglect in the case of administering public oaths. Without doubt it should be done with all possible solemnity. For surely no hurry of business can excuse any want of reverence towards the God to whom all our business should be consecrated: since it is for His sake that we ought to undertake everything as wen as perform everything as in His sight. Pray, when you send me any books, send a letter of advice. I have received no books from you since I came hither. --I am, dear sir, Your most humble servant. To Thomas Causton, Chief Magistrate of Savannah SAVANNAH, July 5, 1737. SIR,--To this hour you have shown yourself my friend; I ever have and ever shall acknowledge it. And it is my earnest desire that He who hath hitherto given me this blessing would continue it still. But this cannot be, unless you will allow me one request, which is not so easy an one as it appears. Do not condemn me for doing in the execution of my office what I think it my duty to do. If you can prevail upon yourself to allow me this, even when I act without respect of persons, I am persuaded there will never be, at least not long, any misunderstanding between us. For even those who seek it shall, I trust, find no occasion against me, except it be concerning the law of my God. To Mrs. Williamson (Sophia Hopkey) SAVANNAH, July 5, 1737. If the sincerity of friendship is best to be known from the painful offices, then there could not be a stronger proof of mine than that I gave you on Sunday; except that which I am going to give you now, and which you may perhaps equally misinterpret. Would you know what I dislike in your past or present behavior You have always heard my thoughts as freely as you asked them. Nay, much more freely; you know it well, and so you shall do as long as I can speak or write. In your present behavior I dislike (1) your neglect of half the public service, which no man living can compel you to; (2) your neglect of fasting, which you once knew to be an help to the mind without any prejudice to the body; (3) your neglect of almost half the opportunity of communicating which you have lately had. But these things are small in comparison of what I dislike in your past behavior. For (1) You told me over and over you had entirely conquered your inclination for Mr. Mellichamp. Yet at that very time you had not conquered it. (2) You told me frequently you had no design to marry Mr. Williamson. Yet at the very time you spoke you had the design. (3) In order to conceal both these things from me, you went through a course of deliberate dissimulation. Oh how fallen! How changed! Surely there was a time when in Miss Sophy’s life there was no guile. Own these facts and own your fault, and you will be in my thoughts as if they had never been. If you are otherwise-minded, I shall still be your friend, though I cannot expect you should be mine. To Dr. Humphreys, Secretary to the S.P.G. SAVANNAH, July 12, 1737. Concerning the conversion of the heathen, where is the seed sown, the sanguis martyrum Do we hear of any who have sealed the faith with their blood in all this vast continent Or do we read of any Church flourishing in any age or nation without this seed first sown there Give me leave, sir, to speak my thoughts freely. When God shall put it into the hearts of some of His servants, whom He hath already delivered from earthly hopes and fears, to join hand in hand in this labor of love; when out of these He shall have chosen one or more to magnify Him in the sight of the heathen by dying, not with a stoical or Indian indifference, but blessing and praying for their murderers, and praising God in the midst of flame with joy unspeakable and full of glory, -- then the rest, waxing bold by their sufferings, shah go forth in the name of the Lord God, and by the power of His might cast down every high thing that exalteth itself against the faith of Christ. Then shall ye see Satan, the grand ruler of this New World, as lightning fall from heaven! Then shall even these lands be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the seas. To Mrs. Williamson SAVANNAH, August 11. 1737. At Mr. Causton’s request, I write once more. [See letter of July 5.] The rules whereby I proceed are these: ‘So many as intend to be partakers of the Holy Communion shall signify their names to the curate, at least some time the day before.’ This you did not do. ‘And if any of these have done any wrong to his neighbors by word or deed, so that the congregation be thereby offended, the curate shall advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented.’ If you offer yourself at the Lord’s Table on Sunday, I will advertise you (as I have done more than once) wherein you have done wrong. And when you have openly declared yourself to have truly repented, I will administer to you the mysteries of God. To the Magistrates of the Town of Savannah SAVANNAH, September 8, 1737. GENTLEMEN, -- If you are not apprised that Mr. Dison intends this day publicly to perform several ecclesiastical offices in Savannah, and, as he says, by your authority, ! do now apprise you thereof; and am, gentlemen, Your humble servant. From Charles Wesley to Count Zinzendorf LONDON, November 26, 1737. TO THE’ REVEREND SUPERINTENDENT NICOLAUS VON ZINZENDORF. UNENDING SALVATION (GREETING) IN CHRIST. After wandering through all the miseries of passion, I would fain turn at last to thee, to myself, and to God. It would be superfluous to write of my affection. But I send a few words on the matter. While I hung back and struggled, the Lord snatched me away and tore me with violence from my idol. In grief and despair I flung away the yoke of Christ defiantly, and lay for a long time in sin, having no hope and without God. At last, with difficulty and hesitation, I seem to be rising again. I would once more play the warrior and force my way into freedom. May thy prayers and the prayers of the community at Herrnhut accompany me, and, I beg, may thy letters follow me, as I return to Georgia. Pray God on my behalf that I may be willing to be free, that I may thirst for Him alone, that I may fulfill my ministry. I take with me a young man named George Whitefield, a minister of fervent spirit -- if I may say so, a second Timothy. God has wonderfully aroused by his means this twice dead populace. The churches will not contain the hearers. For, indeed, his word and his preaching is not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of the Spirit and of power. I commend him and our friends at Oxford to your prayers. They read thy letter with edification and acknowledge it gratefully. They desire at length to be found in Christ and to make progress and to live in Him. Thy exhortations aid them greatly. When thou hast leisure to write, let the letter, please, be addressed ’To the Rev. Mr. Kinchin, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, in Oxford.’ Our brother Benjamin Ingham is preaching with all boldness in the county of York, and is awakening many souls. The god of this world rages; but he goes on undismayed. He has spoken less openly, perhaps, about our Church (which, however, your Moravian friends do not scruple to acknowledge), as if he hesitated to take Holy Orders among us. If he were to become a priest, he will cut off large resources for evil from those who are seeking them, and remove a serious scandal from various foolish people. May I commend this to thy wise foresight. It seems that the Spirit of God is moving here over the face of the waters. Would that it might reach me, even me! Would that I might be in Christ a new creature! That this may at last be granted to your prayers, which will avail much, you will persevere weariedly. God does not hear sinners. I would fain be changed from what I am, that I may be heard in the same way on your behalf. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] A month after Wesley reached Savannah he was introduced to Miss Hopkey, niece of Mrs. Causton, whose husband was Chief Magistrate. The young lady was beautiful, refined, and intelligent. She attended Wesley’s services regularly, and he directed her studies. He became greatly attached, and seemed on the point of proposing to her. His friends, however, were doubtful as to her fitness; and on Ingham’s advice he went to Irene, four miles from Savannah, to think over the matter. He wrote her this letter, which he gave Miss Bovey to deliver. He was convinced it was not expedient for him to marry, and told the lady that if he married at all he would not do so till he had gone to work among the Indians. On the 12th of the next month Miss Hopkey married William Williamson. This was a great shock to Wesley; but he had reason afterwards to see that he was saved from an unsuitable marriage. See Journal, i. 314-37; and letters of July 5, 1737. [2] This letter is headed in the Works as sent to Lincoln College, and might therefore be addressed to Richard Hutchins, who was Rector from 1755 to 1781. Its tenor, however, suggests that it was more probably sent to John Hutchings, of Pembroke College. On February 6, 1738, he wrote to welcome Wesley on his safe return after many dangers. He hoped that Wesley would take up his residence in Oxford, which at present was greatly in need of a pious man. ’God formerly set His seal to your labors of love in this place, and I hope He will be pleased to bless your endeavors yet more.’ See letter of October 13, 1738,d. [3] Wesley says: ’ By Mr. Ingham I writ to the Founders of Parochial Libraries (Dr. Bray’s Associates), who sent a library to Savannah in the latter end of last year.’ The ministers who received these were expected to send word how they catechized the children and instructed the young. See Journal, i. 137d, 321-2; Moore’s Wesley, i. 317-18n; W.H.S. viii. 73-5. [4] The Georgia Trustees consisted of twenty-one influential merchants, politicians, and philanthropists, who held the territory under Charter from the Crown. They had to appoint officers, regulate affairs, and provide money to fit out emigrants and support them till they could earn their own living. Wesley had important consultations with the Trustees on his return; and Charles says they ’ were surprised by my brother’s account of Georgia, the fewness. of the people, &c., See his Journal, i. 81. Dr. Burton laid this letter before the Trustees on June 15; and their Secretary, Benjamin Martyn, was directed to tell Wesley that ’ they are very much surprised at any apprehensions you have of such accusation being brought before them. No complaint of any kind has been laid before them relating to you. They have never as a board, nor any of them privately, heard of one, nor have they the least suspicion of any ground for one.’ Dr. Burton also wrote a beautiful letter, assuring Wesley that the Trustees had a high esteem of his good services, ’ and on all occasions will give farther encouragement, and would not have the express mention of the 50 (in lieu of the same sum formerly advanced by the Society for Propagation) so understood as not to admit of enlargement upon proper occasions.’ The Vice-Provost of Eton had given 10 for Wesley’s use and doing works of charity; and Dr. Burton says: ’ I have desired Mr. Oglethorpe to convey this to you.’ See Journal, viii. 312-13. [5] This letter and that which follows show how Wesley’s counsel was already sought by earnest men and women in their religious perplexities. William Wogan was born in 1678, son of the Rector of Gumfreston and Vicar of Penally, Pembroke. He was at Westminster School in 1694, became Captain, and entered at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1700. In 1718 he married Catherine Stanhope (Lady Hastings’s protge), lived at Ealing 1727, and was buried there in 1758. He was Secretary to the Duke of Ormonde, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (Memoir by Gatcliff). Thomas Broughton speaks of him in a letter to Whitefield (January 28, 1737) as ’good Mr. Wogan,’ who objected to Whitefield’s going to Georgia. [6] Mrs. Chapman was probably the mother of Waiter Chapman, of Pembroke College, an Oxford Methodist, who was an intimate friend of James Hervey. He had a church in Bath, of which Hervey took charge for some weeks in the summer of 1743 whilst Chapman was in Devonshire. See Diary in Journal, i. 319, 343, 354; Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 208, 215, 230, 361. [7] Robert Hows was Wesley’s parish clerk in Savannah (see Journal, i. 340). The Secretary adds a postscript to his letter to Wesley on June 15, 1737: ’ The Trustees will take into consideration your application to them in favor of Robert Hows, and have a regard to it’ (ibid. viii. 312). This was done when they met in July; and the Minutes of the Council for the 6th of that month direct that ’ Robert Hows’s house is to be rebuilt as it was before it was burnt down, out of the Fund for religious uses.’ Nehemiah Curnock describes Hows as the first leader of a Society class. [8] James Hutton was introduced to the Wesleys at Oxford, and his father’s house in College Street, Westminster, became a London home for the brothers. He and his sister were converted under a sermon which Wesley preached there. Hutton wished to go with Wesley to Georgia, but his parents felt that it would interfere with his prospects as a bookseller. He was now an assistant with William Innys, but set up for himself at ’The Bible and Sun,’ near Temple Bar. He writes Wesley on January 3 that he has opened a shop, but does not sell plays. He is reproached for that and because ’ the London and Oxon Methodists come to my house and sing psalms audibly.... I am just at Temple Bar amidst the fiery darts of the devil.’ He became a leading member of the Moravian Church in London, and his relations with the Wesleys grew less intimate; but they were pleasantly renewed at a later stage. Hutton died in 1795. See Journal, ii. 487n; Benham’s Hutton. [9] This letter and those to Mrs. Williamson on July 5 and August ii refer to the circumstances which led Wesley to leave Savannah. After Miss Hopkey’s marriage to William Williamson, Wesley repelled her from the Communion. Thomas Causton was anxious to have Wesley’s objections in writing. On July 6 he came to Wesley’s house with two friends and asked with much warmth, ’ How could you possibly entertain such a thought of me as that I should oppose you in executing any part of your office ’ Wesley said bluntly, ’ Sir, what if I should think it the duty of my office to repel one of your. family from the Holy Communion ’ He replied, ’ If you repel me or my wife, I shall require a legal reason. But I shall trouble myself about none else. Let them look to themselves.’ Thomas Mellichamp, a disreputable person, had threatened to murder Miss Hopkey and any other lover she chose. See Journal, i. 181-2n, 243d, 290; W.H.S. vii. 99-102. [10] An hour or so after writing to Causton, Wesley says: ’ I sent the following note to Mrs. Williamson, which I wrote in the most mild and friendly manner I could, both in pursuance of my resolution to proceed with all mildness, and because Mrs. Williamson told me she was so much grieved already.’ See letters of February 6 and August 11. [11] This letter was prompted by the reading of the Rev. Dr. D. Humphreys’ Historical Account of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel up to 1728. He was Secretary to the Society (1716-39), and published his book (8vo, 356 pages) in 1729. [12] Mr. Dison was chaplain to the soldiers at Frederica, and called to tell Wesley on September 7 that the Magistrates had authorized him to perform ecclesiastical offices at Savannah, and that he intended to begin next day. Wesley therefore sent this note by Delamotte to the Recorder. Mr. Disoh’s congregation consisted of Mrs. Causton, Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, and eight or ten more. He announced that he would read prayers and preach every Thursday. See Journal, i. 270-1, 392. [13] Charles Wesley’s part in the early history of Methodism cannot easily be exaggerated. He began the Holy Club at Oxford and shared all its labors and reproach. In Georgia he had a fight of afflictions, and on his return suffered much from pleurisy. He found the rest of faith after long conflict on Whit Sunday 1738, three days before his brother; and his hymns were an unbounded blessing and inspiration in the Great Revival (see heading to letter of December 1. 1731). He was a hero in the times of mob riot, an impassioned preacher, and a friend beloved and honored in all the Societies. The mission to Georgia had brought the Wesleys into close relations with Count Zinzendorf, the Moravian leader. Wesley wrote to him from Savannah on March 15, 1736. The following letter (which is preserved at Herrnhut, where it was discovered by the Rev. Henry Bett) is evidently from Charles Wesley, and throws light on his own spiritual state and on the relation of the Wesleys to Zinzendorf. He says in his Journal for January 20, 1737: ’I wrote and delivered my own state in a letter to the Count.’ Zinzendorf was then in London, where he had received Charles with all possible affection the previous day. He was interested in Zinzendorf’s negotiations with Archbishop Potter and Bishop Seeker as to the recognition of Moravian Orders. During the months that followed, Charles Wesley was expecting to return to Georgia with Whitefield as his companion. The letter is in Latin with Greek quotations; and we owe this rendering to Professors Henry Bett and Dr. Lofthouse, of Handsworth College. See W.H.S. xv. 166--8. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: 21. 1738 ======================================================================== 1738 An Unexpected Return COLLEGE STREET, January 2, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- From my soul I congratulate you upon your latest glorious treatment; nor do I less envy you. It is now that you begin to be a disciple of Christ. I have just read over the returned papers without any emotion but that of joy. Had I even resolved to have set up my test, your present trial would have broken my resolution and forced me back to America, to partake with you in your sufferings for the Gospel. Such you may most assuredly reckon, what you now labor under (I should rather say, what you now rejoice and glory in), for it is not the mixture of infirmity that can prevent God’s accepting you as endured for His sake. If you have the testimony of a good conscience, your sufferings are interpretatively His, and human wisdom can never dispute you out of it. We know that worldly and even partially good men, the strangers as well as the enemies to the cross of Christ, observing some fallings in God’s children, ascribe the whole of their persecutions to those only. The scandal of the cross with them is ceased, the reproach of Christ no longer subsists, the contrariety betwixt His light and darkness, betwixt His spirit and the spirit of the world is at an end, and our conformity to our persecuted Master is all resolved into want of prudence. In vain do we press them with the plain words of Scripture, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution; the disciple is not above His Master; if they have persecuted Me they will also persecute you,’ and a thousand others. Experience only can convince them that the sense of these scriptures is literal and eternal. But this I need not tell you. You know the absolute impossibility of being inwardly conformed to Christ, without this outward conformity, this badge of discipleship, those marks of Christ. You marvel not, as if some new thing happened unto you, but rejoiced in tribulation, as knowing that hereunto you are called, and can only be made perfect through these sufferings. These are the trials that must fit you for the heathen, and you shall suffer greater things than these! When your name is by all cast out as evil, and it is not fit for such a fellow to live; when you cannot live among them but are driven out from your own countrymen, then it is your time for turning to the Gentiles. That time may still be at a great distance; as yet the bridle is in their mouths, and all the arrows they shoot out are ’bitter’ words. But stay till those words are credited and seconded by actions, till he that hitteth hitteth no longer, but the whole storm burst upon you and the fiery trial commences; and then will be shown how you have learned Christ, and whether you are chosen to teach Him to the heathen. You remember the case of Athanasius contra mundum. The charge brought against him was worth bringing; treason, murder, and adultery at once! I wonder no more is said against you: the devil himself could not wish for fitter instruments than those he actuates and inspires in Georgia. Whatever he will suggest they will both say and swear to. I am housed with G. Whitefield, my brothers Hall and Hutton, and a long list of zealous friends. God has poured out His spirit upon them, so that the whole nation is in an uproar. Tell dearest Charles be assured that in our way at London where we found his sisters, Brother William and mother exceedingly zealous for the Lord of Hosts. William has raised a party for God at Cambridge. These are already stigmatized for Methodists. We see all about us in an amazing ferment. Surely Christianity is once more lifting up its head. O that I might feel its renovating spirit, and be thereby qualified to diffuse it among others! I trust you pray without ceasing for me. I long to break loose; to be devoted to God to be in Christ a new creature. Brethren, pray for us. CHARLES WESLEY, WESTLEY HALL, GEORGE WHITEFIELD, JAMES HUTTON, ISAAC BURTON, JOHN HUTCHINGS, JOHN DOBLE, JONATHAN HARRIS, JAMES HABERSHAM. THE FIRST YEARS OF THE REVIVAL MARCH 7, 1738, TO NOVEMBER 14, 1741 To Lady Cox OXON, March 7, 1738. MADAM,--Some days since, I was shown several queries [Given at the close of the letter.] which had been sent to Bath, and an answer to them, intended to have been sent likewise. But I could not approve of that answer, it seeming to me to savor too much of the wisdom of the world, which they will never know how to be enough afraid of who have seen what havoc it makes, even among the children of God. I will therefore answer them myself with all simplicity and without any regard to the judgment of the world; as knowing that, if my words do not appear foolishness to the world, it is because there is nothing of the wisdom of God in them. A plain account of the beginning of the sect inquired after was printed two or three years since. [Probably the Defense mentioned in Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 1. See p. 135.] To which need only be added that, though some time after Mr. Morgan’s death my brother and I were left alone, yet this loss was overbalanced the following year [The same year. Morgan left Oxford on June 5, 1732, and died on Aug. 26. Wesley met Clayton on April 20, 1732, and asked him to his room at Lincoln College. ‘At the first opportunity I acquainted him with our whole design, which he immediately and heartily closed with.’ See letter of Oct. 18, 1732.] by our acquaintance with Mr. Clayton. With him, several of his pupils, and afterward some of mine, joined together in the labor of love; to whom were soon added Mr. Broughton, Ingham, Whitefield, Hervey, whose zeal stirred up many others not to be ashamed of their Master or His words, even in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. But in the beginning of the year 1735 it pleased God to break us in pieces again, and to scatter us, not only throughout England, but almost to the ends of the earth. My brother and I were first called into the country, and then sent with Mr. Ingham into America. Neither were we suffered to be long together there: one, before his return home, being driven to New England; another being called into Pennsylvania; and I only remaining in Georgia. Meanwhile Mr. Broughton, Whitefield, Hervey, and the rest of our friends were dispersed each a several way. So that, at my return to Oxon [He was in Oxford for a day on Feb. 17, and again on March 4, where Charles was recovering from pleurisy. Peter Bhler was there, and on Sunday the 5th Wesley was ‘clearly convinced of unbelief, of the want of that faith whereby alone we are saved.’ See Journal, i. 439, 442.] this month, I found not one of those who had formerly joined with me; and only three gentlemen who trod in their steps, building up one another in the faith. To any one who asketh me concerning myself, or these, whom I rejoice to call my brethren, what our principles are, I answer clearly: We have no principles but those revealed in the Word of God; in the interpretation whereof we always judge the most literal sense to be the best, unless where the literal sense of one contradicts some other scripture. If it be asked whether they ’ do not imagine themselves to have certain divine impulses, like the divine inspiration of the Apostles,’ they answer: (1) There never was a good man without a divine impulse; and let those who will not believe this on St. Paul’s assertion go to the heathen Cicero for the same information. Yet (2) They learn from the oracles of God that ’ the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,’ which every Christian is to expect, is different in kind as well as degree from the inspiration of the Apostles. It does not enable him to speak new tongues or to work outward miracles; therefore it is different in kind: neither does it give the same measure of holiness; therefore it is different in degree. But (3) They believe the change wrought by it in the heart to be equivalent to all outward miracles; as implying the selfsame power which gave eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, and life to the dead. The language wherein they talk of these mighty works is that of the Spirit whereby they are wrought. They call, for instance, a person thus changed ‘regenerated, born again, a new creature’; and in all other cases endeavor to express spiritual things in spiritual words, as being assured there are none like them, quick and powerful, full of light and life. Yet they are not ignorant that to the world, which knoweth not, neither can know, the hidden meaning of those expressions, they ever from the beginning did appear cant and jargon, and will do so to the end. If it be asked ‘whether they do not talk of extraordinary notices and directions to determine their actions,’ they say: Yes, they do. As to extraordinary directions, they do not doubt but in extraordinary cases, too difficult to be determined by reason, as perhaps depending on many future contingencies, and yet too important to be left undetermined, God will, if applied to by fervent prayer, ’ give a perfect lot. And to extraordinary notices....’ [Here the manuscript breaks off. Other ‘Queries Respecting the Methodists,’ bearing date 1741, will be found in the Works, xiii. 509 - 11, which seems ultimately to have led to his Short History of the People called Methodists (pages 303 - 82 of the same volume).] Queries sent to Mrs. Bethel at Bath. Do not the Methodists, -- 1. In writing and speaking, use canting language 2. Do they not frequently talk of extraordinary notices and directions to determine their actions, &c. 3. Do they not imagine all or some of them have certain divine impulses, like the divine inspiration of the Apostles 4. Do they not impose on themselves and others certain duties and works at certain times and after certain manners -- as, to fast, abstain from meats, rise at midnight, &c.--otherwise than is appointed in Scripture, or without such appointment 5. Do they not form themselves into a sect, distinguish themselves from other Christians Have not some of them set up conventicles, &c. 6. Do they not require voluntary poverty in their members 7. Do they not despise marriage To James Hutton OXON, March 26, 1738. Enclosed I send the key of my brother’s bureau. [Probably at James Hurtoh’s house, near Temple Bar.] In one of the drawers are all my papers. Among them are several relating to Captain Watson. [Captain Watson, who owned an estate adjoining the Cowpen, four miles away, was confined for nearly three years in Savannah. Wesley was his friend and helper. After he was set at liberty, Wesley admitted him to Holy Communion, ’being fully satisfied of his integrity as well as understanding.’ See Journal, i. 397-9; and Diary, 186, 237, 242, 320.] Out of these pray take Jo. Coates’ affidavit, and the certificates of Elisha Foster, Thomas Salter, and a third signed by about forty persons concerning Mr. Watson’s sound understanding (not that signed by me). These, and no more, when you have taken attested copies of them, deliver as soon as possible to Mrs. Watson. Lose not an hour. Mr. Campbell [Campbell had possibly returned from Savannah. See Journal, i. 188d 319d; viii. 3o9.] will tell you where she lives, whom I wish you would bring acquainted with Mr. Fox. [Journal, i. 448.] Dear Jemmy, adieu. Let me know by next post whether you can and will receive the money, and inquire when Mr. O. goes. I cannot write to him till I hear from you. I have not trusted myself to say any more. Sunday night. C. W. To his Brother Charles OXON, April 28, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- If this reaches you at London, I wish you would pay Mrs. Hutton [Mrs. Hutton, of College Street, Westminster, with whom he often stayed.] (with many thanks) what she has paid for my letters and washing. And buy for Mr. Kinchin [Charles Kinchin, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Rector of Dummer, and one of the Oxford Methodists. See Journal, i. 443-8; and letters of Sept. 10, 1736 (heading), and Dec. 1, 1738.] a pair of leathern bags .as like yours as possible. I wanted much to have seen you before I set out, and therefore stayed to the utmost extent of my time. [Charles had been at Bexley with Henry Piers, and returned to London on the 27th. See letter of May 17, 1742.] My sister is much better. Could not you bring with you a few of Mr. Corbet’s Thoughts If so, call at the little hut [About eighteen miles from Oxford, on the London Road. On April 27, 1738, on his way from London to Oxford, his Diary states: ‘11 At the hut, conversed’ (Journal, i. 457); Oct. 10, 1738, at 10.30, he was at the hut, where he conversed (ibid. ii. 84).] where the coach usually stops to let the passengers walk, on the brow of Stokenchurch Hill, and give one to the old man. I promised him a little book when I called there in my last walk to town. Adieu! To James Hutton OXON, April 28, 1738. MY DEAR FRIEND, -- This thing I do; I still follow after, if haply I may attain faith. I preach it to all, that at length I may feel it. [According to Bhler’s counsel on March 5: ‘Preach faith till you have it’ (Journal, i. 442).] Only may I never be content with any other portion! I left two little books (which I want, as well as my shoes) at your house [He left London on the 26th, and returned on May L on account of his brother’s health. He found him at Hutton’s house (Journal, i. 458), where he had removed from his father’s on the 28th (C. Wesley’s Journal).] --A. M. Schurman and Corbet. If my brother is gone, you will buy the leathern bags for Mr. Kinchin. [See previous letter. Stephen Kinchin was his brother, for whom he and John Wesley went to Manchester in March, and brought him back to be entered at Oxford.] I think he says they cost but half a guinea. But if it be more, it will be repaid with thanks. The shop at Charing Cross is the place. Stephen Kinchin got hither a day before me. I will send you word before I begin another journey. Commend me to all our friends. Adieu. Pray give our brother Bhler [Bhler left for Carolina on May 4. It was probably a letter for one of Wesley’s friends in America.] the enclosed, to be delivered with his own hand. To William Law LONDON, May 14, 1738. REVEREND SIR, -- It is in obedience to what I think to be the call of God that I, who have the sentence of death in my own soul, take upon me to write to you, of whom I have often desired to learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ. If you are born of God, you will approve of the design, though it may be but weakly executed... If not, I shall grieve for you, not for myself. For as I seek not the praise of men, so neither regard I the contempt either of you or of any other. For two years (more especially) I have been preaching after the model of your two practical treatises; and all that heard have allowed that the law is great, wonderful, and holy. But no sooner did they attempt to fulfill it but they found that it is too high for man, and that by doing ’ the works of the law shall no flesh living be justified.’ To remedy this, I exhorted them, and stirred up myself, to pray earnestly for the grace of God, and to use all the other means of obtaining that grace which the all-wise God hath appointed. But still, both they and I were more and more convinced that this is a law by which a man cannot live; the law in our members continually warring against it, and bringing us into deeper captivity to the law of sin. Under this heavy yoke I might have groaned till death, had not an holy man, [Peter Bhler. See Law’s reply in Journal, viii. 320-3.] to whom God lately directed me, upon my complaining thereof, answered at once: ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all thy heart, and nothing shall be impossible to thee. This faith, indeed, as well as the salvation it brings, is the free gift of God. But seek, and thou shalt find. Strip thyself naked of thy own works and thy own righteousness, and fly to Him. For whosoever cometh unto Him, He will in no wise cast out.’ Now, sir, suffer me to ask: How will you answer it to our common Lord that you never gave me this advice Did you never read the Acts of the Apostles, or the answer of Paul to him who said, ‘What must I do to be saved’ Or are you wiser than he Why did I scarce ever hear you name the name of Christ never, so as to ground anything upon ‘faith in His blood’ Who is this who is laying another foundation If you say you advised other things as preparatory to this, what is this but laying a foundation below the foundation Is not Christ, then, the first as well as the last If you say you advised them because you knew that I had faith already, verily you knew nothing of me; you discerned not my spirit at all. I know that I had not faith, unless the faith of a devil, the faith of Judas, that speculative, notional, airy shadow, which lives in the head, not in the heart. But what is this to the living, justifying faith in the blood of Jesus the faith that cleanseth from sin, that gives us to have free access to the Father, to ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God,’ to have ’the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost’ which dwelleth in us, and ‘the Spirit itself beating witness with our spirit that we are the children of God’ I beseech you, sir, by the mercies of God, to consider deeply and impartially, whether the true reason of your never pressing this upon me was not this -- that you had it not yourself; whether that man of God was not in the right who gave this account of a late interview he had with you,--’I began speaking to him of faith in Christ: he was silent. Then he began to speak of Mystical matters. I spake to him of faith in Christ again: he was silent. Then he began to speak of Mystical matters again. I saw his state at once.’ And a very dangerous one in his judgment, whom I know to have the Spirit of God. Once more, sir, let me beg you to consider whether your extreme roughness, and morose and sour behavior, at least on many occasions, can possibly be the fruit of a living faith in Christ. If not, may the God of peace and love fill up what is yet wanting in you ! -- I am, reverend sir, Your humble servant. To William Law LONDON, May 20, 1738. REVEREND SIR, -- I sincerely thank you for a favor I did not expect, and presume to trouble you once more. How I have preached all my life; how qualified or unqualified I was to correct a translation of Kempis, and translate a preface to it; whether I have now, or how long I have had, a living faith; and whether I am for separating the doctrine of the Cross from it; what your state or sentiments are; and whether Peter Bhler spoke truth in what he said when two beside me were. present -- are circumstances on which the main question does not turn, which is this and no other: Whether you ever advised me, or directed me to books that did advise, to seek first a living faith in the blood of Christ You appeal to three facts to prove you did: (1) That you put Theologia Germanica into my hands. (2) That you published an answer to The Plain Account of the Sacrament. And (3) That you are governed through all you have writ and done by these two fundamental maxims of our Lord — ‘Without Me ye can do nothing,’ and ’If any man will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me.’ The facts I allow, but not the consequence. In Theologia Germanica I remember something of Christ our Pattern, but nothing express of Christ our Atonement. The answer to The Plain Account I believe to be an excellent book, but not to affect the question. Those two maxims may imply but do not express that third — ‘He is our propitiation through faith in His blood.’ ‘But how are you chargeable with my not having had this faith’ If, as you intimate, you discerned my spirit, thus: (1) You did not tell me plainly I had it not. (2) You never once advised me to seek or pray for it. (3) You gave me advices proper only for one who had it already; and (4) advices which led me farther from it, the closer I adhered to them. (5) You recommended books to me which had no tendency to plant this faith, but a direct one to destroy good works. However, ’let the fault be divided between you and Kempis.’ No: if I understood Kempis wrong, it was your part, who discerned my spirit under that mistake, to have explained him and set me right. I ask pardon, sir, if I had said anything disrespectful. -- I am, reverend sir, Your most obedient servant. William Law replies May 1738. SIR, -- Without the smallest degree of disregard either to you or your letter, I had not sent you an answer to it had it not been for the part of it where you say there were two persons present with Mr. Bhler and myself. There were two persons present, but not one witness; for we spoke only Latin, and they both declared to me they understood not Latin. I mentioned not your qualification for translating Kempis with the least intention to reproach either your design or performance, but only to show you that it deeply engaged your attention to those very truths which you suppose you were a stranger to through my conversation. If you remember the Theologia Germunica so imperfectly as only to remember ‘something of Christ our Pattern, but nothing express of Christ our Atonement,’ it is no wonder that you can remember.... I put that author into your hands, not because he is fit for the first learners of the rudiments of Christianity who are to be prepared for baptism, but because you were a clergyman that had made profession of divinity, had read as you said with much approbation and benefit the two practical discourses and many other good books, and because you seemed to me to be of a very inquisitive nature and much inclined to meditation. In this view nothing could be more reasonable than that book, which most deeply, excellently, and fully contains the whole system of Christian faith and practice, and is an excellent guide against all mistakes both in faith and works. What that book has not taught you I am content that you should not have learnt from me. You say the two maxims I mention may imply but do not express, ‘He is our propitiation, through faith in His blood.’ Is not this, therefore, a mere contest about words and expressions When I refer you to these two maxims or texts of Scripture, will you confine me to them alone Does not my quoting them necessarily refer to every part of Scripture of the same import When Christ says, ‘Without Me ye can do nothing’; when the Apostle says, ‘There is no other name given under heaven by which we can be saved’; when he says, ‘We are sanctified through faith in His blood’ and ‘through faith in Him,’ is there anything here but a difference of words, or one and the same thing imperfectly and only in part expressed I mentioned not the answer to the Plain Account, &c., as a proof of the manner of my conversation with you, but of my faith in Christ as the Atonement for us by His blood at this time, which is what you directly questioned and called upon me for. You number up all the parts of my letter, which are only speaking to the same parts in yours, as things entirely beside the point. If they are not to the point in mine, how came they to have a place in yours, which was written under divine direction Why did you give me occasion to speak of things that needed nothing to be said of them Had you said but one thing, I would have spoke to nothing else. In your first letter I was blamed for not calling you to such a faith in Christ as strips us naked of our own works, our own righteousness; for not teaching you this doctrine — ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all thy heart, and nothing shall be impossible to thee.’ This is the faith in Christ which all Mystical spiritual books are full of. What you have heard from me on this head of faith in our former conversations would make a volume; but because I appealed to a text of Scripture, ‘Without Me ye can do nothing,’ you have quitted this faith. And now you say this, and no other, is the question: whether I ever advised you ‘to seek first a living faith in the blood of Christ.’ But, sir, this is not the main question of your first letter; had you had only this question to have proposed, you would not have written to me at all. But if I tell you that you conceived a dislike to me, and wanted to let me know that a man of God had shown you the poverty and misery of my state--if I tell you that this was the main intent of your letter, you know that I tell you the truth. To come to your, &c. &c .... But this matter, it seems, now is of no importance. I was a stranger to him, received him friendly, listened to him humbly, consented to his instructing me; I said not one single syllable of any doctrine of religion, Mystical or not. We presently parted, in all appearance friendly. He passes a sentence of condemnation upon me as in a poor miserable state, which lay open to his eyes. This man of God told nothing of this to myself, but goes away to another man of God, and invents and tells things as false as if he had charged me with picking his pocket; and, what is well to be observed, this judgment passed upon me is founded upon those very things which are thus false and wholly his own invention. This other man of God confirms this sentence as spoken by one that he knew had the Spirit of God, and in obedience to a divine call is obliged to let me know.... Who made me your teacher or can make me answerable for any defects in your knowledge You sought my acquaintance, you came to me as you pleased, and on what occasion you pleased, and to say to me what you pleased. If it was my business to put this question to you, if you have a right to charge me with guilt for the neglect of it, may you not much more reasonably accuse them who are authoritatively charged with you Did the Church in which you are educated put this question to you did the Bishop that ordained you either deacon or priest do this for you did the Bishop that sent you into Georgia require this of you Pray, sir, be at peace with me. W. LAW. To a Friend [LONDON, May 24, 1738.] Oh why is it that so great, so wise, so holy a God will use such an instrument as me! Lord, ‘let the dead bury their dead’! But wilt Thou send the dead to raise the dead Yea, Thou sendest whom Thou wilt send, and shewest mercy by whom Thou wilt show mercy! Amen! Be it, then, according to Thy will! If Thou speak the word, Judas shall cast out devils. I feel what you say (though not enough), for I am under the same condemnation. I see that the whole law of God is holy, just, and good. I know every thought, every temper of my soul ought to bear God’s image and superscription. But how am I fallen from the glory of God! I feel that ‘I am sold under sin.’ I know that I, too, deserve nothing but wrath, being full of all abominations, and having no good thing in me to atone for them or to remove the wrath of God. All my works, my righteousness, my prayers need an atonement for themselves. So that my mouth is stopped. I have nothing to plead. God is holy; I am unholy. God is a consuming fire; I am altogether a sinner, meet to be consumed. Yet I hear a voice (and is it not the voice of God ) saying, ’ Believe, and thou shalt be saved. He that believeth is passed from death unto Fife. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ Oh let no one deceive us by vain words, as if we had already attained this faith ! By its fruits we shall know. Do we already feel ’ peace with God’ and ’ joy in the Holy Ghost’ Does ’ His Spirit bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God’ Alas! with mine He does not. Nor, I fear, with yours. O Thou Savior of men, save us from trusting in anything but Thee! Draw us after Thee! Let us be emptied of ourselves, and then fill us with all peace and joy in believing; and let nothing separate us from Thy love, in time or in eternity! To his Mother AMSTERDAM, June 19, 1738. DEAR MOTHER,--I stayed at Stanton Harcourt till Sunday (the 11th instant) in the afternoon. Thence returning to Oxford, I learned that Mr. Ingham was expected to set out on Monday or Tuesday. Therefore I left Oxford on Monday morning, and in the evening met with him and Mr. Tltschig, who were to embark the next morning. On Tuesday (the 13th) we took ship and fell down to Gravesend; many of our acquaintance bearing us company thither, two of whom were determined to go on with us, whithersoever it should please God to call us. We set sail from Gravesend on Wednesday, lost sight of England about four in the afternoon, and before seven the next morning saw the coast of Holland. About eight we entered the Meuse, and, sailing by Brill, [Brielle. See Journal, vi. 417n.] between ten and eleven came to Rotterdam. Never did common fame more grossly vary from the truth than in the English accounts of Holland. They tell us of a dirty, slovenly, unpolished people, without good nature, good manners, or common decency; whereas the very first thing that must strike every one that has eyes, and that before he has gone an hundred yards from Rotterdam Haven, is that this is the cleanest place he ever saw in his life, there being scarce a speck of dirt to be seen either on the doors or steps of any of the houses or on the stones of the street. And all the natives he meets, whether men, women, or children, are of a piece with the place they live in; being so nicely dean from head to foot, both in their persons and clothes, as I have seen very few in my life even of the gentry in England. There is likewise a remarkable mildness and lovingness in their behavior. All you meet on the road salute you. Every one is ready to show the way, or to answer any questions, without anything of the English surliness. And the carriage as well as dress of all the women we have yet seen is exactly modest and altogether natural and unaffected. On Thursday in the afternoon we left Rotterdam. The road we traveled in for several miles was a continued arbor, and as dean (excepting a very little dust) as a gentleman’s parlor, or indeed his table, need be. We lay that night at Goudart [Gouda.] (being eight in all, five English and three Germans). On Friday morning (after having seen the great church there, famous for its painted glass) we set out again, and were surprised more and more at the pleasantness of the road. Walnut-trees shaded it for many miles; and the little houses stood so thick on either side, that it seemed like walking through a train of villages. The hedges were exactly cut all along, and all the houses neat almost to an extreme. In the afternoon we came to Ysselstein, where we were received with open arms by the Baron Watteville and the Church which is in has house. There are about twenty (beside children) in that little community, and their number increases daily, who are of one heart and one soul and have all things in common. Saturday the 17th (my birthday) was their monthly Thanksgiving Day. From about two in the afternoon till nine at night, the time was spent in prayer, praise, and such other exercises as became those who were ‘all filled with the Holy Ghost.’ Many strangers were present, with some of whom we set out in the Track-skuyt early in the morning, and went by Utrecht through a country which is, as it were, all one garden to Amsterdam, about thirty miles from Ysselstein. A physician, who had lived some years at Herrnhut, carried us to his lodgings, where we design to stay one or two days. Both he and the master of the house are full of faith and love. Oh may our Lord give us more and more of their spirit! From hence (if God permit) we shall go by Frankfort, where Count Zinzendorf now is, to Herrnhut. Dear mother, pray earnestly for me, that all things may work together for my good, and that by all God would build me in the faith which is in Christ Jesus !--I am Your affectionate and dutiful Son. James Hutton can send any letter to me, if it be writ before the middle of July o.s. Else I shall probably be on my journey home. To his Brother Charles COLEN, [Cologne.] June 28, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- You will send my mother, wherever she is, her letter by the first opportunity. By the conversation I have had with the Brethren that journey with us, as well as with those at Ysselstein and at Amsterdam, I find the judgment of their Church is: (1) That we ought to distinguish carefully, both in thinking and speaking, between faith (absolutely speaking), which is one thing; justifying or saving faith, which is a second thing (and ought to be called, not faith absolutely, but always justifying or saving faith); the assurance of faith, where we know and feel that we are justified; and the being born again, which they say is a fourth thing, and often distant in time (as well as in the notion of it) from all the rest. (2) That a man may have, and frequently has, justifying faith before he has the assurance that he is justified. My dear brother, pray (you and all the brethren) for us, that all things may work together for our good, and that we may be more and more rooted in faith, joyful through hope, and grounded in charity. Adieu. To his Mother COLEN, June 28, 1738. DEAR MOTHER, -- We left Amsterdam on Thursday evening last, and, coming to Utrecht in the morning, walked thence through a most pleasant and fruitful country to Beurn, a walled town belonging to the Prince of Orange. Hence on Saturday we went, partly by land, partly by water, to Nimwegen, the last town in Holland, strongly fortified with a triple wall and ditch; and having walked three or four hours through a double row of trees, which ran (mostly) through large cornfields, we took up our lodging an hour short of Cleves. Sunday, 25th, we made a short journey after our morning service, and, lying by the middle part of the day, in the evening came to a convenient lodging; only that, after the manner of the Lutherans, they were fiddling, singing, and dancing in the next room till we went to bed. The next day we found, by the crosses everywhere set up, we were got out of the Lutheran electorate, as well as by the convents, many of which were in every city and some in the country we passed through. Yesterday evening we came hither. It is the ugliest, dirtiest town I ever yet saw. There is neither form nor comeliness belonging to it. The great church itself is mere heaps upon heaps, -- a vast misshaped or rather no-shaped building, with no regularity or proportion within or without; many of the stones broken, the windows dusty and full of cobwebs, and the pavement less clean than that of many English stables. This afternoon we are to set out by water for Mentz, [Mayence.] forty-eight hours from hence, and eight hours only distant from Frankfort, where Count Zinzendorf now is. God has been pleased greatly to bless us hitherto, continuing us all in health and cheerfulness and love to one another; which, with all other good gifts, we trust He will confirm and increase in us day by day. Before you receive this I hope you will be placed, according to your desire, [She was spending her time among her children.] where you may serve God without distraction from outward cares, till He takes you to Himself. O pray for me, that He would sanctify all I meet with to me, and give me fully to believe in the Son of His love, and to have a right judgment in all things. -- I am, dear mother, Your most affectionate Son. To his Mother UTPH, July 6, 1738. DEAR MOTHER, -- Soon after I had finished my last to you, we left Colen in the passage-boat, and traveled slowly four days upon the Rhine, through a double range of rocks and mountains, diversified with more variety than ever painter could imagine: some were smooth, as if polished by art; some rough, abrupt, and ragged, as if torn by a fresh earthquake; some, again, were quite bare, others clothed with grass, others with trees, corn, or vines. On Sunday in the evening we came to Mentz; and on Monday before noon to Frankfort, where the father of Peter Bhler (lately with me at London and Oxon) received us with all kindness. About one o’clock on Tuesday we came safe to Marienborn, a small village seven hours from Frankfort, where Count Zinzendorf has hired for three years (till one is built a few miles off on his own land, which is already begun) a large house, and tolerably convenient, which lodges the greatest part of the small congregation here. The Count received us in a manner I was quite unacquainted with, and therefore know not. how to express. I believe his behavior was not unlike that of his Master (if we may compare human with divine) when He took the lit fie children in His arms and blessed them. We should have been much amazed at him, but that we saw ourselves encompassed with a cloud of those who were all followers of him, as he is of Christ. Eighty-eight of them praise God with one heart and one mouth at Marienborn; another little company at Runnerburg, [Ronneburg.] an hour off; another at Bdingen, an hour from thence; and yet another at Frankfort. I now understand those words of poor Julian, [‘The progress of Atheism has been principally owing to the humanity evinced by Christians toward strangers. The impious Galileans provide not only for those of their own party who are in want, but also for those who hold with us.’ (Julian to Arsacius, Sozomen’s Ecc. Hist. chap. xvi.) The saying ‘See how these Christians love one another’ seems to be found first in Tertullian (Apologeticus, chap. xxxix).] ‘See how these Christians love one another.’ Yea, how they love all who have the faintest desire to love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity! Oh may He sanctify to us their holy conversation, that we may be partakers of the spirit which is in them--of their faith unfeigned, and meekness of wisdom, and love which never faileth! Dear mother, forget not often to desire this for Your dutiful and affectionate Son. To his Brother Charles UTPH, July 7, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- I am now with the Count, at his uncle’s the Count of Solms, five or six hours from Marienborn; and have stole an hour to let you know that hitherto God hath been very merciful to us in all things. The spirit of the Brethren is beyond our highest expectations. Young and old, they breathe nothing but faith and love at all times and in all places. I do not therefore concern myself with smaller points that touch not the essence of Christianity, but endeavor (God being my helper) to grow up in these after the glorious examples set before me; having already seen with my own eyes more than one hundred witnesses of that everlasting truth, ‘Every one that believeth hath peace with God and is freed from sin, and is in Christ a new creature.’ See therefore, my brethren, that none of you receive the grace of God in vain! But be ye also living witnesses of the exceeding great and precious promises which are made unto every one of us through the blood of Jesus. Adieu. [Charles Wesley endorsed this letter ‘Panegyric on Germans.’] To his Brother Samuel UTPH, July 7, I738. DEAR BROTHER, -- God has given me at length the desire of my heart. I am with a Church whose conversation is in heaven, in whom is the mind that was in Christ, and who so walk as He walked. As they have all one Lord and one faith, so they are all partakers of one Spirit, the spirit of meekness and love, which uniformly and continually animates all their conversation. Oh how high and holy a thing Christianity is! and how widely distant from that (I know not what) which is so called, though it neither purifies the heart nor renews the life after the image of our blessed Redeemer! I grieve to think how that holy name by which we are called must be blasphemed among the heathen while they see discontented Christians, passionate Christians, resentful Christians, earthly-minded Christians--yea (to come to what we are apt to count small things), while they see Christians judging one another, ridiculing one another, speaking evil of one another, increasing instead of bearing one another’s burdens. How bitterly would Julian have applied to these, ‘See how these Christians love one another’! I know I myself, I doubt you sometimes, and my sister often, have been under this condemnation. Oh may God grant we may never more think to do Him service by breaking those commands which are the very life of His religion! But may we utterly put away all anger, and wrath, and malice, and bitterness, and evil-speaking. I was much concerned when my brother Charles once incidentally mentioned a passage that occurred at Tiverton. ‘Upon my offering to read,’ said he, ‘a chapter in the Serious Call, my sister said, “Who do you read that to Not to these young ladies, I presume; and your brother and I do not want it.”’ Yes, my sister, [Mrs. Samuel Wesley.] I must tell you, in the spirit of love, and before God, who searcheth the heart, you do want it; you want it exceedingly. I know no one soul that wants to read and consider deeply so much the chapter of Universal Love and that of Intercession. The character of Susurrus [‘He had a mighty inclination to hear and discover all the defects and infirmities of all about him.... If you would but whisper anything gently, though it was ever so bad in itself, Susurrus was ready receive it.’ (Law’s Serious Call, chap. xxi.) See letter of Oct. 30 to his brother.] there is your own. I should be false to God and you did I not tell you so. Oh may it be so no longer; but may you love your neighbor as yourself, both in word and tongue, and in deed and truth! I believe in a week Mr. Ingham and I shall set out for Herrnhut, about three hundred and fifty miles from hence. O pray for us, that God would sanctify to us all those precious opportunities, that we may be continually built up more and more in the spirit of power, and love, and of a sound mind! --I am, dear brother, Your most affectionate friend and Brother. To his Brother Charles HERRNHUT, August 4, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- Thus far God has greatly helped us in all things. An account of the people here you must not expect till we come face to face, when I hope we shall part no more. Oh that, after I have proved all things, I may be enabled throughy de t dafta, [Phil. i. 10: ‘approve things that are excellent.’] and, calling no man master, in faith, practice, and discipline, to hold fast that which is good! Salute our brethren in London and Oxford by name, and exhort them all, in the name of the Lord Jesus, that they love and study the oracles of God more and more, that they work out their salvation with fear and trembling, never imagining they have already attained or are already perfect; never deceiving themselves, as if they had now less need than before to be serious, watchful, lowly-minded; and that, above all things, they use great plainness of speech both with each other and towards all men: d paa, t t e, faese t ea p pta p. [See 2 Cor. iv. 2.] My dearest brother and friend, I commend you to the grace of God, to be more and more renewed in the image of His Son! Pray ye all for me continually! Adieu. To the Rev. Mr. Charles Wesley, At Mr. Hutton’s, Bookseller, Near Temple Bar, London, England. To James Hutton HERRNHUT. August 4, 1738. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I hope you and those with you stand fast in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are in no wise shaken from your purpose of declaring His goodness to the children of men. Ye are a few of those whom He hath chosen to be witnesses of the merits of His death and the power of His resurrection; and ye cannot too largely or too boldly declare the things He hath done for your own souls. If ye have, indeed, found mercy through His blood, you must ’use great plainness of speech’; not as Moses, and the judaizing Christians still among us, who put a veil over their face, to the intent that the glory of the Lord should not shine, which ought to shine in the eyes of all men. Many, indeed, will blaspheme, even though Paul speak, and speak only the words of truth and soberness. But ought Paul, therefore, to forbear speaking ’ We have not so learned Christ.’ Many also will persecute and revile you and say all manner of evil of you, for His name’s sake. Why, then ye are heirs of the blessing; then the Spirit of God, the Spirit of glory, shall rest upon you. Then rejoice and be exceeding glad, that ye are partakers of the reproach of Christ; and when Christ, which is your life, shall appear, ye shall also appear with Him in glory. We are here compassed about with a cloud of witnesses that the Ancient of Days waxeth not old; that His arm is not shortened, but still worketh mightily in and for those that believe. All of these are living proofs that Christianity, as its Author, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; that the same gifts are still given unto men, the same holiness and happiness, the same freedom from sin, the same peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. These likewise bear witness with one accord that there is but one way under heaven given to men of attaining to a fellowship in these great and precious promises--namely, faith in Him who loved us and gave Himself for us, and bare our sins in His own body upon the tree; and also that ‘whosoever seeketh this findeth,’ so he seek it humbly, earnestly, and perseveringly, absolutely renouncing all his own righteousness as well as his own works, and coming to Christ as poor, miserable, and naked! My dear friends, be lowly, be serious, be watchful. Let not any pretence to mental make you slack in vocal prayer. Be good stewards of the manifold grace of God. And the God of peace and love be with you even unto the end! Be not forgetful of praying much for Your weak brother in Christ. To Arthur Bedford LONDON, September 28, 1738. REVEREND SIR, -- 1. A few days ago I met with a sermon of yours, said to be written against me. It is entitled The Doctrine of Assurance. When I first read those three propositions there laid down, -- ‘(1) that an assurance of salvation is not of the essence of faith; (2) that a true believer may wait long before he hath it; and (3) that, after he hath it, it may be weakened and intermitted by many distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions,’ -- I thought there was nothing herein but what I both believed and preached. But in going on I was convinced of the contrary; and saw clearly that, by this one phrase, ‘assurance of salvation,’ we meant entirely different things: you understanding thereby ‘an assurance that we shall persevere in a state of salvation’; whereas I mean no more by that term than ‘an assurance that we are now in such a state.’ 2. How easily, then, might a short question have prevented this whole dispute and saved you the trouble of a mere ignoratio denchi for almost forty pages together! As to the assurance you speak of, neither my brother, nor I, nor any of our friends that I know of, hold it; no, nor the Moravian Church, whose present judgment I have had better opportunity to know than the author of what is called your Catechism. I dare not affirm so much of this assurance as that ‘it is given to very few’; for I believe it is given to none at all. I find it not in the Book of God. Yea, I take it to be utterly contrary thereto, as implying the impossibility of falling from grace; from asserting which fatal doctrine I trust the God whom I serve will always deliver me. 3. That assurance of which alone I speak, I should not choose to call an assurance of salvation, but rather (with the Scriptures) the assurance of faith. And even this I believe is not of the essence of faith, but a distinct gift of the Holy Ghost, whereby God shines upon His own work and shows us that we are justified through faith in Christ. If any one chooses to transpose the words, and to term this, instead of the assurance of faith, the faith of assurance, I should not contend with him for a phrase: though I think the scriptural words are always the best; and in this case particularly, because otherwise we may seem to make two faiths, whereas St. Paul knew but of one. 4. This pfa pste, [Heb. x. 22: ‘The full assurance of faith.’] however we translate it, I believe is neither more nor less than hope; or a conviction, wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, that we have a measure of the true faith in Christ, and that, as He is already made justification unto us, so, if we continue to watch, strive, and pray, He will gradually become our sanctification here and our full redemption hereafter. This assurance I believe is given to some in a smaller, to others in a larger degree; to some also sooner, to others later, according to the counsels of His will. But, since it is promised to all, I cannot doubt but it will be given to all that diligently seek it. I cannot doubt but all ‘who truly believe in Christ Jesus and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before Him, will in due time be assured that they are in a state of grace, and may persevere therein unto salvation, by the Holy Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God.’ 5. Now, I beseech you, sir, to consider calmly whether it be I or you who hath broken the royal law of charity. Being informed that I and some of my friends were in a fault, you did not go and tell your brother of it between you and him alone; you did not tell it to the elders of the Church only; but at one step to all the world. You brand us at once with spiritual pride, enthusiasm, false doctrine, heresy, uncharitableness; with crude, indigested notions, of dismal consequences, because we would fain set ourselves up to be the heads of a party. You declare that we ’serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but by fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple; that we have swerved from faith and a good conscience, and turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what we say nor whereof we affirm.’ You say we ’ consent not to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the doctrine which is according to godliness; but that we are proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words. ‘In short, that we are ’ men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth.’ 6. O sir, how could you possibly be induced to pass such a sentence, even in your heart, till you had done us the common, heathen justice of hearing us answer for ourselves How, then, was you induced to declare it to all mankind, especially when those you were to declare hateful to God and man were those of whom you had once hoped better things, even things that accompany salvation--yea, whom you had received as sincere though weak brethren, and strengthened their hands in God What evidence, less than hearing them with your own ears pronounce the words laid to their charge, could constrain you so to judge of them, much more so to speak of them; since your words cannot be recalled, but must remain a stumbling-block to the weak, a grief to the lovers of peace and union, and a triumph to the enemy 7. It is not I, or my brother or our friends, who cause or foment divisions and offences. With us (glory be to God) is no anger or clamor or bitterness or evil-speaking. We avoid, as we would avoid the fire of hell, all envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings; and follow after lowliness, meekness, and love, with all that seek the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. And with this end it is that I have written now; hoping that, if in anything I do err from the truth, you will restore me in the spirit of meekness, that I may again give God thanks on your behalf, and have a fresh instance of your readiness to support the weak and comfort the feeble-minded. To do which, after the ability which God giveth, is also the desire of, reverend sir, Your obedient servant. To the Moravians at Marienborn and Herrnhut LONDON, September 1738. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I cannot but rejoice in your steadfast faith, in your love to our blessed Redeemer, your deadness to the world, your meekness, temperance, chastity, and love of one another. I greatly approve of your conferences and bands, of your method of instructing children, and in general of your great care of the souls committed to your charge. But of some other things I stand in doubt, which I will mention in love and meekness. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would on each of those heads, (1) plainly answer whether the fact be as I suppose; and if so, (2) consider whether it be right. Do you not wholly neglect joint fasting Is not the Count all in all Are not the rest mere shadows, calling him Rabbi, almost implicitly both believing and obeying him Is there not something of levity in your behavior Are you in general serious enough Are you zealous and watchful to redeem time Do you not sometimes fall into trifling conversation Do you not magnify your own Church too much Do you believe any who are not of it to be in gospel liberty Are you not straitened in your love Do you love your enemies and wicked men as yourselves Do you not mix human wisdom with divine, joining worldly prudence to heavenly Do you not use cunning, guile, or dissimulation in many cases Are you not of a close, dark, reserved temper and behavior Is not the spirit of secrecy the spirit of your community Have you that childlike openness, frankness, and plainness of speech so manifest to all in the Apostles and first Christians To Benjamin Ingham OXON, October 13, 1758. TO MY DEAR BROTHER, -- God hath been wonderfully gracious to us ever since our return to England. Though there are many adversaries, yet a great door and effectual is opened; and we continue, through evil report and good report, to preach the gospel of Christ to all people, and earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Indeed, He hath given unto us many of our fiercest opposers, who now receive with meekness the ingrafted word. One of the bitterest of them could have no rest in his spirit till, on Saturday, the 30th of September, he was compelled to send for me, [For Mr. Jennings, see Journal, ii. 80d.] who knew him not so much as by face, and to tell me the secrets of his heart. He owned with many tears that, in spite of all his endeavors, he was still carnal, sold under sin; that he continually did the thing he would not, and was thereby convinced of the entire corruption of his whole nature; that the very night before, after the most solemn resolutions to the contrary, he had been guilty of gross drunkenness, and had no hope of escaping, having neither spirit nor strength left in him. We fell on our knees, and besought our Lord to bring this sinner unto God, who through His blood justifieth the ungodly. He arose, and his countenance was no longer sad; for he knew, and testified aloud, that he was passed from death unto life, and felt in himself that he was healed of his plague. And from that hour to this he hath had peace and joy in believing, and sin hath no more dominion over him. Mr. Stonehouse [George Stonehouse, Vicar of Islington, had shared the Wesleys’ convictions (Journal, i. 460). Mr. Sparks, a visiting minister at Newgate, is often referred to in C. Wesley’s Journal for 1738; he invited Charles Wesley to go with him and preach to ten malefactors under sentence of death; they gave them the sacrament, and went with them to Tyburn. John Hutchings, of Pembroke College, was one of the company who met Wesley soon after his return from Georgia (Works, viii. 349) who were ‘resolved to be Bible Christians at all events, and, wherever they were, to preach with an their might plain, old, Bible Christianity’; Wesley was much confirmed by his experience (Journal, i. 457; W.H.S. v. 151): Hutchings was also present at the lovefeast in Fetter Lane on Jan. 1, 1739, with the Wesleys, Whitefield, and others (Journal, ii. 121). Mr. Combes was at Oxford (ibid. ii. 84—8d); he walked there with Charles Wesley (see C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 131). Mr. Wells, of Jesus College, was another Oxford friend (Journal, ii. 87--8d); on May 31, 1738, Charles Wesley sent him a plain account of his conversion; he heard John Wesley’s sermon in St. Mary’s on Aug. 24, 1744, and sat just in front of Charles Wesley, ‘but took great care to turn his back upon me all the time, which did not hinder my seeing through him’ (see C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 75, 76, 83, 98, 380). For Gambold’s experience, see Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 175-6.] hath at length determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and to preach unto all remission of sins through faith in His blood. Mr. Sparks also is a teacher of sound doctrine. Mr. Hutchings is strong in the faith, and mightily convinces gainsayers, so that no man hitherto hath been able to stand before him. Mr. Kinchin, Gambold, and Wells have not yet received comfort, but are patiently waiting for it. Mr. Robson, [See letter of Sept. 30, 1735.] who is now a minister of Christ also, is full of faith and peace and love. So is Mr. Combes, a little child, who was called to minister in holy things two or three weeks ago. Indeed, I trust our Lord will let us see, and that shortly, a multitude of priests that believe. My brother and I are partly here and partly in London, till Mr. Whitefield or some other is sent to release us from hence. Pray for us continually, my dear brother, that we may make full proof of our ministry, and may ourselves stand fast in the grace of our Lord Jesus; and, as soon as you can, send word of what He is doing by and for you. To the Church at Herrnhut OXON, October 14, 1738. TO THE CHURCH OF GOD WHICH IS IN HERRNHUT, JOHN WESLEY, AN UNWORTHY PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF GOD IN ENGLAND, WISHETH ALL GRACE AND PEACE IN OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Glory be to God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for His unspeakable gift ! for giving me to be an eye-witness of your faith and love and holy conversation in Christ Jesus ! I have borne testimony thereof with all plainness of speech in many parts of Germany, and thanks have been given to God by many on your behalf. We are endeavoring here also, by the grace which is given us, to be followers of you, as ye are of Christ. Fourteen were added to us since our return, so that we have now eight bands of men, consisting of fifty-six persons; all of whom seek for salvation only in the blood of Christ. As yet we have only two small bands of women--the one of three, the other of five persons. But here are many others who only wait till we have leisure to instruct them how they may most effectually build up one another in the faith and love of Him who gave Himself for them. Though my brother and I are not permitted to preach in most of the churches in London, yet (thanks be to God) there are others left wherein we have liberty to speak the truth as it is in Jesus. Likewise every evening, and on set evenings in the week at two several places, we publish the word of reconciliation, sometimes to twenty or thirty, sometimes to fifty or sixty, sometimes to three or four hundred persons, met together to hear it. We begin and end all our meetings with singing and prayer; and we know that our Lord heareth our prayer, having more than once or twice (and this was not done in a corner) received our petitions in that very hour. Nor hath He left Himself without other witnesses of His grace and truth: Ten ministers I know now in England who lay the right foundation--’ The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin.’ Over and above whom I have found one Anabaptist, and one, if not two, of the teachers among the Presbyterians here, who, I hope, love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and teach the way of God in truth. O cease not, ye that are highly favored, to beseech our Lord that He would be with us even to the end, to remove that which is displeasing in His sight, to support that which is weak among us, to give us the whole mind that was in Him, and teach us to walk even as He walked! And may the very God of peace fill up what is wanting in your faith, and build you up more and more in all lowliness of mind, in all plainness of speech, in all zeal and watchfulness; that He may present you to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that ye may be holy and unblameable in the day of His appearing. To Dr. Koker OXON, October 14, 1738. I have delayed writing till now, in hopes I might have had an opportunity of transcribing the papers [Papers brought from Herrnhut. See letter of Nov. 22, p. 268.] you desired before I wrote. But I find I cannot have time for this yet, it having pleased God to give me full employment of another nature. His blessed Spirit has wrought so powerfully, both in London and Oxford, that there is a general awakening, and multitudes are crying out, ‘What must we do to be saved’ So that, till our gracious Master sendeth more laborers into His harvest, all my time is much too little for them. May our blessed Lord repay sevenfold into your bosom the kindness showed to us for His name’s sake! That you may be found in Him, not having your own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, is the earnest prayer of, dear sir, Your unworthy brother in Christ. To his Brother Samuel LONDON, October 30, 1738. DEAR BROTHER, -- That you will always receive kindly what is so intended I doubt not. Therefore I again recommend the character of Susurrus, [See letter of July 7, p. 251] both to you and my sister, as (whether real or reigned) striking at the root of a fault of which both she and you were, I think, more guilty than any other two persons I have known in my life. Oh may God deliver both you and me from all bitterness and evil-speaking, as well as from all false doctrine, heresy, and schism! With regard to my own character, and my doctrine likewise, I shall answer you very plainly. By a Christian I mean one who so believes in Christ as that sin hath no more dominion over him; and in this obvious sense of the word I was not a Christian till May the 24th last past. For till then sin had the dominion over me, although I fought with it continually; but surely then, from that time to this it hath not, such is the free grace of God in Christ. What sins they were which till then reigned over me, and from which by the grace of God I am now free, I am ready to declare on the house-top, if it may be for the glory of God. If you ask by what means I am made free (though not perfect, neither infallibly sure of my perseverance), I answer, By faith in Christ; by such a sort or degree of faith as I had not till that day. My desire of this faith I knew long before, though not so clearly till Sunday, January the 8th last, when, being in the midst of the great deep, I wrote a few lines in the bitterness of my soul, some of which I have transcribed [Journal, i. 415-16.] ; and may the good God sanctify them both to you and me! -- ‘By the most infallible of all proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced, -- ‘1. Of unbelief; having no such faith in Christ as will prevent my heart’s being troubled, which it could not be if I believed in God and rightly believed also in Him. ‘2. Of pride throughout my life past; inasmuch as I thought I had what I find I had not. ‘3. Of gross irrecollection; inasmuch as in a storm I cry to God every moment; in a calm, not. ‘Lord, save, or I perish! Save me, -- ‘(1) By such a faith in Thee and in Thy Christ as implies trust, confidence, peace in life and in death. ‘(2) By such humility as may fill my heart, from this hour for ever, with a piercing, uninterrupted sense, Nihil est quod hactenus feci [ Kempis’s Imitation, I. xix. I: ’What I have been hitherto doing amounts to nothing.’]; having evidently built without a foundation. ‘(3) By such a recollection that I may cry to Thee every moment, but more especially when all is calm (if it should so please Thee), "Give me faith, or I die ! Give me a lowly spirit, otherwise mihi non sit suave vivere” [Terence’s Heaut. III. i. 73: ~ ‘May life itself no longer be pleasant to me.’] Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! e ad, s .’ [Luke xviii. 39: ’Son of David, have mercy upon me.’] Some measure of this faith, which bringeth salvation or victory over sin, and which implies peace and trust in God through Christ, I now enjoy by His free mercy; though in very deed it is in me but as a grain of mustard-seed: for the pfa pste -- the seal of the Spirit, the love of God shed abroad in my heart, and producing joy in the Holy Ghost, ’ joy which no man taketh away, joy unspeakable and full of glory,’--this witness of the Spirit I have not; but I patiently wait for it. I know many who have already received it--more than one or two in the very hour we were praying for it. And, having seen and spoken with a cloud of witnesses abroad as well as in my own country, I cannot doubt but that believers who wait and pray for it will find these scriptures fulfilled in themselves. My hope is that they will be fulfilled in me: I build on Christ, the Rock of Ages; on His sure mercies described in His Word; and on His promises, all which I know are yea and amen. Those who have not yet received joy in the Holy Ghost, the love of God, and the plerophory of faith (any or all of which I take to be the witness of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the sons of God), I believe to be Christians in that imperfect sense wherein I may call myself such; and I exhort them to pray that God would give them also ‘to rejoice in hope of the glory of God,’ and to feel ‘His love shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto them.’ On men I build not: neither on Matilda Chipman’s word, [Apparently the woman who dreamt that a ball of fire fell upon her, and burst and fired her soul. See Priestley’s Letters, pp. 88-90.] whom I have not talked with five minutes in my life; nor on anything peculiar in the weak, well-meant relation of William Hervey, [A younger brother of the Rev. James Hervey, who in June 1737 was looking out for a trade and a master to set yourself to’ in London. Hervey spent the winter of 1751-2 in Miles Lane, London, with William, who was with his brother when he died in 1758. See Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 213, 26o, 322-3; and letter of March 2o, 1739, to James Hervey.] who yet is a serious, humble-acting Christian. But have you been building on these Yes; I find them more or less in almost every letter you have written on the subject. Yet, were all that has been said on ‘visions, dreams, and balls of fire’ to be fairly proposed in syllogisms, I believe it would not prove a jot more on one than on the other side of the question. O brother, would to God you would leave disputing concerning the things which you know not (if, indeed, you know them not), and beg of God to fill up what is yet wanting in you! Why should not you also seek till you receive ‘that peace of God which passeth all understanding’ Who shall hinder you, notwithstanding the manifold temptations, from rejoicing ’ with joy unspeakable, by reason of glory’ Amen, Lord Jesus! -May you and all who are near of kin to you (if you have it not already) feel His love shed abroad in your heart by His Spirit which dwelleth in you, and be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance. -- I am Yours and my sister’s most affectionate Brother. To Connt Zinzendorf LONDON, October 30, 1738. May our gracious Lord, who counteth whatsoever is done unto the least of His followers as done to Himself, return sevenfold unto you and the Countess and all the Brethren the many kindnesses you did unto us! It would have been a great satisfaction to me if I could have spent more time with the Christians that love one another. But that could not be now, my Master having called me to work in another part of His vineyard. Nor did I return hither at all before the time; for though a great door and effectual had been opened, the adversary had laid so many stumbling-blocks before it that the weak were daily turned out of the way. [See Journal, ii. 75; and also previous letter.] Numberless misunderstandings had arisen, by reason of which the way of truth was much blasphemed; and hence had sprung anger, clamor, bitterness, evil-speaking, envyings, strifes, railings, evil surmisings, whereby the enemy had gained such an advantage over the little flock that ’ of the rest durst no man join himself unto them.’ But it has now pleased our blessed Master to remove in great measure these rocks of offence. The word of the Lord runs and is glorified, and His work goes on and prospers. Great multitudes are everywhere awakened, and cry out, ‘What must we do to be saved’ Many of them see that there is only one name under heaven whereby they can be saved; and more and more of those that seek it find salvation in His name. Their faith hath made them whole. And these are of one heart and one soul. They all love one another, and are knit together in one body and one spirit, as in one faith and one hope of their calling. The love and zeal of our brethren in Holland and Germany, particularly at Herrnhut, hath stirred up many among us, who will not be comforted till they also partake of the great and precious promises. I hope, if God permit, to see them at least once more, were it only to give them that fruit of my love, the speaking freely on a few things which I did not approve, perhaps because I did not understand them. May our merciful Lord give you a fight judgment in all things, and make you to abound more and more in all lowliness and meekness, in all simplicity and godly sincerity, in all watchfulness and serious-ness-in a word, in all faith and love, particularly to those that are without, till ye are merciful, as your Father which is in heaven is merciful! I desire your constant and earnest prayers that He would vouchsafe a portion of the same spirit to Your much obliged and very affectionate But unworthy brother in Christ. To Count Zinzendorf, At Amsterdam. To Benjamin Ingram and James Hutton LINCOLN COLLEGE, November 16, 1738. MY DEAR BRETHERN INGHAM AND HUTON, -- Be ye strong in the Lord and in the power of His might! There begins to be a little revival of His power here also. The few gownsmen who meet love one another and press forward toward the prize of our high calling. But I fear they do not all build on the true foundation; for some seem still to be establishing their own righteousness, as the joint cause (at least) with that of our Lord, of their acceptance with God. Charles Kinchin stands clear of this charge, and is full of love for souls and of prayer. But neither (I fear) does he speak the truth as it is in Jesus. For he (as our brother Hutchings) mightily insists, both in conversation and preaching, that no one can be justified without knowing it, and that none is born again or has saving faith till he has the full assurance of faith, continual joy in the Holy Ghost, and the immediate witness of the Spirit with his spirit. Oh when will our Lord give us to be of one mind and one soul, to speak and think the same thing! This evening I begin reading to a little company in St. Clements, and on Tuesday evening (if God will) to one in St. Giles. But what meant Mr. Fox [Mr. Fox had been in the city prison, and went with Wesley and Kinchin to Manchester in March 1738. It was at the Society in Fox’s house (April I) that Wesley could not confine himself to forms of prayer. Mrs. Fox’s experience is referred to in Journal, i. 457. Richard Morgan (ibid. viii. 264) read the Bishop of Man’s Catechism to two inquirers every other day at their house in 1735. Mr. and Mrs. Fox wished to go to Georgia. Morgan says: ’ Mr. Fox and his wife, especially the former, are most zealous Christians.... I read every Sunday night to a cheerful number of Christians at Mr. Fox’s.’ Charles Wesley writes on Aug. 28, 1738: ’ Rejoiced at Mr. Fox’s, with Mr. Kin-chin, Hutchtrigs, and other Christian friends.’ See letter of Nov. 24 to Fox.] by talking of leaving Oxford Ye have need to send ten men full of faith to us rather than to take one from us. Besides, Mrs. Fox is the very life and spirit (under God) of all the women here that seek our Lord. And if the adversary designed to blast at once all hopes of an harvest for God among them, he could not take a more probable way than now at this critical time to remove her from them. ’But he can’t live at Oxford.’ No, nor anywhere else, as he is now burdened with debt. But let his debts be paid, and then see what he can do. If that be not enough, we will pay his house-rent for a year or two. But at all hazards let them not go hence while our Lord’s work in this place so loudly calls upon them to stay. Speak, my brethren, of this immediately. I have four- or five-and-thirty other letters to write, [The great correspondence of a lifetime was already in full flow.] so can say no more. Send us word how our Master works in London. I am dead and cold. O pray much for Your affectionate, heavy brother in Christ. Hymn-books (bound and unbound) and Prayers should be sent immediately, and two Intercessional Offices. [See letter of Dec. 1. Evidently needed for their Society meetings.] To Dr. Koker OXON, November 22, 1738. My desire and prayer to God is that the glorious gospel of His Son may run and be glorified among you, as it doth among us, and much more abundantly. I should rejoice to hear what our Lord hath done for you also. Is the number of believers multiplied Do they love one another Are they all of one heart and one soul Do they build up one another in the knowledge and love of our Lord Jesus Christ May He multiply your little flock a thousand-fold, how many soever you be! May He fill you with all peace and joy in believing! May He preserve you in all lowliness of spirit! And may He enable you to use great plainness of speech both toward each other and toward all men, and, by manifestation of the truth, to commend yourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God! Even to this hour I have not had one day’s leisure to transcribe for you the papers I brought from Herrnhut [See letter of Oct. 14.]: the harvest here also is so plenteous, and the laborers so few; and it increases upon us daily. Verily the Spirit of the Lord hath lifted up His standard against the iniquity which hath overspread our land as a flood! O pray ye for us, that He would send more laborers into His harvest; and that He would enable us, whom He hath already sent, to approve ourselves faithful ministers of the new covenant, by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report! In particular, let all the brethren and sisters who are with you pray that God would warm with His love the cold heart of, dear sir, Your much obliged and very affectionate brother in Christ. To Isaac Lelong OXON, November 22, 1738. Do not think, my dear brother, that I have forgotten you. I cannot forget you, because I love you; though I can’t yet love any one as I ought, because I can’t love our blessed Lord. [See sect. 25 of letter in Dec. 1751 to Bishop Lavington.] My heart is cold and senseless. It is, indeed, an heart of stone. Oh when, when will He take it out of the midst of me, and give me an heart of flesh! Pray for me, and let all your household pray for me--yea, and all the brethren also, that our God would give me a broken heart and a loving heart, an heart wherein His Spirit may delight to dwell. May our good Lord repay you all a thousand-fold, and especially our brother Decknatel, for the love you showed to us! How does His gospel prosper at Amsterdam Are believers multiplied, and is His grace mighty among them Is their name yet east out as evil (for that must be next), and do men despitefully use you and persecute you I want you to say a great deal to me of it. But, above all, I want you to pray a great deal for Your poor, weak brother. PS.--Pray write soon. I should be glad to write to and hear from you at least once a month. Grace be with you all. Amen. I thank you much for your letter. I wish to hear from you often. Will you send my letters to our dear brethren You see how long they have been delayed: December 31, 1738. To Richard Viney OXON, November 22, 1738. After a long sleep, there seems now to be a great awakening in this place also. The Spirit of the Lord hath already shaken the dry bones; and some of them stand up and live. But I am still dead and cold; having peace, indeed, but no love or joy in the Holy Ghost. 0 pray for me, that I may see and feel myself a sinner, and have a full interest in the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world! To Mr. Fox OXON, November 24, 1738. DEAR MR. FOX, -- Mrs. Badger earnestly desires you would procure her a trumpet to help her deafness. Mrs. Ford would not have any of the tea Mrs. Cleminger brought, because it is very bad. Charles Kinchin, Charles Delamotte, Mrs. Ford, Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Fox, and my brother desire me to speak their judgment (as well as mine) concerning your removal to London. The reason for it, you say, is this: ‘You can’t maintain your family at Oxford.’ To this we answer: ‘You have not tried what you can do, when you are clear in the world (which Mr. F--- promises) and should you live in your house rent-free (for that we will take care).’ If you desire only food and raiment for yourself and family, you have all reason at least to make the experiment for a while whether Providence will not give you these at Oxford when you have these helps which you had not before. The reason against her going hence is as evident as it is weighty. We have no one here like-minded. She is the very life (under God) of all her companions here; nor could the enemy devise so likely a means of destroying the work which is just beginning among them as the taking her away from their head. Which, then, is dearest to you, the interest of Christ or your own O consider this question deeply, and the good God direct your heart! Pray for Your affectionate brother. To James Hutton Oxon, November 24, 1738. DEAR JEMMY, -- First let us get trifles out of the way. My brother left behind him almost all the things I wanted, which I desire may be sent without fail by the very next carrier, viz.-- A gown, cassock, and sash. The papers which my brother put into the little box which has the key in it. My eight cups, teapot, sugar-basin, and slop-basin. Have you paid Mrs. Turner for the tea and sugar bought when Brother Richter was with us The three New Testaments, 2d. Hymn-book, Italian Grammar, Dictionary (from your father’s), German Dictionary, and the little . . . German book, and Newcomb’s Psalms. Many here would buy hymn-books and the sermon on Faith; send them, therefore, with the rest. I do very exceedingly disapprove of the excluding women when we meet to pray, sing, and read the Scriptures. I wish it might not be done before we have talked together; at least, unless you first fix a night for them to come by themselves -- which I firmly believe will give more offence. Send us word how the word of God prospers among you, and how the fierceness of men turns to His praise, that we may rejoice together. You will show Mr. Fox what is on the other side. Are not your own flocks and herds enough, but must you have our little ewe lamb also To James Hutton OXON, November 26, 1738. MY DEAR FRIEND, -- If the time for the women’s meeting apart be fixed before they are excluded from the general meeting, I have no more to say on that head. I gave our brother Shaw the names of six female bands settled already. Why do you speak of the settling some as a thing still to be begun Have you suffered those to fall in pieces again Or has no thought at all been taken about them Doubtless too much caution cannot be used in the admission of strangers. What is proposed as to casting lots concerning a president seems liable to no exception. But you seem to design him (if there should be one) just nothing to do. Would not that [require] more particular consideration I have thought much (my brother is out of town with Mr. Wells) of the monitors, [See Wesley’s account of the discipline of the Church at Herrnhut, Journal, if. 50, 53. The monitors were eleven in number. Some were known to be such; others were secretly appointed, and, if need were, could admonish in the love of Christ even the rulers of the Church.] and am very much afraid that design is not right; and that for several reasons. First, it seems needless. Every man in my band is my monitor, and I his; else I know no use of our being in band. And if anything particular occur, why should not the leaders (as was agreed before) delegate a monitor pro tempors Secondly, I doubt it would be hurtful; and, indeed, many ways: by lessening the care of every member for every other, when so great a part of his care was transferred to another; by lessening mutual freedom, and making it in one instance unnecessary; by setting aside the commandment of God, ’Thou shalt in any wise reprove thy brother,’ [See Lev. xix. 17.] by depriving thee, i.e. every one beside the monitors, of the improvement and reward of so doing. Thirdly, I have seen it has produced these effects. Sin (as they esteemed it) was suffered in me at Savannah, first seven months, afterwards five months, without one breath of reproof; notwithstanding the command of God, notwithstanding earnest, continual entreaty on one side, and solemn, repeated promises on the other. And how could this be Why, there were stated monitors to reprove. Others, therefore, judged reproof to be a thing quite out of their way. But I fell not under the care of the monitors. Therefore I might have gone unreproved to this hour had not John [Wesley evidently refers to John Martin Boltzius, the minister of the Saltzburghers, whom he had refused to admit to the Lord’s Table in Savannah because he was not baptized by a minister who had been episcopally ordained (see Journal, iii. 434). He speaks (ibid. i. 181) of reading Drake’s Anatomy with ‘John.’ Boltzius had told, Wesley of something he thought wrong in his conduct, and had been reproved for doing so by those who thought he had usurped the office of the monitors.] reproved me; for which (as he could not deny) he was roundly reproved himself. Lastly, a general monitor commissioned by God to reprove every one of his brethren you have so long as you have any priest or deacon among you. Therefore methinks this point might be reconsidered. ‘They that speak stand up’ I don’t understand. If I do understand it; I doubt of the propriety of it. Is the book and letters sent to Mr. Rook I believe the letter mentions money to be received of him, and sent hither as soon as may be. Nothing is done here yet. We are only beginning to begin. All the Scriptures direct me to think of suffering. I fear not that, but my own heart. Be not in haste, my dear brethren. Determine few things at a time, and those with the deepest deliberation. You know, we are blind children; and if it is our Father who leads us by the hand, He leads gently. We all remember you, and much desire to be remembered by you all. Let my dear brother Ingham and you pray very much for Your affectionate brother. To James Hutton OXON, November 27, 1738. Your scrip, Jemmy, comes next. As to the point of the women, we are agreed. As to the monitors, I have one more doubt. I believe bishops, priests, and deacons to be of divine appointment, though I think our brethren in Germany do not. Therefore I am tender of the first approach towards ‘pastors appointed by the congregation.’ And if we should begin with appointing fixed persons to execute pro officio one part of the pastoral office, I doubt it would not end there. My dear brother, this may seem of little weight to some of our brethren, especially when urged by one so weak as me; and they may think it deserves no other answer than ‘He hath not the Spirit.’ But our brother Bray hath. I refer you to him and all the brotherhood, or such a number of them as you judge proper. My brother, suffer me to speak a little more: if as a fool, then as a fool bear with me. I believe you don’t think I am (whatever I was) bigoted either to the Ancient Church or the Church of England. But have a care of bending the bow too much the other way. The National Church, to which we belong, may doubtless claim some, though not an implicit, obedience from us. And the Primitive Church may, thus far at least, be reverenced as faithfully delivering down for two or three hundred years the discipline which they received from the Apostles, and the[Apostles] from Christ. And I doubt....... were among them who [Letter torn.] ....... To his Brother Samuel OXON, November 30, 1738. I believe every Christian who has not yet received it should pray for the witness of God’s Spirit with his spirit that he is a child of God. In being a child of God, the pardon of his sins is included; therefore I believe the Spirit of God will witness this also. That this witness is from God, the very terms imply; and this witness I believe is necessary for my salvation. How far invincible ignorance may excuse others I know not. But this, you say, is delusive and dangerous, because it encourages and abets idle visions and dreams. It encourages, true--accidentally, but not essentially. And that it does this accidentally, or that weak minds may pervert it to an idle use, is no objection against it; for so they may pervert every truth in the oracles of God, more especially that dangerous doctrine of Joel cited by St. Peter: ‘It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.’ Such visions, indeed, as you mention are given up: does it follow that visions and dreams in general ‘are bad branches of a bad root’ God forbid I This would prove more than you desire. To James Hutton I am to thank somebody (I suppose my brother James) for some very good tea. OXON, December 1, 1738. DEAR JEMMY, -- The box I have received from the carrier, [See end of letter of Nov. 16.] and the parcel by the coach, and (which is best of all) two letters by the post. Our brother Ingham should stir us up as often as he can. I can but just say us gownsmen. For Charles Kinchin went to-day, and there is none besides that joins with my brother and me cordially. Indeed, you should write to Mr. Hutchings. How can any who truly desire the enlargement of our Lord’s kingdom approve of his and Mr. Kinchin’s both being shut up in a little village when there is so loud a call for both (if it could be) at Oxford The case of the monitors [See letters of Nov. 26 and 27.] is past; so let it rest. Only I cannot approve of that circumstance, which you may probably think the most necessary of all--the forbidding the person reproved to answer. First, because I doubt it may be a snare to many weak consciences, who may think (as I do in several cases) that it is their duty to answer. Secondly, because it naturally tends to beget or increase, even in the strong, that Mystical silence which is the very bane of brotherly love. For my own part, I never should be willing to reprove any one without hearing him answer for himself. Nor do I find any scripture that forbids it, either directly or by clear inferences -- though it may have ill effects. The impatience of hearing it seems to be a very unchristian temper. Indeed, my brother, you have no need to multiply forms of any kind. The standing up at speaking is a ceremony used neither at Herrnhut nor among any of the Brethren elsewhere. At meal-times especially it appears quite contrary to common sense, and is surely likely to be attended with more ill consequences than it is supposed proper to remove. Are we members of the Church of England First, then, let us observe her laws, and then the by-laws of our own Society. First, secure the observance of the Friday fast. Then I will fast with you, if you please, every day in the week. Only let us except Sundays and the solemn festivals, to fast on which is contrary (to say no more) to laws of our own Church. Thanks be to God in Christ, I have no more anger than joy. But we are all young men, though I hope few of you are so young in spiritual, experimental knowledge as Your poor brother. Could not you purchase for me half a dozen Bath-metal tea-spoons Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This letter from Charles Wesley was written whilst his brother was on his way back to England. His return came upon Charles as a great surprise. He writes in his diary for February 3, 1738, ’ In the afternoon news was brought me at James Hutton’s that my brother was come from America. I could not believe till at night I saw him. He comes, not driven away, but to tell the true state of the Colony; which according to his account, is truly deplorable.’ Next day Charles writes, ’I informed Mr. Oglethorpe of his arrival. He was very inquisitive into the cause of his coming; said he ought not to have returned without the Trustees’ leave.’ On February 8 Wesley told the Trustees that about 100 idle persons had left the Colony within two months. The Colonists had been able in the previous year to grow enough corn to meet the needs of half the people. The Colony he said was very healthy; the Salzburgers had cultivated 150 acres. Charles Delamotte, the ’dearest Charles’ of the letter, stayed in Georgia till June 2, when he sailed for England. Whitefield, who had set sail for Georgia on January 5, 1738, from Gravesend, gave him 15 for his passage, which the Trustees refunded. William Delamotte, who had been led to Christ in 1737 in his twentieth year, was an undergraduate at Cambridge who often left the University to carry on his studies at Blendon, and have helpful intercourse with the Rector of Bexley, Mr. Piers. See Journal, i. 109-11. James Habersham, born at Beverley in 1712, sailed with Whitefield; he entered into business in Savannah, became President of Georgia in 1769, and died in 1775. James Hutton wrote to Wesley on January 3, 1737: ’ I have now opened a shop, and am entering myself into a new world; you will suit your prayers accordingly. I too bear part of the reproach of Christ I hope. As I do not sell Plays, and as the London and Oxon Methodists come to my house and sing Psalms audibly, against the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, I am stigmatized as mad, Presbyterian, fanatic; but I bless God I mind not the foolish words of simple men. I pray they may be converted. I am just at Temple Bar amidst the fiery darts of the devil. Your brother has been of great help to me; so has Mr. Hall and Mr. Whitefield. My sincerest love attends Charles Delamotte. I rejoice in what God has done for his family. I congratulate you on your sufferings, and almost wish you the glorious red crown of martyrdom. I must conclude, Your servant, JAMES HUTTON.’ [2] Lady Cox (or Cocks), of Queen Square, Bath, was one of Whitefield’s earliest converts there. Walter Chapman writes to Wesley on September 3, 1736: ’My Lady Cocks and sisters are now in Oxford; and they desire their best services to you, and wish you good luck in the name of the Lord’ (Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, p. 363). In 1738, when Whitefield sailed for Georgia, Lady Cox gave 50 for the poor of Georgia, and her sister, Mrs. Bridget Bethel, 100. Lady Cox also contributed five guineas to the Orphan House in Georgia. (Tyerman’s Whitefield, i. 106, 349.) See letter of April 16, 1739. [3] The last paragraph is a note written underneath Wesley’s letter by his brother Charles, who was ill at Oxford. On April 3 he resigned his position as Secretary. Oglethorpe, who replied on the 12th offering to get it supplied if he would retain it, left on June 26. See C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 84. [4] John Corbet’s Self-Employment is Secret was published in London in 1681, with ’a Prefatory Epistle by Mr. John Howe.’ The title-page describes the second part as ’ Thoughts upon Painful Affliction.’ ’ Notes for Myself ‘fill twenty of the seventy-five pages in the little book (5 in by 3 in.). Wesley had been acting on one of them with the old man on Stokenchurch Hill: ’ When thou hast an opportunity of speaking a word for the good of another’s soul, defer not the doing of it till another time.’ Richard Baxter, with whom he had lived for some time, preached Corbet’s funeral sermon. Corbet was ejected from Bramshot in 1662, and was minister at Chichester when he died in 1682. [5] Eukleria, the biography of Anna Maria Van Schurman (1607-78), was written in 1673, and a continuation of it in 1683. Wesley reread the Life of this learned and saintly Dutch lady on the way to Derking, on February 14, 1774, and describes her as’ perhaps a woman of the strongest understanding that the world ever saw. And she was likewise deeply devoted to God.’ See W.H.S. iv. 206. Wesley had met Peter Bhler in London in February. He was then twenty-five, had studied theology at Jena, and had just been ordained by Zinzendorf for work in Carolina. [6] Wesley had eagerly studied Law’s Christian Perfection and the Serious Call. He says (Works, viii. 366), ‘I had objections to almost every page’; but ‘they convinced me more than ever of the exceeding height and breadth and depth of the law of God’ (Journal, i. 467). For twelve years Law had been one of his chief mentors. This letter speaks volumes for Wesley’s sincerity and frankness. He tells his old master how his teaching had broken down in practice. As to the last paragraph, Canon Overton says that Law had ‘an asperity of manner, a curtness of expression, an impatience of everything that appeared to him absurd and unreasonable,... which made most men with whom he came into contact rather afraid of him.’ In his reply Law reminded Wesley of his edition of Kempis, and asks that the fault of not leading him to faith might be divided between them. He also said that he had put into his hands ’the little book of the German Theology.... If that book does not plainly lead you to Jesus Christ, I am content to know as little of Christianity as you are pleased to believe.’ The fact remains that, till they met Peter Bhler, the Wesleys had not found the way of faith. For Wesley’s criticism of some of Law’s later writings, see letter of January 6, 1756. [7] The corrections in the copy of this important letter show with what care Wesley prepared his reply. A facsimile of it is given in Telford’s Life of John Wesley, where on pages 103-8 the correspondence with Law is discussed. Charles Wesley visited Law twice in 1737, and on August 10, 1739, went to see him with his friend Bray (see his Journal). When Charles told him his experience, he replied, ‘Then am I far below you (if you are right), not worthy to bear your shoes.’ [8] Law’s answer to the letter of May 20 is in the possession of Dr. Williams’s Library; and we are indebted to the librarian for allowing us to make a copy of it, and to Mr. Stephen Hobhouse for calling our attention to it. It is the first time, so far as we know, that it has been printed as given here. [9] The Journal (May 22, 23, 24) says: ’ Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I had "continual sorrow and heaviness" in my "heart"; something of which I described, in the broken manner I was able, in the following letter to a friend.’ The name of this ’friend’ has not yet been discovered. It may have been Gambold, Kinchin, Miss Molly Kinchin, or Clayton. The last paragraph points to someone who, like himself, was seeking rest. The letter vividly describes the turmoil of his mind before the great light came to him on the evening of May 24 in Aldersgate Street. See Journal i. 475-6. [10] Wesley set out for Germany on June 13, 1738. He had made up his mind in Georgia to do so, and saw that the time had now come. He hoped that conversation with the Moravians would be a means of establishing his soul. lie reached Rotterdam on the 15th. See Journal, i. 482-3; and for an account of the visit, ii. 3-63. Wesley’s three letters to his mother from Germany help us to trace his journey from England to Marionborn, where he met Count Zinzendorf; they are full of details which must have given much pleasure to her and to the members of the family with whom she was staying. The scrupulous cleanliness of Holland greatly appealed to Wesley. [11] The Rev. Arthur Bedford, M.A., was Chaplain to the Prince of Wales and to the Haberdashers’ Hospital in Hoxton. His name appears in the list of Georgia Trustees. Wesley went to see him on October 6, to tell him of the harm he had done by his ‘very weak sermon’ on the Doctrine of Assurance, preached in St. Lawrence Jewry, August 13, 1738 (see Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, Nos. 3 and 130). Wesley refers to him on March 18, 1781, as ‘a person greatly esteemed fifty or sixty years ago for piety as well as learning.’ He was curate at St. Nicholas’s, Bristol, about 1690 (Journal, if. 82, vi. 306), and afterwards Vicar of Temple Church, Bristol. See a remarkable letter from him in the Arminian Magazine, 1782, pp. 425-9, about Thomas Perks, a skilled mathematician and a man who invoked spirits. [12] ‘Soon after my return to England I began the following letter to the Moravian Church; but, being fearful of trusting my own judgment, I determined to wait yet a little longer, and so laid it by unfinished.’ See letters of August 8, 1740, and February 2, 1745, sect. I. 5 (to Thomas Church). [13] Benjamin Ingham, one of the Oxford Methodists, went with Wesley to Georgia; but came back in 1737. He accompanied Wesley to Herrnhut in June 1738, remained there for a few months when Wesley returned to England, and afterwards joined the Moravians. He married Lady Margaret Hastings in 1741, and died in 1772. See Journal, i. 106n. [14] John de Koker was a physician in Rotterdam, who walked an hour with Wesley on the way to Gouda, and with whom he stayed on his return from Herrnhut. He translated some of Wesley’s tracts into Dutch. See Journal, ii. 4, 63; iii. 445-8. [15] Samuel’s reply in excellent spirit is given in Priestley’s Letters, pp. 88-90. [16] Wesley was in Oxford from November 11 to December 11. Charles came by coach on November 22, and stayed till the same date. [17] Isaac Lelong was one of the friends Wesley made at Amsterdam in June (Journal, ii. 91n, 102d). His historical account of the Brethren is referred to in Zinzendorf’s Life, p. 247. Mr. Decknatel, who Wesley says ‘suffered us to want nothing while we stayed’ there, was a minister of the Mennonists, and had translated into Low Dutch part of the Herrnhut Hymn-book (Journal, ii. 6). [18] Richard Viney, a ladies’ stay-maker, was introduced to Zinzendorf by Wesley in 1738. Viney stayed at the Foundry in London, traveled with Wesley, and was invited by him to the first Conference in 1744. Extracts from his manuscript Diary for that year are given by Marina-duke Riggall in W.H.S. beginning with vol. xiii. 78. He was at Ysselstein when this letter was written. See Journal, ii. 3n; and letters of January 22, 1744, and October 4, 1758. [19] Mr. Fox was in London. The Diary refers to this letter (Journal, ii. 104). The little Oxford Society met in his house or in Wesley’s rooms at Lincoln College. His brother and Charles Delamotte (who was his guest) felt how important it was that Fox should remain in Oxford, and were prepared to make proper financial arrangements to secure this end. This letter was written on the back of that to James Hutton. See letter of November 16. [20] Wesley needed his gown and cassock, and had to entertain friends. The inquiry about the tea shows his scrupulous care for others; and the reference to A Collection of Psalms and Hymns and his sermon on Salvation by Faith, printed by James Hutton, bears witness to his use of the Press to help forward the Revival. Both had been published in i738. His desire for news about the work in London also appears in Journal, ii. 108; and his attitude towards women members is a sign of his broad-minded position. See next letter. [21] James Hutton wrote on November 23 to say that at a general meeting of the bands (in Fetter Lane) it had been found that some were ensnared ’by the too familiar intercourse at Societies with young women.’ It was decided that the women should meet by themselves, and that two monitors be appointed, ’ whose business will be to tell every one what faults are observed in him’; that lots should be cast for the choice of a president of the meetings, who would only ‘see to the execution of what shall be determined by the whole Society’; and also ’that leaders and other officers wait and serve at lovefeasts; that they that speak stand up, and no one speak till he sat down.’ Hutton said: ‘I will send Mr. Wells’s money with a parcel of books, directed to some of you speedily.’ [22] John Bray was a brazier in Little Britain, near Smithfield. In his house Charles Wesley found peace on Whir Sunday 1738. Byrom was very much pleased with his conversation and behavior. [23] Dummer is the ‘little village.’ It had about four hundred inhabitants. John Hutchings was apparently assisting Kinchin, who writes Wesley on October 9, 1739, about a sermon he was going to print: ‘Mr. Hutchings has perused the whole. I shall have him at Dummer while I am absent.’ See Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 363-70; and letter of February 16, 1737. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: 22. 1739 ======================================================================== 1739 To a Roman Catholic Priest [1739.] SIR, -- I return you thanks both for the favor of your letter and for your recommending my father’s Proposals to the Sorbonne. I have neither time nor inclination for controversy with any, but least of all with the Romanists. And that, both because I cannot trust any of their quotations without consulting every sentence they quote in the originals, and because the originals themselves can very hardly be trusted in any of the points controverted between them and us. I am no stranger to their skill in mending those authors who did not at first speak home to their purpose, as also in purging them from those passages which contradicted their emendations. And as they have not wanted opportunity to do this, so doubtless they have carefully used it with regard to a point that so nearly concerned them as the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. I am not therefore surprised if the Works of St. Cyprian (as they are called) do strenuously maintain it; but I am that they have not been better corrected, for they still contain passages that absolutely overthrow it. What gross negligence was it to leave his seventy-fourth Epistle (to Pompeianus) out of the Index Expurgatorius, wherein Pope Cyprian so flatly charges Pope Stephen with pride and obstinacy, and with being a defender of the cause of heretics, and that against Christians and the very Church of God! He that can reconcile this with his believing Stephen the infallible Head of the Church may reconcile the Gospel with the Koran. Yet I can by no means approve the scurrility and contempt with which the Romanists have often been treated. I dare not rail at or despise any man, much less those who profess to believe in the same Master. But I pity them much; having the same assurance that Jesus is the Christ, and that no Romanist can expect to be saved according to the terms of His covenant. For thus saith our Lord, ‘Whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.’ And, ‘If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.’ But all Romanists as such do both. Ergo. The minor I prove, not from Protestant authors, nor even from particular writers of their own communion, but from the public, authentic records of the Church of Rome. Such are the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. And the edition I use was printed at Cologne, and approved by authority. And, first, all Romanists as such do break and teach men to break one (and not the least) of those commandments; the words of which, concerning images, are these: Now, (as every smatterer in Hebrew knows) is incurvare se, procumbere, honoris exhibendi causa [‘To bow down before any one in token of honoring him’ (Wesley).] (and is accordingly rendered by the Seventy in this very place by a Greek word of the very same import, pse): but the Council of Trent (and consequently all Romanists as such, all who allow the authority of that Council) teaches (section 25, paragraph 2) that it is legitimus imaginum usus, -- eis honorera exhibere, procumbendo coram eis. [‘That is, the proper use of images is to honor them by bowing down before them’(Wesley).] Secondly, all Romanists as such do add to those things which are written in the Book of Life. For in the Bull of Pius IV, subjoined to those Canons and Decrees, I find all the additions following: 1. Seven sacraments; 2. Transubstantiation; 3. Communion in one kind only; 4. Purgatory, and praying for the dead therein; 5. Praying to saints; 6. Veneration of relics; 7. Worship of images; 8. Indulgences; 9. The priority and universality of the Roman Church; 10. The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. All these things, therefore, do the Romanists add to those which are written in the Book of Life. -- I am. To his Brother Samuel [January] 1739. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- … I think Bishop Bull’s sermon on the Witness of the Spirit (against the Witness of the Spirit it should rather be entitled) is full of gross perversions of Scripture and manifest contradictions both to Scripture and experience. I find more persons day by day who experience a clear evidence of their being in a state of salvation. But I never said this continues equally clear in all as long as they continue in a state of salvation. Some, indeed, have testified, and the whole tenor of their life made their testimony unexceptionable, that from that hour they have felt no agonies at all, no anxious fears, no sense of dereliction. Others have. But I much fear we begin our dispute at the wrong end. I fear you dissent from the fundamental Articles of the Church of England. I know Bishop Bull does. I doubt you do not hold justification by faith alone. If not, neither do you hold what our Articles teach concerning the extent and guilt of original sin; neither do you feel yourself a lost sinner: and if we begin not here, we are building on the sand. Oh may the God of love, if my sister or you are otherwise-minded, reveal even this unto you. Your affectionate Brother. To George Whitefield LONDON, February 26, 1739. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Our Lord’s hand is not shortened amongst us. Yesterday I preached at St. Katherine’s, and at Islington, where the church was almost as hot as some of the Society rooms used to be. I think I never was so much strengthened before. The fields after service were white with people praising God. About three hundred were present at Mr. Sims’s; thence I went to Mr. Bell’s, then to Fetter Lane, and at nine to Mr. Bray’s, where also we only wanted room. To-day I expound in the Minories at four, at Mrs. West’s at six, and to a large company of poor sinners in Gravel Lane (Bishopsgate) at eight. The Society at Mr. Crouch’s does not meet till eight; so that I expound, before I go to him, near St. James’s Square, where one young woman has been lately filled with the Holy Ghost and overflows with joy and love. On Wednesday at six we have a noble company of women, not adorned with gold or costly apparel, but with a meek and quiet spirit and good works. At the Savoy on Thursday evening we have usually two or three hundred, most of them at least thoroughly awakened. Mr. Abbot’s parlor is more than filled on Friday, as is Mr. Park’s room twice over; where I have commonly had more power given me than at any other place. A week or two ago a note was given me there, as near as I can remember, in these words: ‘Your prayers are desired for a sick child that is lunatic, and sore vexed day and night, that our Lord would heal him, as He did those in the days of His flesh; and that He would give his parents faith and patience till his time is come.’ On Saturday se’nnight a middle-aged, well-dressed woman at Beech Lane (where I expound usually to five or six hundred before I go to Mrs. Exall’s Society) was seized, as it appeared to several about her, with little less than the agonies of death. We prayed that God, who had brought her to the birth, would give her strength to bring forth, and that He would work speedily, that all might see it, and fear, and put their trust in the Lord. Five days she travailed and groaned, being in bondage. On Thursday evening our Lord got Himself the victory; and from that moment she has been full of love and joy, which she openly declared at the same [Society] on Saturday last: so that thanksgivings also were given to God by many on her account. It is to be observed, her friends have accounted her mad for these three years, and accordingly bled, blistered her, and what not. Come, and let us praise the Lord and magnify His name together. To George Whitefield LONDON, March 16, 1739. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- On Thursday, the 8th instant, we breakfasted at Mr. Score’s, [Oxford,] who, is patiently waiting for the salvation of God. Thence we went to Mrs. Compton’s, who has set her face as a flint, and knows she shall not be ashamed. [See Journal, ii. 147.] After we had spent some time in prayer, Mr. Washington came with Mr. Gibs, and read several passages out of Bishop Patrick’s [Simon Patrick (1626-1707). ‘A man of eminently shining life,’ says Burnet. As Rector of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, he stayed in his parish to minister to sufferers during the Great Plague. In 1689 he became Bishop of Chichester, and of Ely in 1691. He was one of the five founders of the S. P.C.K. He was much influenced by the ’ Cambridge Platonists.’ Extracts from his Works appear in Wesley’s Christian Library (vols: xxi. and xxxii.); and ‘Bishop Patrick’s Picture of an Antinomian’ was inserted in the Arminian Mag. 1778, PP. 402-7. There are at least five records of Wesley’s use of Patrick’s devotional manuals in his early Journal and Diary (see Journal Index). The Parable of the Pilgrim, published in 1665, when he was Rector of St. Paul’s, was noticed by Southey, who wrote: ‘Though the parable is poorly imagined and ill-sustained, there is a great deal of sound instruction conveyed in a sober, manly, and not unfrequently a felicitous manner.’] Parable of the Pilgrim, to prove that we were all under a delusion, and that we were to be justified by faith and works. Charles Metcalf [Charles Metcalf, of London. See Journal, i. 455d, if. 143d.] withstood him to the face, and declared the simple truth of the gospel. When they were gone, we again besought our Lord that He would maintain His own cause. Meeting with Mr. Gibs soon after, he was almost persuaded to seek salvation only in the blood of Jesus. Meanwhile Mr. Washington and Watson [‘George Watson has not missed reading prayers there [at the Castle] yet. I have accidentally met him and spoke with him hah an hour, and cannot help thinking him a sober man in the main’ (Clayton to Wesley, Journal, viii. 280).] were going about to all parts and confirming the unfaithful. At four we met them (without design), and withstood them again. From five to six we were confirming the brethren. At six I expounded at Mrs. Ford’s; as I designed to do at Mrs. Compton’s at seven. But Mr. Washington was got thither before me, and just beginning to read Bishop Bull against the Witness of the Spirit. He told me he was authorized by the minister of the parish so to do. I advised all that valued their souls to go away; and, perceiving it to be the less evil of the two, that they who remained might not be. perverted, I entered directly into the controversy, touching both the cause and the fruits of justification. In the midst of the dispute James Mears’s wife began to be in pain. I prayed with her a little when Mr. Washington was gone; and then (having comforted the rest as I was enabled) we went down to Sister Thomas’s. In the way Mrs. Mears’s pains so increased that she could not avoid crying out aloud in the street. With much difficulty we got her to Mrs. Shrieve’s (where also Mr. Washington had been before us). We made our request known to God, and He heard us and sent her deliverance in the same hour. There was great power among us, and her husband also was set at liberty. Soon after, I felt such a damp strike into my soul (and so did Mrs. Compton and several others) as I do not remember to have ever found before. I believed the enemy was near us. We immediately cried to our Lord to stir up His power and come and help us. Presently Mrs. Shrieve fell into a strange agony both of body and mind; her teeth gnashed together; her knees smote each other; and her whole body trembled exceedingly. We prayed on, and within an hour the storm ceased. She now enjoys a sweet calm, having remission of sins, and knowing that her Redeemer liveth. At my return to Mrs. Fox’s, I found our dear brother Kin-chin just come from Dummer. We rejoiced, and gave thanks, and prayed, and took sweet counsel together; the result of which was that, instead of setting out for London (as I designed) on Friday morning, I should set for Dummer, there being no person to supply that church on Sunday. On Friday accordingly I set out, and came in the evening to Reading, where I found a young man, Cennick [See letter of April 27, 1741, to Whitefield.] by name, strong in the faith of our Lord Jesus. He had begun a Society there the week before; but the minister of the parish had now wellnigh overturned it. Several of the members of it spent the evening with us, and it pleased God to strengthen and comfort them. In the morning our brother Cennick rode with me, whom I found willing to suffer, yea’ to die, for his Lord. We came to Dummer in the afternoon. Miss Molly [Charles Kinchin’s sister, who was an invalid. See Journal, i. 453d.] was very weak in body, but strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Surely her light ought not thus to be hid under a bushel. She has forgiveness, but not the witness of the Spirit (perhaps for the conviction of our dear brother Hutchings, who seemed to think them inseparable). On Sunday morning we had a large and attentive congregation. In the evening the room at Basingstoke was full and my mouth was opened. We expected much opposition, but found none at all. On Monday, Mrs. Cleminger being in pain and fear, we prayed, and our Lord gave her peace. About noon we spent an hour or two in conference and prayer with Miss Molly; and then set out in a glorious storm, but even I had a calm within. We had appointed the little Society at Reading to meet us in the evening; but the enemy was too vigilant. Almost as soon as we went out of town the minister sent or went to each of the members, and, being arguing and threatening, utterly confounded them, so that they were all scattered abroad. Mr. Cennick’s own sister did not dare to see us, but was gone out on purpose to avoid it. I trust, however, our God will gather them together again, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. About one in the afternoon on Tuesday I came to Oxford again, and from Mr. Fox’s (where all were in peace) I went to Mrs. Compton’s. I-found the minister of the parish had been there before me, to whom she had plainly declared the thing as it was – ‘that she never had a true faith in Christ till two in the afternoon on the Tuesday preceding.’ After some other warm and sharp expressions, ‘he told her upon that word he must repel her from the Holy Communion.’ Finding she was not convinced of her error even by that argument, he left her calmly rejoicing in God her Savior. At six in the evening we were at Mr. Fox’s Society; about seven at Mrs. Compton’s: the power of our Lord was present at both, and all our hearts were knit together in love. The next day we had an opportunity to confirm most, if not all, the souls which had been shaken. In the afternoon I preached at the Castle. We afterwards joined together in prayer, having now Charles Graves added to us, who is rooted and grounded in the faith. We then went to Mr. Gibs’s room, where were Mr. Washington and Watson. Here an hour was spent in conference and prayer, but without any disputing. At four in the morning I left Oxford. God hath indeed planted and watered. Oh may He give the increase ! -- I am, &c. To James Hervey LONDON, March 20, 1739. DEAR SIR, -- The best return I can make for the kind freedom you use is to use the same to you. Oh may the God whom we serve sanctify it to us both, and teach us the whole truth as it is in Jesus! You say you cannot reconcile some parts of my behavior with the character I have long supported. No, nor ever will. Therefore I have disclaimed that character on every possible occasion. I told all in our ship, all at Savannah, all at Frederica, and that over and over, in express terms, ‘I am not a Christian; I only follow after, if haply I may attain it.’ When they urged my works and self-denial, I answered short, ‘Though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and my body to be burned, I am nothing: for I have not charity; I do not love God with all my heart.’ If they added, ‘Nay, but you could not preach as you do, if you was not a Christian,’ I again confronted them with St. Paul: ‘Though I speak with the tongue of men and angels, and have not charity, I am nothing.’ Most earnestly, therefore, both in public and private, did I inculcate this: ‘Be not ye shaken, however I may fall; for the foundation standeth sure.’ If you ask on what principle, then, I acted, it was this: A desire to be a Christian; and a conviction that, whatever I judge conducive thereto, that I am bound to do; wherever I judge I can best answer this end, thither it is my duty to go. On this principle I set out for America, on this I visited the Moravian Church, and on the same am I ready now (God being my helper) to go to Abyssinia or China, or whithersoever it shall please God by this conviction to call me. As to your advice that I should settle in college, I have no business there, having now no office and no pupils. And whether the other branch of your proposal be expedient for me, viz. ‘To accept of a cure of souls,’ it will be time enough to consider when one is offered to me. But in the meantime you think I ought to be still; because otherwise I should invade another’s office if I interfered with other people’s business and intermeddled with souls that did not belong to me. You accordingly ask, ‘How is it that I assemble Christians, who are none of my charge, to sing psalms and pray and hear the Scriptures expounded’ and think it hard to justify doing this in other men’s parishes, upon catholic principles. Permit me to speak plainly. If by catholic principles you mean any other than scriptural, they weigh nothing with me. I allow no other rule, whether of faith or practice, than the Holy Scriptures; but on scriptural principles I do not think it hard to justify whatever I do. God in Scripture commands me, according to my power, to instruct the ignorant, reform the wicked, confirm the virtuous. Man forbids me to do this in another’s parish: that is, in effect, to do it at all; seeing I have now no parish of my own, nor probably ever shall. Whom, then, shall I hear, God or man ‘If it be just to obey man rather than God, judge you. A dispensation of the gospel is committed to me; and woe is me if I preach not the gospel.’ But where shall I preach it, upon the principles you mention Why, not in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America; not in any of the Christian parts, at least, of the habitable earth: for all these are, after a sort, divided into parishes. If it be said, ‘Go back, then, to the heathens from whence you came,’ nay, but neither could I now (on your principles) preach to them; for all the heathens in Georgia belong to the parish either of Savannah or Frederica. Suffer me now to tell you my principles in this matter. I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that in whatever part of it I am I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty to declare, unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God has called me to; and sure I am that His blessing attends it. Great encouragement have I, therefore, to be faithful in fulfilling the work He hath given me to do. His servant I am; and, as such, am employed according to the plain direction of His word--’ as I have opportunity, doing good unto all men.’ And His providence clearly concurs with His word, which has disengaged me from all things else that I might singly attend on this very thing, ‘and go about doing good.’ If you ask, ‘How can this be How can one do good, of whom men say all manner of evil’ I will put you in mind (though you once knew this--yea, and much established me in that great truth), the more evil men say of me for my Lord’s sake, the more good will He do by me. That it is for His sake I know, and He knoweth, and the event agreeth thereto; for He mightily confirms the words I speak, by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear them. O my friend, my heart is moved toward you. I fear you have herein ‘made shipwreck of the faith.’ I fear ‘Satan, transformed into an angel of light,’ hath assaulted you, and prevailed also. I fear that offspring of hell, worldly or Mystic prudence, has drawn you away from the simplicity of the gospel. How else could you ever conceive that the being reviled and ’ hated of all men ’ should make us less fit for our Master’s service How else could you ever think of ’ saving yourself and them that hear you ‘without being’ the filth and offscouring of the world’ To this hour is this scripture true. And I therein rejoice--yea, and will rejoice. ‘Blessed be God, I enjoy the reproach of Christ! Oh may you also be vile, exceeding vile, for His sake! God forbid that you should ever be other than generally scandalous; I had almost said universally. If any man tell you there is a new way of following Christ, ‘he is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’ --I am, &c. To George Whitefield LONDON, March 20, 1739. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Would you have me speak to you freely, without any softening or reserve at all I know you would. And may our loving Savior speak to your heart, so my labor shall not be in vain. I do not commend you with regard to our brothers Seward [See heading to letter of May 8.] and Cennick. But let me speak tenderly, for I am but a little child. I know our Lord has brought good out of their going to you; good to you, and good to them -- very much good: and may He increase it a thousand-fold,. how much soever it be! But is everything good, my brother, out of which He brings good I think that does not follow. O my brother, is it well for you or me to give the least hint of setting up our will or judgment against that of our whole Society Was it well for you once to mention a desire which they had all solemnly declared they thought unreasonable Was not this abundant cause to drop any design which was not manifestly grounded on a clear command of our Lord Indeed, my brother, in this I commend you not. If our brother R--- or P--- desired anything, and our other brethren disapproved of it, I cannot but think he ought immediately to let it drop. How much more ought you or I! They are upon a level with the rest of their brethren. But I trust you and I are not: we are the servants of all. Thus far have I spoken with fear and much trembling and with many tears. Oh may our Lord speak the rest! For what shall such an one as I say to a beloved servant of my Lord O pray that I may see myself a worm and no man! I wish to be Your brother in Christ Jesus. To James Hutton BRISlOL, April 2, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN (AND SISTERS TOO), -- The first person I met with on the road hither was one that was inquiring the road to Basingstoke. We had much conversation together till evening. He was a Somersetshire man, [The Diary for Thursday, March 29, says: ‘9.15 set out with Charles, &c.,’ who left him at 10; at 11 he met this man, and reached Basingstoke with him at 8.30.] returning home, very angry at the wickedness of London, and particularly of the infidels there. He held out pretty well to Basingstoke. But during the expounding there (at which between twenty and thirty were present) his countenance fell, and I trust he is gone down to his house saying, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner.’ I stayed an hour or two at Dummer in the morning with our brother Hutchings, [Hutchings went part of the way o Newbury with him. He and Chapman had just come from Bristol with horses for Wesley. See Journal, ii. 156n, 167d.] who is strong in faith, but very weak in body; as most probably he will continue to be so long as he hides his light under a bushel. In the afternoon a poor woman at Newbury and her husband were much amazed at hearing of a salvation so far beyond all they had thought of or heard preached. The woman hopes she shall follow after till she attains it. My horse tired in the evening, so that I was obliged to walk behind him, till a tradesman who overtook me lent me one of his, on which I came with him to. Marlborough, and put up at the same inn. As I was preparing to alight here, my watch fell out of my pocket with the glass downward, which flew out to some distance, but broke not. After supper I preached the gospel to our little company, one of whom, a gentleman, greatly withstood my saying, till I told him he was wise in his own eyes and had not an heart right before God. Upon which he silently withdrew, and the rest calmly attended to the things that were spoken. In the morning I prayed to Him that ‘saveth both man and beast,’ and set out, though my horse was so tired he could scarce go a foot-pace. At Cane [Calne.] (twelve miles from Marlborough) I stopped. Many persons came into the room while I was at breakfast; one of whom I found to be a man of note in the place, who talked in so obscene and profane a manner as I never remember to have heard any one do--no, not in the streets of London. Before I went I plainly set before him the things he had done. They all stood looking at one another, but answered nothing. At seven, by the blessing of God, I came hither. At eight our dear brother, Whitefield expounded in Weavers’ Hall to about a thousand souls; on Sunday morning to six or seven thousand at the Bowling Green; at noon to much the same number at Hanham Mount; and at five to, I believe, thirty thousand from a little mount on Rose Green. At one to-day he left Bristol. I am straitened for time. Pray ye, my dear brethren, that some portion of his spirit may be given to Your poor, weak brother. Dear Jemmy, none of my things are come. I want my gown and cassock every day. Oh how is God manifested in our brother Whitefield! I have seen none like him -- no, not in Herrnhut! We are all got safe to Bristol; praised be God for it! [This line is in another handwriting.] To his Brother Samuel BRISTOL, April 4, 1739. DEAR BROTHER, -- I rejoice greatly at the temper with which you now write, and trust there is not only mildness but love also in your heart. If so, you shall know of this doctrine whether it be of God, though perhaps not by my ministry. To this hour you have pursued an ignoratio elenchi. Your assurance and mine are as different as light and darkness. I mean an assurance that I am now in a state of salvation; you an assurance that I shall persevere therein. The very definition of the term cuts off your second and third observation. As to the first, I would take notice: (1) No kind of assurance (that I know), or of faith, or repentance, is essential to their salvation who die infants. (2) I believe God is ready to give all true penitents who fly to His free grace in Christ a fuller sense of pardon than they had before they fell. I know this to be true of several; whether these are exempt cases, I know not. (3) Persons that were of a melancholy and gloomy constitution, even to some degree of madness, I have known in a moment (let it be called a miracle, I quarrel not) brought into a state of firm, lasting peace and joy. My dear brother, the whole question turns chiefly, if not wholly, on matter of fact. You deny that God does now work these effects -- at least, that He works them in such a manner: I affirm both, because I have heard those facts with my ears and seen them with my eyes. I have seen, as far as it can be seen, very many persons changed in a moment from the spirit of horror, fear, and despair to the spirit of hope, joy, peace, and from sinful desires (till then reigning over them) to a pure desire of doing the will of God. These are matters of fact, whereof I have been, and almost daily am, eye- or ear-witness. What, upon the same evidence, as to the suddenness and reality of the change, I believe, or know, touching visions and dreams: this I know, -- several persons, in whom this great change from the power of Satan unto God was wrought either in sleep, or during a strong representation to the eye of their minds of Christ either on the cross or in glory. This is the fact. Let any judge of it as they please. But that such a change was then wrought appears, not from their shedding tears only, or sighing, or singing psalms, as your poor correspondent did by the woman of Oxford, but from the whole tenor of their life, till then many ways wicked, from that time holy, just, and good. Saw you him that was a lion till then, and is now a lamb; him that was a drunkard, but now exemplarily sober; the whoremonger that was, who now abhors the very lusts of the flesh These are my living arguments for what I assert -- that God now, as aforetime, gives remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, which may be called visions. If it be not so, I am found a false witness; but, however, I do and will testify the things I have both seen and heard. I do not now expect to see your face in the flesh. Not that I believe God will discharge you yet; but I believe I have nearly finished my course. Oh may I be found in Him, not having my own righteousness! When I Try promised Christ have seen, And clasped Him in my soul’s embrace, Possessed of Thy salvation, then-- Then may I, Lord, depart in peace. [Adapted from Hymns and Sacred Poems. See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 74.] The great blessing of God be upon you and yours.--I am, dear brother, Your ever affectionate and obliged Brother. I expect to stay here some time, perhaps as long as I am in the body. To his Brother Charles BRISTOL, April 9, 1739. DEAR BROTHER CHARLES, -- Against next post I will consider your verses. The clergy here gladiatorio anirno ad nos affectant viarn. [Terence’s Phormio, v. vii. 71: ‘Aim at us with gladiatorial intent.’] But the people of all sorts receive the word gladly. Hitherto I have so full employment here that I think there can be no doubt whether I should return already or no. You will hear more from time to time, and judge accordingly. But, whenever it seems expedient I should return, a lot will put it out of doubt. The God of peace fill you with all peace and joy in believing! Adieu. I forgot, I must subscribe to the Kingswood Colliers’ Schoolhouse. [Journal, ii. 171n, 239n. Whitefield laid the first stone on April 2, and on July 10 the schoolhouse was ready for the roof.] So I will take the money of Mr. Wilson. To John Edmonds BRISTOL, April 9, I739. DEAR BROTHER EDMONDS, -- I thank you much for yours. O write as often and as much as you can. For I want stirring up; or rather, I want to be made alive. When shall I hear the voice of the Son of Man and live! Surely there never was such a deceiver of the people as I am. They reverence me as a saint, and I am a poor sinner: or in truth a rich sinner; else I should not be thus poor long. Go and exhort our brother Jennings to count relations, friends, and all things but dung, that he may win Christ. Adieu, my dear brother! Adieu! To James Hutton George Whitefield will be to-night at Mr. Harris’s, jun., bookseller in Gloucester. BRISTOL, April 9, 1739. DEAR JEMMY, -- I want nothing of this world. Pray give the guinea to my brother Charles for my sister Kezzy. [Kezia, the youngest sister of the Wesleys. See letter of Aug. 18, 1743.] God will reward our brother Thomas [Probably Thomas Wilson. See letter of April 9 to his brother Charles.] better than with my thanks. I am, you may believe, much straitened for time. Therefore I can write but little. And neither of our brethren here has the pen of a ready writer. [See Journal, ii. 166n.] Why does not Charles Metcalf come I wish you would send me those two letters wrote to me at Oxford by Brother Bray, and those two by our brother Fish [See William Fish’s letter (Journal, ii. 108, 111n). He lived in London. C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 149, says that Fish was ‘very zealous for lay-preaching.’ C. Wesley and Whitefield declared against it.] in November and December last. They are in my great box at Mr. Bray’s. Can’t you get from our brother Shaw [John Shaw. On June 6, 1739, Charles Wesley says: ‘At the Society in the evening Shaw pleaded for his spirit of prophecy .... Fish said he looked upon me as delivered over to Satan, &c.’ On June 13, when John Wesley returned, the French prophetess was discussed. ‘All agreed to disown her. Brother Hall proposed expelling Shaw and Wolf. We consented nem. con. that their names should be erased out of the Society book because they disowned themselves members of the Church of England.’] and send me the Herinhut Experiences and Transcript of Brother Hopsoh’s Letters They would be very useful here. Don’t neglect or delay. Adieu. What is the matter with our sisters My brother Charles complains of them. To James Hutton BRISTOL, April 9, 1739. MY DEAR BRETEREN, -- On Sunday evening, the 1st instant, I began to expound at Nicholas Street Society our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. The room, passage, and staircase were filled with attentive hearers. On Monday I talked with several in private, to try what manner of spirit they were of; and at four in the afternoon went to a brickyard, [For a description of this noted place, see Journal, ii. 172n.] adjoining to the city, where I had an opportunity of preaching the gospel of the kingdom (from a little eminence) to three or four thousand people. The scripture on which I spoke was this: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.’ At seven I began expounding the Acts of the Apostles to the Society in Baldwin. Street. We had more company than the room would hold, and the power of our Lord was with us. On Tuesday, 3rd, I began preaching at Newgate (as I continue to do every morning) on the Gospel of St. John. Many Presbyterians and Anabaptists came to hear. Afterwards I transcribed some of the rules of our Society for the use of our (future) brethren here. In the evening I expounded on ‘Blessed are those that mourn’ at Nicholas Street Society. I hope God spake to the hearts of many there. The next day the audience increased at Newgate. At four in the afternoon I offered the free grace of God from those words, ‘I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely,’ to about fifteen hundred in a plain near Baptist Mills, a sort of suburb or village, not far from Bristol; where many, if not most, of the inhabitants are Papists. Oh may they effectually lay hold on the one Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus! About seven in the evening, three women who desire only to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified (Mrs. Norman, Mrs. Grevil, and Mrs. Panou) agreed to meet together once a week, to confess their faults to one another, and pray one for another, that they may be healed. And Mrs. Panou desired she might propose their design to her two sisters, and offer them the liberty of joining with them. At eight Samuel Wathen (surgeon), Richard Cross (upholsterer), Charles Bonner (distiller), and Thomas Westall (carpenter) met and agreed to do the same; who also desired they might make the offer of joining with them to three or four of their acquaintance. If this work be not of God, let it come to naught. If it be, who shall overthrow it On Thursday, at five in the evening, I began the Epistle to the Romans at a Society in Castle Street, where, after the expounding, a poor man gave glory to God by openly confessing the things he had done. About eight a young woman of Nicholas Street Society sunk down as one dead; we prayed for her, and she soon revived, and went home strengthened and comforted both in body and in spirit. A Presbyterian minister was with us at Newgate on Friday and Saturday. On Friday evening we were at a Society without Lawford’s Gate, where, the yard being full as well as the house, I expounded part of the 1st chapter of the First Epistle of St. John at the window. On Saturday evening Weavers’ Hall was quite full. A soldier was present at the preaching on Monday, two at the expounding on several of the following days, and five or six this evening. I declared to them all ’that they were damned sinners, but that the gospel was the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.’ Beginning at seven (an hour earlier than usual) at the Bowling Green (which is in the heart of the city) yesterday morning, there were not, I believe, above a thousand or twelve hundred persons present. And the day being very cold and stormy (beside that much rain had fallen in the night) many who designed it were hindered from going to Hanham Mount, which is at least four miles distant from the town. Between ten and eleven I began preaching the gospel there in a meadow on the top of the hill. Five or six hundred people from Bristol (of whom several were Quakers) were. there, and (I imagine) about a thousand of the colliers. I called to them in the words of Isaiah, ’Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.’ On Rose Green (which is a plain upon the top of an high hill) are several small hills, where the old coal-pits were. On the edge of one of these I stood in the afternoon, and cried in the name of my Master, ’ If any man thirst, let him come unto Me. and drink. He that believeth on Me (as the Scripture hath said) out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.’ About five thousand were present, many of ’whom received the word gladly, and all with deep attention. From thence we went to the Society in Baldwin Street, whose room containing but a small part of the company, we opened the doors and windows, by which means all that was spoken of the true Christian life described in the end of the and chapter of the Acts was heard clearly by those in the next room, and on the leads, and in the court below, and in the opposite house and the passage under it. Several of the soldiers and of the rich were there; and verily the power of the Lord was present to heal them. My dear brethren, who among you writes first to strengthen our hands in God Where is our brother Bray and Fish, and whosoever else finds his heart moved to send unto us the word of exhortation You should no more be wanting in your instructions to than your prayers for Your affectionate but weak brother. To James Hutton BRISTOL, April 16, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN, -- Sunday, April 8, about eight in the evening, Mr. Wathen and his brethren met and received several persons into their little Society. After prayer their leaders were chose and the bands fixed by lot in the order following: I Band. Richard Leg (haberdasher), leader; Thomas Mitchell, Charles Bonner, William Wynne, Richard Cross. II Band. Jo. Palmer, leader; James Lewis, John Davis, James Smith, William Waters. III Band. Henry Crawley (barber), leader; Thomas Harding, John Wiggins, Samuel Wathen, Thomas Westall. It was farther agreed that a few other persons then mentioned might be admitted into the Society. Monday, April 9, at two in the afternoon, Mrs. Panou and Mrs. Grevil met together with Esther Deschamps and Mary Anne Page (Mrs. Panou’s sisters), whom they then received as sisters, and Esther Deschamps was by lot chose leader of the band, which stood as follows: Esther Deschamps, J. Panou, M. Page, Eliz. Davis (then proposed and admitted), and Eliz. Grevil. At five in the evening, Anne Williams, Mary Reynolds, Eliz. Ryan, Esther Highham, Frances Wilds, and Rachel England met together and agreed to meet every Sunday; Anne Williams was chose their leader. The Assizes prevented my preaching at Newgate this week, except only on Monday and Tuesday. On Monday at four I preached to three or four thousand people at the Brickyard on ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ On Tuesday about one, having sent our brethren Easy and Purdy before, I set out for Bath. Soon after I came in, the person who rented the ground, where many people were met, sent me word ‘I should not preach on his ground. If I did, he would arrest me.’ Presently after, a good woman sent to tell me I was welcome to preach on hers. Thither we went at five. It is a meadow on the side of the hill, close to the town, so that they could see us from Lady Cox’s [See letter of March 7, 1738.] in the square plainly. Here I offered God’s free grace to about two thousand souls. At eight in the evening I preached remission of sins to many casual hearers, from some steps at the end of an house in Gracious Street. Griffith Jones [Griffith Jones, Rector of Llandowror, instituted the circulating Welsh Free Schools, to teach the poor to read Welsh and to give religious instruction. He maintained these schools by subscriptions for twenty-four years, and when he died in 1761 they numbered more than 3,000, and had 158,000 scholars, some of whom were sixty years old. See Tyerman’s Whitefield, i. 189-90n.] was one of them, who afterwards refreshed us with his company about an hour at our inn. On Wednesday morning Mr. Chapman [See heading to letter of March 29, 1737.] stayed with us a while, to whom we spake the truth in love. At ten I preached in the meadow again, to, I judge, about two thousand five hundred. At four I offered Jesus Christ as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption to above three thousand. At seven all the women in band met together, and, having received Mary Cutler into fellowship with them, spent the evening in conference and prayer. At eight the bands of men met at the Society room in Baldwin Street, and received into fellowship with them William Lewis, James Robins, Kenelm Chandler, Anthony Williams, and Thomas Robins. The remainder of the evening was spent in singing, conference, and prayer. Thursday, 12th, we went to pitch on a proper place upon Rose Green, to raise a little place for me to stand on in preaching. At the Societies in the evening there was great power, and many were convinced of sin; but I believe more on Friday evening at both the Societies. On Saturday I waited on one of the clergy of this city, who had sent me word, ‘I was welcome to preach in his church if I would tell nobody of it’; but he had altered his mind, and told me now ‘he could not let me preach.’ [John Gibbs, Vicar of St. Mary Redcliffe 1704-44. See Journal, ii. 179d.] At four I began preaching on the steps at the door of the Poorhouse; four or five hundred of the richer sort were within, and I believe fifteen hundred or two thousand without. About an hour and half I spent with them in prayer and in explaining and applying those words, ‘When they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.’ Weavers’ Hall was quite filled in the evening, and many, I trust, were cut off from their confidence in the flesh. On Sunday morning I applied the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican to six or seven thousand attentive hearers in the Bowling Green. It rained, till I began preaching on Han-ham Mount. Therefore I stood near the door of the house (in which we put the women); three thousand (at least) were content to stand without. I preached at Newgate after dinner to a crowded audience. Between four and five we went (notwithstanding the rain) to Rose Green. It rained hard at Bristol; but not a drop fell on us while I preached, from the fullness which was given me, to about five thousand souls, ’Jesus Christ, our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.’ At six, being with the Lawford’s Gate Society, I did not go up into the room, but stood on a table below; by which means not only all in the room and shop, but those in the yard and entries could hear; to whom I declared that ‘the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.’ I am still dead and cold, unless while I am speaking. Write often to and pray much for, my dear brethren, Your poor brother. PS.--Having a desire to receive an holy woman of deep experience into the female bands, we doubted what to do because she is a Dissenter. The answer we received from Scripture was Galatians iii. 8. This seemed clear. However, having determined to cast lots, we did so, and our direction was, ‘Refer it to the bands (at London), to be decided by lot.’ To James Hutton BRISTOL. April 26, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHREN,--On Sunday evening, the 15th, the women had their first lovefeast. On Monday about three thousand were at the Brickyard. In the evening the brother of the person who owns it told me ’his brother did not care I should be there any more, and desired me to look out for some other place.’ There was much power at the Society this night. Tuesday, 17th, at three in the afternoon, eleven unmarried women met at Mrs. Grevil’s, [The sister of the Rev. George Whitefield. She lived in Wine Street, Bristol, and John Wesley lodged there for some weeks on his coming to the city.] and desired three others might be admitted among them. They were then divided into three bands. The same day we were with the two prisoners who are under sentence of death, the younger of whom seemed much awakened. At five I was at a Society where I had not been before. The upper room in which we were was propped beneath; but the weight of people made the floor give way, so that in the beginning of the expounding the post which propped it fell down with much noise. However, we stayed together till seven. I then went to Baldwin Street Society, where it was much impressed upon me to claim the promise of the Father for some that heard it, if the doctrine was of God. A young woman (named Cornish) was the first who felt that our prayer was heard, being after a short agony fully set at liberty; the next was another young woman (Eliz. Holder); the third was one Jane Worlock; the last (a stranger in Bristol), John Ellis, was so filled with the Holy Ghost that he scarce knew whether he was in the body or out of the body. He is now gone home to declare the marvelous works of the Lord. Behold how He giveth us above what we can ask or think! When Miss Cornish began to be in pain, we asked God to give us a living witness that signs and wonders were now wrought by the name of His holy child Jesus. We asked for one, and He hath given us four. Wednesday, 18th, about two thousand five hundred were present at Baptist Mills. At six the female bands met and admitted Lucretia Smith (late a Quaker, who was baptized the day before), Rebecca Morgan (deeply mourning), Elis,. Holder, Hannah Cornish, Jane Worlock, and Mary Cutler. Lucretia Smith was by lot chose leader. At seven, all the female bands being met together, Rebecca Morgan received the promise of the Father. At eight the men met and received into fellowship with them Richard Hereford (leader), William Farnell, Jo. Goslin, Jos. Ellis, Capel Gilas, Thomas Oldfield, and John Purdy. Likewise William Lewis was by lot added to the first, Kenelm Chandler to the second, and James Robins to the third band. Then the married band was filled up as follows: John Brooks (a soldier), leader; Jo. Williams, Thomas Arnot (a soldier), William Davis, Anthony Williams, and Thomas Robins. But Thomas Robins has since declined meeting. Two boys were also admitted: Thomas Davis, aged fourteen, and Deschamps Panou, aged ten; both of whom ‘have found the Savior in their hearts.’ Thursday, 19th, Mr. Griffith Jones called in his return to Wales, and went with us to Castle Street Society, where two were deeply convinced of sin. At seven several in Nicholas Street received much comfort. On Good Friday, at five in the evening, Mr. Wathen’s mistress received remission of sins; as at seven did Samuel Goodson and Anne Holton, who had long been in heaviness. On Easter Eve the rain obliged me to preach in the Poorhouse (not at the door, as usual). While we were afterwards in prayer at Weavers’ Hall, a young man was seized with a violent trembling, and in a few minutes sunk down on the ground. We prayed on, and he was soon raised up again. On Easter Day was a thorough rain, so that we could not stand in the Bowling Green nor in the open air at Hanham Mount. All I could do was to preach at Newgate at eight in the morning and two in the afternoon, and to as many as the house would hold at Hanham at eleven in the forenoon. In the afternoon we likewise gathered at an house near Rose Green as many of the neighbors as we could together, after which we had a large company at Nicholas Street, where many were wounded and many comforted. Every day this week I have been out of town, which prevented my writing sooner. Pray ye much that, after I have preached to others, I may not myself be a castaway.--I am, my dear brethren, Your ever affectionate brother. To James Hutton BRISTOL, April 30, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN, -- Monday, the 23rd, about twenty-four of us walked to Pensford, a little town five or six miles off, where a Society is begun, five of whose members were with us at Baldwin Street the Tuesday before. We sent to the minister to desire the use of the church; and after waiting some time and receiving no answer, being neither able to get into the church nor the churchyard, we began singing praise to God in the street. Many people gathered about us, with whom we removed to the market-place, where from the top of a wall I called to them in the name of our Master, ‘If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink.’ At four in the afternoon we met about four thousand people in another brickyard, a little nearer the city. To these I declared, ’ The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and they that hear shall live.’ The rain on Tuesday morning made them not expect me at Bath; so that we had not above a thousand or twelve hundred in the meadow. After preaching, we read over the rules and fixed two bands, one of men and one of women. The men are Joseph Feachem (a man full of the Holy Ghost), Mr. Bush, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Richards (of Oxford). The women are Rebecca Thomas (one of Lady Cox’s servants), Sarah Bush, Grace Bond, Mary Spenser (mourning, and refusing to be comforted), and Margaret Dolling. Their general meeting is on Tuesday, their particular meeting on Monday evening, at five o’clock. A gray-headed old man, one Dibble, a silversmith, at eleven gladly received me into his house, where I preached on the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, at the window of an upper room, to those in the yard and street as well as the house. At four in the afternoon I met the colliers by appointment at a place about the middle of Kingswood called Two-Mile-Hill. After preaching to two or three thousand, we went to the stone our brother Whitefield laid. [See letter of April 9,n, to his brother Charles.] I think it cannot be better placed. ‘Tis just in the middle of the wood, two mile every way from either church or school. I wish he would write to me, positively and decisively, that ’for this reason he would have the first school there, or as near it as possible.’ In the evening, at Baldwin Street, John Bush received remission of sins. I was now in some doubt how to proceed. Our dear brethren, before I left London, and our brother Whitefield here, and our brother Chapman since, had conjured me to enter into no disputes, least of all concerning Predestination, because this people was so deeply prejudiced for it. The same was my own inclination. But this evening I received a long letter (almost a month after date) charging me roundly with ’ resisting and perverting the truth as it is in Jesus’ by preaching against God’s decree of predestination. I had not done so yet; but I questioned whether I ought not now to declare the whole counsel of God: especially since that letter had been long handed about in Bristol before it was sealed and brought to me, together with another, wherein also the writer exhorts his friends to avoid me as a false teacher. However, I thought it best to walk gently, and so said nothing this day. Wednesday, 25th, I dined at Frenchay, about four miles from Bristol, at Anthony Purver’s, a Quaker, one of much experience in the ways of God. At four I believe about four thousand people were present at Baptist Mills, to whom (as God enabled me) I expounder that scripture, ’Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.’ At seven, the female bands meeting, four new members were proposed. One was accepted, and the rest postponed, of whom one has now shown what spirit she was of by turning a most bitter opposer. At eight, the men meeting, several new members were proposed, some of whom were postponed, and eight admitted upon trial. Thursday, 26th, preaching at Newgate on those words, ’He that believeth hath everlasting life,’ I was led, I know not how, to speak strongly and explicitly of Predestination, and then to pray ’that if I spake not the truth of God, He would stay His hand, and work no more among us. If this was His truth, He would not delay to confirm it by signs following.’ Immediately the power of God fell upon us: one, and another, and another sunk to the earth; you might see them dropping on all sides as thunder-struck. One cried out aloud. I went and prayed over her, and she received joy in the Holy Ghost. A second falling into the same agony, we turned to her, and received for her also the promise of the Father. In the evening I made the same appeal to God, and almost before we called He answered. A young woman was seized with such pangs as I never saw before; and in a quarter of an hour she had a new song in her mouth, a thanksgiving unto our God. This day, I being desirous to speak little, but our brother Purdy pressing me to speak and spare not, we made four lots, and desired our Lord to show what He would have me to do. The answer was, ‘Preach and print.’ Let Him see to the event. At midnight we were waked with a cry of fire. It was two doom [away], and, being soon discovered, was soon extinguished. Friday, 27th, all Newgate was in an uproar again, and two women received the Spirit of adoption, to the utter astonishment of all and the entire conviction of some who before doubted. At four on Saturday five-and-twenty hundred (I suppose) were at the Poorhouse. My spirit was enlarged to pray for the rich that were there, especially ‘that our Lord would show them they were poor sinners.’ At night many were convinced of sin and one received remission of sins at Weavers’ Hall. On Sunday morning (being so directed again by lot) I declared openly for the first hour against ‘the horrible decree’ before about four thousand persons at the Bowling Green. I then went to Clifton (a little mile off), and thence to a little plain near Hanham Mount, being desired by some of the neigh-hours to remove thither. About three thousand or three thousand five hundred were present. Thence I went to Clifton again. The church was more than full at the prayers and sermon, as was the churchyard at the burial that followed. From Clifton we went straight to Rose Green, where were upwards of seven thousand; and thence to the Society at Gloucester Lane, where also were many that have this world’s goods. Two very fine young women, who came in a chariot, stood close to the table on which I was, and patiently heard me expound on the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. And one or two were seized with strong pangs, which, I hope, has before now ended in true comfort. Thence we went to our lovefeast in Baldwin Street, where the spirit of love was present with us. Praise ye the Lord, who reneweth my bodily strength. May I feel in my soul that He is my strength and my salvation! Your affectionate brother. To James Hutton BRISTOL, May 7, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN, -- We understood on Monday that the Keeper of Newgate was much offended at the cries of the people on whom the power of God came. And so was a physician, who wishes well to the cause of God, but feared there might be some fraud or delusion in the case. To-day one who had been his patient and his acquaintance for many years was seized in the same manner. At first he would hardly believe his own eyes and ears; but when her pangs redoubled, so that all her bones shook, he knew not what to think; and when she revived in a moment and sang praise, he owned it was the finger of God. Another that sat close to Mr. Dagge, [Abel Dagge, Keeper of Newgate and a convert of Whitefield’s. See Journal, ii. 173n; and letter of Jan. 2, 1761.] a middle-aged woman, was seized at the same time. Many observed the tears trickle down his cheeks; and I trust he will be no more offended. Tuesday, May. 1, I went to the colliers in the middle of Kingswood, and prayed with them (several being in tears) in a place formerly a cock-pit, near which it was agreed to build the schoolhouse, being close to the place where the stone was laid by our brother Whitefield. Many were offended at Baldwin Street in the evening; for the power of God came mightily upon us. Many who were in heaviness received the comforts of the Holy One, and ten persons remission of sins. A Quaker who stood by was very angry at them, and was biting his lips and knitting his brows, when the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he fell down as one dead. We prayed over him, and he soon lifted up his head with joy and joined with us in thanksgiving. Wednesday, 2nd, another mourner received comfort at Newgate. We afterwards went to a neighboring house, to read a letter wrote against me as a false teacher for opposing Predestination. A rigid asserter of it was present when a young woman came in (who had received remission of sins) all in tears and in deep anguish of spirit. She said she had been in torment all night by reasoning, and verily believed the devil had possession of her again. In the midst of our prayers she cried out, ‘He is gone, he is gone: I again rejoice in God my Savior.’ Just as we rose from giving thanks, another young woman reeled four or five steps and then dropped down. We prayed with her; she is now in deep poverty of spirit, groaning day and night for a new heart. I did not mention that one John Haydon, a weaver, was quite enraged at what had occurred in Baldwin Street, and had labored above measure to convince all his acquaintance that it was all a delusion of the devil. We were now going home, when one met us and informed us that John Haydon was fallen raving mad. It seems he had sat down with an intention to dine, but had a mind first to end the sermon on Salvation by Faith. At the last page he suddenly changed color, fell off his chair, and began screaming terribly and beating himself against the ground. I came to him between one and two, and found him on the ground, the room being full of people, whom his wife would have kept away; but he cried out, ‘No; let them all come; let all the world see the just judgment of God.’ Two or three were holding him as well as they could. He immediately fixed his eyes upon me, and, stretching out his arm, said, ‘Aye, this is he I said was a deceiver of the people. But God has overtaken me. I said it was a delusion; but this is no delusion.’ Then he roared aloud, ‘O thou devil! thou cursed devil! yea, thou legion of devils! thou canst not stay in me. Christ will cast thee out. I know His work is begun. Tear me to pieces, if thou wilt; but thou canst not hurt me.’ He then beat himself again against the ground, and with violent sweats and heavings of the breast strained as it were to vomit (which, with many other symptoms I have since observed in others at or near the time of their deliverance, much inclines me to think the evil spirit actually dwells in every one till he receives the Holy Ghost). After we had been praying about half an hour, he was set at liberty. From him I went to Baptist Mills, where about two thousand persons stayed, notwithstanding several showers. I testified to them the holiness and happiness of true believers from those words of St. Peter, ‘Him hath God exalted . . . to give unto Israel repentance and remission of sins. And we are His witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that believe Him.’ Returning to John Haydon, we found his body quite worn out and his voice lost; but his soul was in peace, rejoicing in hope of the glory of God, and full of love and the Holy Ghost. [See Journal, ii. 189.] The female bands meeting at seven, and a young woman complaining of blasphemous thoughts and an inability to pray, we began praying for her, during which another young woman (Miss [Elizabeth] Cutler) fell into a strong agony, and received power in a few minutes to cry out, ‘My Lord and my God!’ The next day I visited Anthony Purver [See previous letter.] (a Quaker) at Frenchay; with whom was a Dutchman, lately arrived from Ireland, who I verily think is full of the Spirit and breathes nothing but Jesus Christ. On Friday evening at Gloucester Lane Society a woman [Mrs. England.] received remission of sins. Saturday, 5th, six Quakers, three from Ireland, one from the North, and two from Frenchay, met six of us by appointment. We prayed together, and our hearts were much enlarged towards one another. At four (being forbid to preach any more at the Poorhouse) I preached at the Bowling Green to about two thousand on those words (at the request of an unknown friend), ’Be still, and know that I am God.’ Sunday, 6th, I preached in the Bowling Green to about seven thousand on Matthew xviii. 3; on Hanham Mount to about three thousand on Galatians iii. 22 (after a young woman had received remission of sins); at Clifton to a church full and many hundred in the churchyard on Christ our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and at Rose Green to about five thousand on ‘The scripture hath concluded all under sin, &c.’ O my dear, dear brethren, pray that, when I have preached to others, I may not myself be a castaway! To James Hutton BRISTOL, May 8, 1739. DEAR JEMMY, -- You seem to forget what I told you: (1) that, being unwilling to speak against Predestination, we appealed to God, and I was by lot commanded to preach and print against it [See letter of April 30.]; (2) that, the very first time I preached against it explicitly, the power of God so fell on those that heard as we have never known before, either in Bristol or London or elsewhere. Yet generally I speak on faith, remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Our brother Seward promised to give us five hundred or a thousand Homilies to give away. These are better than all our sermons put together. Adieu! Brother Hutton, you are desired to send our brother Wesley six of Dr. James Knight’s [See letter of Jan. 13, 1735.] Sermons (Vicar of St. Sepulchre’s) as soon as you can. It would be better to send our brother Wesley’s sermons on Faith. They are the best to lay the foundation. To his Brother Samuel BRISTOL, May 10, 1739. DEAR BROTHER, -- The having abundance of work upon my hands is only a cause of my not writing sooner. The cause was rather my unwillingness to continue an unprofitable dispute. The gospel promises to you and me, and our children, and all that are afar off, even as many of those whom the Lord our God shall call as are not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, ’the witness of God’s Spirit with their spirit that they are the children of God’ [See letters of Nov. 30, 1738, and Jan. 1739.]; that they are now at this hour all accepted in the Beloved: but it witnesses not that they shall be. It is an assurance of present salvation only; therefore not necessarily perpetual, neither irreversible. I am one of many witnesses of this matter of fact, that God does now make good this His promise daily, very frequently during a representation (how made I know not, but not to the outward eye) of Christ either hanging on the cross or standing on the right hand of God. And this I know to be of God, because from that hour the person so affected is a new creature both as to his inward tempers and outward life. ‘Old things are passed away, and all things become new.’ A very late instance of this I will give you. While we were praying at a Society here, on Tuesday the 1st instant, the power of God (so I call it) came so mightily among us that one, and another, and another fell down as thunder-struck. In that hour many that were in deep anguish of spirit were all filled with peace and joy. Ten persons, till then in sin, doubt, and fear, found such a change that sin had no more dominion over them; and, instead of the spirit of fear, they are now filled with that of love and joy and a sound mind. A Quaker who stood by was very angry at them, and was biting his lips and knitting his brows, when the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he fell down as one dead. We prayed over him, and he soon lifted up his head with joy and joined with us in thanksgiving. A bystander, one John Haydon, was quite enraged at this, and, being unable to deny something supernatural in it, labored beyond measure to convince all his acquaintance that it was a delusion of the devil. I was met in the street the next day by one who informed me that John Haydon was fallen raving mad. It seems he had sat down to dinner, but wanted first to make an end of a sermon he was reading. At the last page he suddenly changed color, fell off his chair, and began screaming terribly and beating himself against the ground. I found him on the floor, the room being full of people, whom his wife would have kept away; but he cried out, ‘No; let them all come; let all the world see the just judgment of God.’ Two or three were holding him as well-as they could. He immediately fixed his eyes on me, and said, ‘Aye, this is he I said deceived the people; but God hath overtaken me. I said it was a delusion of the devil; but this is no delusion.’ Then he roared aloud, ‘O thou devil! thou cursed devil! yea, thou legion of devils! thou canst not stay in me. Christ will cast thee out. I know His work is begun. Tear me to pieces if thou wilt; but thou canst not hurt me.’ He then beat himself again, and groaned again, with violent sweats and heaving of the breast. We prayed with him, and God put a new song in his mouth. The words were, which he pronounced with a clear, strong voice: ‘This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made: we will rejoice and be glad in it. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, from this time forth for evermore.’ I called again an hour after. We found his body quite worn out and his voice lost. But his soul was full of joy and love, rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. I am now in as good health (thanks be to God) as I ever was since I remember, and I believe shall be so as long as I live; for I do not expect to have a lingering death. The reasons that induce me to think I shall not live long [enough to be] old are such as you would not apprehend to be of any weight. I am under no concern on this head. Let my Master see to it. Oh may the God of love be with you and my sister more and more! -- I am, dear brother, Your ever affectionate Brother. To James Hutton BRISTOL, May 14, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- On Monday, the 7th instant, about twelve of us met at six in the morning at our room in Baldwin Street. Others came after; some of whom were employed until six in the evening in intercession, prayer, and thanksgiving. About eight I was preparing to go to Pensford (the minister having sent me word I was welcome to preach in either of his churches), when a messenger brought me the following note: SIR,--Our minister, being informed you are beside yourself, does not care you should preach in any of his churches. We found, however, a very convenient place on Priest-down, near Publow, half a mile from Pensford, where was an attentive, serious congregation. But many of them appeared not a little amazed at hearing that strange doctrine that. ‘Christ is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.’ About four thousand were afterwards at the Brickyard, whom I exhorted ‘to become as little children.’ After preaching at Newgate the next morning, I set out for Bath. We were turned out of the ground where I used to preach. But God opened the heart of a Quaker (one Richard Merchant) to offer me his ground, where I preached ‘Christ our wisdom’ to a thousand or fifteen hundred people. Afterwards he called me aside and said, ‘My friend, deal freely with me. I have much money, and it may be thou hast little. Tell me what thou wilt have.’ I accepted his love, after expounding at Mr. Dibble’s window to many in the house and many out of it. O pray ye for the soul of Richard Merchant! On Wednesday, 9th, after the service at Newgate, we took possession of the ground where the room is to be built. [See Journal, ii. 194n; and letter of April 27, 1741, to Whitefield.] We have also articled to pay the workmen about 160 pounds as soon as it is finished. As to the money, God will see to that. At four I was much enlarged at Baptist Mills, in recommending the childlike temper. The company was about two thousand or two thousand five hundred, our usual congregation there. It was this evening agreed at our Society that the leaders of the bands meet together at 5.30 every Wednesday evening. The next day, several curious persons being at Nicholas Street, and a fine lady among the rest, I was desired in a note given me to pray for her; and she was ‘almost persuaded to be a Christian.’ Friday, 11th, as we were going to the second Society in the evening, we were desired to call upon a young woman who was in the agonies of despair. With much difficulty we brought her to the Society; where, almost as soon as we began praying for her, the enemy was cast out, and she was filled with peace and joy in believing. Saturday, 12th, Mr. Labbe, who had been often in doubt, chiefly from the objections his wife made, was quite astonished at Newgate; for God overtook her there, so that she knew she was accepted in the Beloved. Thence we went and laid the first stone of our house with the voice of praise and thanksgiving. Three or four thousand were present at the Bowling Green this afternoon; and at Weavers’ Hall in the evening, in answer to our prayers ‘that our Lord would then show whether He was willing that all men should be saved,’ three persons immediately sunk down, and in a short time were raised up and set at liberty. Sunday, 13th, about six thousand were at the Bowling Green, where I explained the beginning of the 13th of the First of Corinthians. At Hanham I ended my sermon on ‘The scripture hath concluded all under sin, &c.’ to about four thousand, our usual congregation. The church at Clifton was much too small for us in the afternoon; but those who were without could hear as well as they within. About six thousand were at Rose Green, where I was desired by a young woman to go into her chariot, whom I found quite awakened, and longing for Christ, after having been for some years the finest, gayest thing in Bristol. She came with me to Gloucester Lane Society, where God overtook her three or four weeks ago. Here a young woman, after strong pangs, received the gift of the Holy Ghost. My dear brethren, pray much for and write all of you to Your weak but loving brother. Dear Jemmy, send me fifty more Hymns immediately. I give the Homilies [See letter of May 8.] and sell the sermons on Free Grace. Is that right Adieu! [This note is written on the outside of the letter by someone who had carried out the commission:] ‘B. W.’s [Brother Wesley’s] things is left at the Inn by Hobburn bridge.’ To James Hutton BRISTOL, May 28, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN,--On Sunday, the 13th, I began expounding the 13th of the First of Corinthians at the Bowling Green. [On Saturdays and Sundays Wesley preached a course of sermons on Charity at the Bowling Green (where All Saints and Wellington Streets now stand). See entries in Diary; and next letter.] About six thousand were present. More than half that number were at Hanharn Mount, to whom I explained ‘the promise by faith of Jesus Christ’; as I did to about six thousand at Rose Green after I came from Clifton, where it pleased our good God to give me a strong mouth in speaking on those words, ‘He that drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whoso drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water which I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.’ Monday, 14th, about five thousand were at the Brickyard, whom I exhorted to be ‘as little children.’ Three mourners were comforted this evening, as was one the night before. Mrs. Labbe (educated as an Anabaptist) was baptized the next day and filled with the Holy .Ghost. At three in the afternoon I preached at Two-Mile-Hill on those words of Isaiah (upon which the book opened) [Here a line is left blank in the letter.] .... Afterwards we went to look out a proper place for the school, and at last pitched on one between the London and Bath Roads. Soon after five I began expounding at the Back Lane on the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees; but, the house being too small, I stood in a little garden at one end of the lane, so that all who were in the lane or at the windows or on the adjoining walls (about a thousand) could hear well. The power of God fell on several of those that heard, one or two of whom were soon comforted; as were three others at the Society in Baldwin Street. About ten, two that had before been comforted, but were in heaviness again, came to Mrs. Grevil. We prayed, and they were again filled with peace and joy in believing. Wednesday, 16th, the rain prevented many from coming to Baptist Mills; but twelve or fifteen hundred stayed. While I was taking occasion from those words of Isaiah, chap. liii. verses 5 and 6, to call poor sinners to Christ, a young man began beating his breast and strongly crying out for mercy. During our prayer God put a new song in his mouth. Some mocked, and others believed, particularly a maid servant of Baptist Mills, who went home full of anguish, and is now full of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. The portion of scripture which came (in turn) to be explained to-day at Newgate was the former part of the 7th of St. John. The words I was led chiefly to insist on were, ‘The world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.... And there was murmuring concerning Him among the multitude. For some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but He deceiveth the people.’ When I was going out, a message was delivered me ‘that the Sheriffs had ordered I should preach there for the future but once a week.’ I called on Thursday at the house of one [Mr. Godly. See Journal, ii. 200d, 204d.] who said I had driven his daughter mad, and indeed as such they used her, confining her and obliging her to take physic. He would not suffer me to come in. But we went to prayers for him; and in two days God turned his heart, so that he has now set her at liberty. On Friday I began preaching in a large, convenient room, [Journal ii. 200d: ‘11 preached at the Dial.’] which held near as many as the chapel at Newgate; which I did for three days. And then the Mayor and Aldermen (to whom the tenant was in debt) sent and put a padlock on the door. We had a sweet day in Baldwin Street on Saturday. In the afternoon about two thousand were at the Bowling Green. I wish you would constantly send me extracts of all your foreign letters, to be read on our Intercession Day. At Weavers’ Hall a young woman first and then a boy (about fourteen years old) were deeply bruised and afterwards comforted. At the Bowling Green on Sunday we had about seven thousand. To two thousand at Hanham I explained the same scripture (1 Cor. xiii.). Seeing at Clifton Church [Journal, ii. 201. He was assisting the Rev. John Hedges, the incumbent, and preached for him on the Sunday afternoons of April 29, May 6, 13, and 20, and conducted marriages.] many of the great and rich, my heart was enlarged and my mouth opened toward them. My Testament opened on those words, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ The power of the Lord was indeed present to heal them! His sending forth lightning with the rain did not hinder about fifteen. hundred poor sinners from staying with me at Rose Green. Our scripture was, ‘It is the glorious God that maketh the thunder. The voice of the Lord is mighty in operation; the voice of the Lord is a glorious voice,’ In the evening God spake to the hearts of three that were sore vexed, and there ensued a sweet calm. Monday, 21st, the minister of Clifton died. Oh what has God done by adding those four weeks to his life! In the afternoon, as I was enforcing those words, ‘Be still, and know that I am God,’ He began to make bare His arm in the eyes of two thousand five hundred witnesses. One, and another, and another were struck to the earth; and in less than an hour seven knew the Lord and gave thanks. I was interrupted in my speaking on the same subject at Nicholas Street by the cries of one that was cut to the heart. I then recapitulated what God had done among us already in proof of His free love to all men. Another dropped down close to one who was a rigid asserter of the opposite doctrine. While he stood astonished at-her cries and groans, a little boy standing by was seized in the same manner. A young man who was near smiled at this, and sunk down as one dead; but soon began to roar out and beat himself against the ground, so that six men could scarce hold him. [‘His name was Thomas Maxfield’ (Journal, ii. 203). See Telford’s Wesley, pp. 214-16; and letters of April 21, 1741, and Nov. 2, 1762.] I never saw any one (except John Haydon) so torn by the evil one. Before he was delivered many others began to cry out, so that all the room (and indeed all the street) was in an uproar. And it was near ten before the Spirit of life set some of them free from the law of sin and death. A Presbyterian (who a little before was much offended) took me home with him to supper; whence I was called in haste to a woman who had run out of the Society for fear she should expose herself; but the power of God went with her, so that she continued in the same agony till we prayed and she found rest in Christ. We then besought our Lord for one that was sick in the same house, and her soul was straightway healed. About twelve we were importuned to visit one more. She had only one struggle after we came, and then was comforted. I think twenty-nine in all were accepted in the Beloved this day. Brethren, pray for us. Adieu. To James Hutton BRISTOL, June 4, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN, -- Tuesday, 22nd, about a thousand were present at Bath, and several fine gay things among them, whom I exhorted in St. Paul’s words, ’Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead; and Christ shall give thee light.’ The next morning I was sent for to the young woman whose relations had confined her as mad. They now agreed she should go where she would, and seem themselves ‘not far from the kingdom of God.’[See previous letter.] I preached to about two thousand on Wednesday at Baptist Mills on ‘Hear what the unjust judge saith.’ In the evening the female bands admitted seven women on trial and ten children; and Eliz. Cutler and six other women, having been on trial their month, were by lot fixed in their several bands. At eight we received into our Society (after the month’s trial) Jonathan Reeves [Jonathan Reeves was afterwards ordained and appointed the first chaplain of the Magdalen Hospital in June 1758, and held that position till 1764. He afterwards had a curacy in Whitechapel. See Compston’s Magdalen Hospital, pp. 46, 63; Stamp’s Orphan House, p. 41; Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 345-6; and letter of Dec. 10, 1751.] and six others, who at the lovefeast on the 27th instant were by lot fixed in their bands. We then received upon trial John Haydon and eight other men, and Thomas Hamilton (aged fourteen) with four other children. Thursday, 24th, we breakfasted at Richard Champion’s, [See Journal, ii. 204d; W.H.S. v. 6. R. Champion (1743-91), the founder of the pottery works at. Bristol, where the ‘British China Ware’ was made, was perhaps his son.] where were eight or nine other Quakers. We had a mild conference on justification by faith alone, concluded with prayer, and both met and parted in love. At three I preached again on Priestdown, near Publow, to a larger congregation than before, on ‘The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.’ On Friday I preached (the first time) at the Fishponds, on the edge of Kingswood, about two mile from Bristol, on the same words, to about a thousand souls. The next morning one came to us in deep despair. We prayed together an hour, and he went away in peace. About two thousand (as is usual on Saturdays) were at the Bowling Green, to whom, and to about six thousand on Sunday morning, I farther explained the great law of love. To about two thousand five hundred at Hanham I preached on Isaiah liii. 5-6; at Rose Green, to upwards of ten thousand, on ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ At the Society in the evening at Gloucester Lane eleven were cut to the heart and soon after comforted. Monday, 28th, I began preaching in the morning at Weavers’ Hall, where two persons received remission of sins; as did seven in the afternoon at the Brickyard, before several thousand witnesses; and ten at Baldwin-Street in the evening, of whom two were children. On Tuesday in the afternoon I preached at Two-Mile-Hill to about a thousand of the colliers; and at five expounded to about the same number in the Back Lane at John Haydon’s door. The next morning a young woman (late a Quaker) was baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. In the afternoon I (unknowingly) fell in with a famous infidel, [See Journal, ii. 206n.] a champion of the unfaithful in these parts. He was shocked, desired I would pray for him, and promised to pray earnestly himself that God would show him the right way to serve Him. We went from him to Baptist Mills. Two or three thousand were present; on whom I enforced those words on which my Testament opened: ‘And all the people which heard Him, and the publicans, justified God .... But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves.’ On Holy Thursday many of us went to King’s Weston Hill, four or five miles from Bristol. As we were sitting on the grass two gentlemen went by; and by way of jest sent up many persons to us from the neighboring villages, to whom therefore I took occasion to speak on those words, ’Thou hast ascended up on high, Thou hast led captivity captive, &c.’ In the evening, our landlady in Baldwin Street not permitting us to meet there any more, we had our second Society at Weavers’ Hall; where I preached the next morning also. In the afternoon I was at a new brickyard, where were twelve or fifteen hundred. The rain was so violent on Saturday that our congregation in the Bowling Green consisted of only nine hundred or a thousand. But in the morning we had about seven thousand, to whom I described (in concluding the subject) a truly charitable man. At Hanham were about three thousand, to whom I explained those words, ‘That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.’ The same I again insisted on at Rose Green, to (I believe) eight or nine thousand. We could not meet in the evening at Nicholas Street; but we made shift to do so in the shell of our schoolroom, without and within which (I suppose) about two thousand or two thousand five hundred were present. [In the Horsefair. See letter of May 14.] We had a glorious beginning; the scripture that came in turn to be read was, ‘Marvel not if the world hate you.’ We sung, ‘Arm of the Lord, awake, awake.’ [In J. and C. Wesley’s Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739).] And God, even our own God, gave us His blessing. Farewell in the Lord, my dear brethren; and love one another! To James Hutton BRISTOL, June 7, 1739. MY DEAR BRETHERN, -- After I came from preaching at Weavers, Hall on Monday, many came to advise me in great sincerity ’not to go to the Brickyard in the afternoon, because of some terrible things that were to be done there if I did.’ This report brought many thither of what they call the better sort, so that it added a thousand at least to the usual audience; on whom I enforced (as not my choice, but the providence of God directed me) those words of Isaiah, ’ Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of My righteousness.’ My nose began bleeding in the midst of the sermon, [For his nose-bleeding at Oxford, see letter of Sept. 23, 1723, to his mother.] but presently stopped, so that I went on without interruption; and the power of God fell on all, so that the scoffers stood looking one on another, but none opened his mouth. All Bath on Tuesday was big with expectation of what a great man was to do to me there; and I was much entreated not to preach, ’because no one knew what might happen.’ By this report also I gained (I believe) a thousand new hearers of the rich and great of this world. I told them plainly ’the scripture had concluded them all under sin,’ high and low, rich and poor, one with another. They appeared not a little surprised and sinking apace into seriousness, when their champion appeared, and, having forced his way through the people, asked ‘by what authority I did these things.’ I answered, ‘By the authority of Jesus my Master, conveyed to me by the (now) Archbishop of Canterbury.’ He said ‘it was contrary to the Act of Parliament; there was an Act of Parliament against conventicles.’ I replied, ‘The conventicles there mentioned were seditious meetings. But there was no such here.’ He said, ‘Yes, it was; for I frighted people out of their wits.’ I asked if he had ever heard me preach. If not, how he could judge of what he never heard He said, ‘By common report, for he knew my character.’ I then asked, ‘Pray, sir, are you a justice of peace or the mayor of this city’ Answer: ‘No, I am not.’ ‘Why then, sir, pray by what authority do you ask me these things’ Here he paused a little, and I went on: ‘Give me leave, sir, to ask, Is not your name Nash’ Answer: ‘Sir, my name is Nash.’ ‘Why then, sir, I trust common report is no good evidence of truth.’ Here the laugh turned full against him, so that he looked about and could scarce recover. Then a bystander said, ‘Sir, let an old woman answer him.’ Then, turning to Mr. Nash, she said, ‘Sir, if you ask what we come here for, we come for the food of our souls. You care for your body: we care for our souls.’ He replied not one word, but turned and walked away. We immediately began praying for him, and then for all the despisers. As we returned, they hollowed and hissed us along the streets; but when any of them asked, ‘Which is he’ and I answered, ‘I am he,’ they were immediately silent. Ten or twelve fine ladies followed me into the passage of Richard Merchant’s [See letter of May 14.] house. I turned back to them, and told them I supposed what they wanted was to look at me, which they were very welcome to do. Perceiving them then to be more serious, I added: ‘I do not expect the rich of this world to hear me; for I speak plain truth -- a thing you know little of, and do not desire to know.’ A few words more passed between us, and, I hope, not in vain. Wednesday, 6th, two men and one woman were baptized. [Diary: ‘10.45 Newgate, three christened; ... 9.45 [p.m.] with Mrs. Cooper, she spoke; 11 at Mr. Labbe’s! 11 supper; 12’ (Journal, ii. 213).] About two thousand five hundred were at Baptist Mills, to whom I explained the 9th of St. John. In the evening, after our meeting in Baldwin Street, I went (in obedience to God’s command by lot) to the house of Mrs. Cooper, the supposed prophetess. Her agitations were nothing near so violent as those of Mary Piewit are. [See Journal, ii. 136n.] She prayed awhile (as under the hand of God), and then spoke to me for above half an hour. What spirit she spoke by I know not. The words were good. Some of them were these: ‘Thou art yet in darkness. But yet a little while and I will rend the veil, and thou shalt see the King in His beauty.’ I felt no power while she spoke. Appearances are against her; but I judge nothing before the time. On Thursday, after exhorting the little Society at Pensford (who stand as a rock, continually battered, but not shaken), I went to Priestdown, where we had a larger company than before. I preached on ‘What must I do to be saved’ It rained hard; but none went away, except one young woman, who came again in a few minutes. In the midst of the prayer two men (who came for that purpose) began singing a ballad. After a few mild words (for I saw none that were angry), we began singing a psalm, which utterly put them to silence. We then prayed for them, and they were quite confounded. I offered them books, but they could not read. I trust this will be a day much to be remembered by them for the loving-kindness of the Lord. My brethren, be meek and lowly; be wise, but not prudent. Stir up the gift that is in you by keeping close together. Love one another, and be ye thankful. You are much on the heart as well as in the prayers of Your affectionate brother in Christ. Jemmy Hutton, if I have not fifty more Hymns next Friday, I will not thank you. Where are the twelve Haliburton’s and the Nelson’s Sermons, which Mr. Seward writes me word he ordered you to send me, with twenty Hymns on his account O Jemmy, Jemmy! [See letter of May 8.] June 10, 1739. To his Brother Charles BRISTOL, June 23, 1739. DEAR BROTHER, -- My answer to them which trouble me is this:-- God commands me to do good unto all men; to instruct the ignorant, reform the wicked, confirm the virtuous. Man commands me not to do this in another’s parish--that is, in effect, not to do it at all. If it be just to obey man rather than God, judge ye. ‘But’ (say they) ‘it is just that you submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.’ True; to every ordinance of man which is not contrary to the command of God. But if any man (bishop or other) ordain that I shall not do what God commands me to do, to submit to that ordinance would be to obey man rather than God. And to do this I have both an ordinary call and an extraordinary. My ordinary call is my ordination by the Bishop: ‘Take thou authority to preach the word of God.’ My extraordinary call is witnessed by the works God doeth by my ministry, which prove that He is with me of a truth in this exercise of my office. Perhaps this might be better expressed in another way: God bears witness in an extraordinary manner that my thus exercising my ordinary call is well-pleasing in His sight. But what if a bishop forbids this I do not say, as St. Cyprian, Populus a scelerato antistire separare se debet. [‘The people ought to separate themselves from a wicked bishop.’] But I say, God being my helper, I will obey Him still; and if I suffer for it, His will be done. To James Hutton July 2, 1739. DEAR BRETHERN, -- I left London about six on Monday morning [June 18]; and on Tuesday evening at seven preached (as I had appointed if God should permit) to about five thousand people in the Bowling Green at Bristol, whose hearty affection moved me much. My subject was the same as at Kennington. About nine that faithful soldier of Christ, Howell Harris, [See letter of July 29, 1740.] called upon me. He said he had been much tempted not to do it at all; that many had told him I was an Arminian, a Free-wilier, and so on; so that he could hardly force himself to come to the Bowling Green. ‘But,’ he added, ‘I had not been long there before my spirit was knit to you, as it was to dear Mr. Whitefield; and before you had done, I was so overpowered with joy and love that I could scarce stand, and with much difficulty got home.’ It is incredible what advantage Satan had gained here by my absence of only eight days. Disputes had crept in, and the love of many was waxed cold; so that all our Society was falling in pieces. I preached on Wednesday at Newgate at eleven and at four at Baptist Mills on those words, ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.’ At seven I met the women bands at Eliz. Davis’s house (Mrs. Grevil having forbidden them hers). I found disputes had hurt them also, so that many were resolved to quit the Society. Finding it necessary to speak to them apart, I fixed times to meet each band singly; which I did on the days of the following week, and all of them were (I hope) established in the faith. At eight I met our brethren in Baldwin Street, where, instead of disputing, we prayed together; the Spirit of the Holy One was with us. All divisions were healed; all misunderstandings vanished away; and we all felt our hearts drawn together and sweetly united in the bowels of Jesus Christ. Thursday, 21st, I talked an hour or two with a young man of Gloucester, who was deeply prejudiced against my dear brother Whitefield and me. He went away of another mind. In the afternoon I preached at Publow as usual, without any disturbance, on Isaiah xlv. 22. In the evening I was at the schoolroom, and had a large and attentive audience, though it was uncovered and it rained hard. Afterward I met with Molly Deacon’s band, whose openness and childlike simplicity pleased me much; where also I spoke with a young man who was fully determined ‘naked to follow a naked Master,’ [The ideal of Francis of Assisi: Nudes nudum Christum sequens. Jerome used the expression (Epistles, No. 125), and also St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Coulton’s Five Centuries of Religion, ii. 108). See Journal, i. 179.] having been turned out of doors by his friends the night before for coming to the Societies. Friday, 22nd, I writ to a Society just begun at Wells, which I hope to visit when God permits. At nine I called on Mr. Whitehead, [Thomas Whitehead, ‘a professed Quaker about sixty years of age,’ was baptized by Whitefield on April 17, 1739 (see his Journal). He was afterwards led astray by the French prophets. See Journal, ii. 226; and letter of Feb. 10, 1748.] whom G. Whitefield baptized at Gloucester. ‘Ye did run well; who hath bewitched you’ ‘Woe unto the prophets, saith the Lord, which prophesy in My name, and I have not sent them.’ At Weavers’ Hall I endeavored to point them out, and exhorted all to cleave to the law and the testimony. In the afternoon I preached at Fishponds on the same words as at Publow, but had no life or spirit in me. I came back to the band on trial, whose behavior (especially Mrs. Thorn-hill) a little revived and comforted me; but when I left them to go to Gloucester Lane Society, I was more dead and cold than ever, and much in doubt whether God would not now lay me aside and send more faithful laborers into His harvest. When I came thither, my soul being grieved for my brother Whitehead, I began in much weakness to exhort them to try the spirits whether they were of God. I told them they must not judge of the spirits, either by common report, or by appearances, or by their own feelings -- no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations made to their souls, or outward effects upon their bodies. All these I warned them were of a doubtful nature in themselves, which might be of God or of the devil; and were not either to be simply condemned or relied on, but to be tried by the law and the testimony. While I was speaking a woman dropped down before me, and presently a second and third, and one after another five others. All the outward symptoms were as violent as those at London the Friday before. Upon praying, five of them were comforted, one continued in pain an hour longer, and one for two or three days. Saturday, 23rd, I spoke severally with those which had been so troubled the night before; some of whom I found were only awakened, others had peace in the blood of Christ. At four I preached to about two thousand at the Bowling Green on ‘Do all to the glory of God’; at seven, in the morning, to four or five thousand, and at ten to about three thousand at Hanham. As I was riding afterwards to Rose Green in a smooth plain road, my horse pitched upon his head and rolled over and over. I received no other hurt than a little bruise on the side I fell, which made me lame for two or three days; for the present I felt nothing, but preached there on the same words to six or seven thousand people, and in the evening explained the 12th of the Acts to twelve or fifteen hundred at the New Room. On Saturday evening Ann Allin (a young woman) was seized with strong pangs at Weavers’ Hall; they did not continue long before the snare was broken and her soul delivered. Sara Murray (aged thirteen) and four or five other persons (some of whom had felt the power of God before) were as deeply convinced on Sunday evening; and with most of the same symptoms groaned for deliverance. At Weavers’ Hall on Monday, 25th, a young woman named Mary Pritchard was cut to the heart and soon after comforted; as was Mary Greenwood at four in the afternoon. At Gloucester Lane in the evening one Mary Conway (who, as she was sitting at work at ten in the morning, was suddenly seized with strong trembling and bitter agonies of soul, in which she had continued all the afternoon) was restored to peace; as were four or five others who were there cut to the heart. On Tuesday, 26th, I preached the first time under the sycamore-tree near the school at Kingswood, during a violent rain, on those words of Isaiah, ‘As the rain cometh down from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth and maketh it bring forth and bud: . . . so shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void; but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.’ After expounding to some hundreds in the Back Lane, I went as usual to the schoolroom, where the pains of hell came about three persons, who soon after saw the light of heaven. At Baptist Mills on Wednesday I explained to two thousand or two thousand five hundred, ‘All things are lawful for me; but all things edify not.’ At seven the women bands met, and agreed to defer admitting any new members till the next month and to wait a little longer before they excluded those who had for some time excluded themselves, if haply they might return. At Baldwin Street William Farnell and Richard Hereford were excluded the Society, as being not only unwilling to attend it, but utterly incapable (as yet) of improving by it. I was afterward much enlarged in prayer for Mrs. Grevil. Oh that she could again feel herself a lost sinner! I went on Thursday in the afternoon to preach on the south edge of Kingswood, near a sort of a village called the Cupolas; but the people not having notice, but few came: so that, having used some prayer with them, I promised to come again the next day, and then preached on ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved.’ Saturday, 30th, Anne Williams (Ant. Williams’s wife) was the thirteenth time tapped for the dropsy. She desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ; but gives herself up to Him for life or for death. To about twelve hundred in the Bowling Green I showed many lawful things edify not. At Weavers’ Hall Kitty Deschamps (about fourteen), Prudence Woodward, and five more roared for the very disquietness of their heart, and all, upon prayer, were relieved and sang praise unto our God and unto the Lamb that liveth for ever and ever. Yours in Christ. [Wesley wrote to the Rev. John Oulton (Baptist pastor of Leominster) on July 9 and 28; but these letters have not been preserved. See Journal, ii. 240d, 247d; W.H.S. xi. 118-19. Mr. Oulton’s reply to the first letter is given in the Supplement to the Arrninian Magazine, 1797, PP. 25-6.] To Dr. Stebbing July 31, 1739. REVEREND SIR, -- 1. You charge me (for I am called a Methodist, and consequently included in your charge) with ‘vain and confident boastings; rash, uncharitable censures; damning all who do not feel what I feel; not allowing men to be in a salvable state unless they have experienced some sudden operation, which may be distinguished as the hand of God upon them, overpowering, as it were, the soul; with denying men the use of God’s creatures, which He hath appointed to be received with thanksgiving, and encouraging abstinence, prayer, and other religious exercises, to the neglect of the duties of our station.’ O sir, can you prove this charge upon me The Lord shall judge in that day! 2. I do, indeed, go out into the highways and hedges to call poor sinners to Christ; but not in a tumultuous manner, not to the disturbance of the public peace or the prejudice of families. Neither herein do I break any law which I know; much less set at naught all rule and authority. Nor can I be said to intrude into the labors of those who do not labor at all but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died to ‘perish for lack of knowledge.’ 3. They perish for want of knowing that we as well as the heathens ‘are alienated from the life of God’; that ‘every one of us,’ by the corruption of our inmost nature, ‘is very far gone from original righteousness’ -- so far, that ‘every person born into the world deserveth God’s wrath and damnation’; that we have by nature no power either to help ourselves or even to call upon God to help us, all our tempers and works in our natural state being only evil continually. So that our coming to Christ as well as theirs must infer a great and mighty change. It must infer not only an outward change, from stealing, lying, and all corrupt communication, but a thorough change of heart, an inward renewal in the spirit of our mind. Accordingly ‘the old man’ implies infinitely more than outward evil conversation, even ‘an evil heart of unbelief,’ corrupted by pride and a thousand deceitful lusts. Of consequence the ‘new man’ must imply infinitely more than outward good conversation, even ‘a good heart, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness’ -- an heart full of that faith which, working by love, produces all holiness of conversation. 4. The change from the former of these states to the latter is what I call The New Birth. But you say I am not content with this plain and easy notion of it, but fill myself and others with fantastical conceits about it. Alas, sir, how can you prove this And if you cannot prove it, what amends can you make, either to God or to me or to the world, for publicly asserting a gross falsehood 5. Perhaps you say you can prove this of Mr. Whitefield. What then This is nothing to me. I am not accountable for his words. The Journal you quote I never saw until it was in print. But, indeed, you wrong him as much as me. First, where you represent him as judging the notions of the Quakers in general (concerning being led by the Spirit) to be right and good; whereas he speaks only of those particular men with whom he was conversing. And again, where you say he supposes a person believing in Christ to be without any saving knowledge of Him. He supposes no such thing. To believe in Christ was the very thing he supposed wanting; as understanding that term believing to imply, not only an assent to the Articles of our Creed, but also ‘a true trust and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 6. Now, this it is certain a man may want, although he can truly say, ‘I am chaste; I am sober; I am just in my dealings; I help my neighbor, and use the ordinances of God.’ And, however such a man may have behaved in these respects, he is not to think well of his own state till he experiences something within himself which he has not yet experienced, but which he may be beforehand assured he shall if the promises of God are true. That something is a living faith, ‘a sure trust and confidence in God that, by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favor of God.’ And from this will spring many other things, which till then he experienced not; as, the love of God shed abroad in his heart, the peace of God which passeth all understanding, and joy in the Holy Ghost--joy, though not unfelt, yet ‘unspeakable, and full of glory.’ 7. These are some of those inward fruits of the Spirit which must be felt wheresoever they are; and, without these, I cannot learn from Holy Writ that any man is ‘born of the Spirit.’ I beseech you, sir, by the mercies of God, that if as yet you know nothing of such inward feelings, if you do not ’ feel in yourself these mighty workings of the Spirit of Christ,’ at least you would not contradict and blaspheme. When the Holy Ghost hath fervently kindled your love towards God, you will know these to be very sensible operations. As you hear the wind, and feel it too, ’while it strikes upon your bodily organs, you will know you are under the guidance of God’s Spirit the same way -- namely, by feeling it in your soul: by the present peace and joy and love which you feel within, as well as by its outward and more distant effects. -- I am, &c. To James Hutton BRISTOL, August 3, 1739. I had opportunity to talk largely with our brother [Whitefield] concerning the outward signs which had here attended the work of God. But there was little need of disputing; for God answered for Himself. He had been told these things were owing to my encouraging them, and that if they were not encouraged no such thing would ever be. But the next day, no sooner had he himself begun to call all sinners to be in Christ, than four were seized before him in a moment. One of them dropped down and lay without motion; a second trembled exceeding; the third was in strong convulsions, but made no noise unless by groans; the fourth, equally convulsed, called upon God with strong cries and tears also. From this time I hope we shall all suffer God to carry on His own work His own way. Thursday, July 12, after dinner I went to a person much troubled with lowness of spirits, as they term it! Many such I have seen before, but I can by no means believe it to be a bodily distemper. They wanted something they knew not what, and were therefore uneasy. The plain case was they wanted God, they wanted Christ, they wanted faith ;.and God convinced them of this want in a way which themselves no more understood at first than their physician did. Nor did any physic avail till the great Physician came; for, in spite of all natural means, He who made them for Himself would not suffer them to rest till their soul rested in Him. To James Hervey BRISTOL, August 8, 1739. DEAR SIR, -- Why is it I have never had a line from you since I wrote to you from London Have you quite forgotten me Or have the idle stories which you once despised at length prevailed over you If so, if try brother offend thee, what is to be done ‘Tell him of his fault between thee and him alone.’ God is able to do whatsoever pleaseth Him. How knowest thou, O man, but thou mayest gain thy brother But what are you doing yourself Sleeping on, taking your rest. I cannot understand this. Our Lord calls aloud for labourers in His vineyard, and you sit still. His people perish by thousands for lack of knowledge, and the servant of the Lord hideth himself in a cave. Come forth, my brother! Come forth, work for our Lord, and He will renew your strength! Oh that He would send you into this part of His harvest! Either with or without your preaching, here is work enough. Come, and let us again take sweet counsel together. Let me have joy over you once more. Think if there be no way for your once more seeing, my dear friend, Your affectionate brother. To James Hutton BRISTOL, August rS, x739. Thursday, July 26, in the evening at the Society several were deeply convinced of sin, but none was delivered. The children came to the birth, but there was not strength to bring forth. The same thing was observed many times before. Many were the conjectures concerning the reason of it. Indeed, I fear we have grieved the Spirit of God by questioning His work, and that therefore He is withdrawn from us for a season; but surely He will return and abundantly pardon. Monday, 30th, I had much conversation with a good and friendly man concerning those outward signs of the inward work of God. I found my mind much weakened thereby and thrown upon reasonings which profited nothing. At eight two persons were in strong pain; but though we cried to God, there was no answer, neither did He deliver them at all. The 31st, &c.: I was enabled to speak strongly to them on those words, ’Ask, and ye shall receive,’ and to claim the promise in prayer for those that mourned, one of whom was filled with joy and peace in believing; as was also this day a young woman who had been a strenuous opposer of this work of God, and particularly zealous against those who cried out, saying she was sure they might help it if they would. But on Monday night at the Society in the midst of her zeal she was struck in a moment, and fell to the ground trembling and roaring for the disquietness of her heart. She continued in pain twelve or fourteen hours, and then was set at liberty; but her master immediately forbade her his house, saying he would have none with him who had received the Holy Ghost. From James Hervey August 21, 1739. DEAR AND HONORED SIR, -- Your letter from London occasioned a speedy answer and a thankful acknowledgement. I suppose my epistle miscarried, otherwise you would not have taxed me with forgetfulness of a friend whom I am infinitely obliged to and whom I dearly esteem. You ask, what I am doing in my present situation I answer: The same that Basil and Nazianzen did in the wilderness -- studying the Scriptures, furnishing my mind with saving knowledge, and sitting a poor deacon for the service of Christ’s Church. With this farther difference betwixt my inconsiderable self and those excellent persons, that they retired in the vigor of health, I under the infirmities of a crazy constitution, which I hope to have repaired by enjoying the most comfortable conveniences of life and a respite from labor. At present, had I the strongest inclination, I have no manner of ability to bestir myself in the way you propose. I a thundering Boanerges! I a speaking-trumpet from heaven! I lift up my voice to the whole world and make the canopy of the skies ring! Never, dear sir, never could you have made choice of so improper a person, so vastly unequal to the task. Besides, I freely own I cannot approve of itinerant-preaching. I think it is repugnant to the Apostolical as well as to the English Constitution. I find Timothy settled at Ephesus, Titus stationed at Crete, and other of our Captain’s commanders assigned to their particular posts. These laborers (and industrious laborers they were) did not think it necessary or expedient to travel from this country to that with words of exhortation in their mouth, but chose to lay out their pastoral vigilance upon the flock consigned to their care. Thus would I advise my dear Mr. Wesley to act: be content to imitate these primitive (and only not inspired) preachers. Fix in some parish; visit carefully your people; let every individual be the object of your compassionate zeal; in a word, be a living Ouranio. Oh what good might this do to the cause of Christianity! How might neighboring ministers follow the unexceptionable example; and, from inveighing against my good friend (as they now unanimously do), honor him and tread in his steps! Straithess of time obliges me to put an end to my letter; but no difference of opinion, no long absence, nothing, I trust, in time or through eternity, shall be able to put an end to my most respectful and honorable regard, my affectionate and grateful esteem for dear Mr. Wesley; whom I love, and whose I am, with the greatest sincerity, J. HERVEY. To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL, August 23, 1739. DEAR SIR, -- I have not had half an hour’s leisure to write since I received yours of the 14th instant, in which the note for 15 11s. was enclosed. The Captain’s [Captain James Whitefield, master of a ship, brother of George Whitefield, died suddenly in Feb. 1766 at the Countess of Huntingdon’s house in Bath.] journey to London, as he owns it was the happiest, so I believe it was the most useful one he ever had. His resolution was a little shaken here; but he now appears more settled than before. Satan hath indeed desired to have us, that he may sift us as wheat. But our Lord hath prayed for us; so that the faith of few has failed. Far the greater part of those who have been tempted has come as gold out of the fire. It seems to me a plain proof that the power of God is greatly with this people, because they are tempted in a manner scarce common to men. No sooner do any of them begin to taste of true liberty, but they are buffeted both within and without. The messengers of Satan close them in on every side. Many are already turned out of doors by their parents or masters; many more expect it every day. But they count all these things dung and dross, that they may win Christ. O let us, if His name be called upon us, be thus minded !--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and servant in Christ. To Mr. Blackwell, At Mr. Martin’s, Banker, In Lombard Street, London. To James Hutton BRISTOL, August 24, 1739. August the 6th, breakfasted with some persons who were much offended at people’s falling into those fits (as they called them), being sure they might help it if they would. A child of ten years old came on a message while we were at breakfast, and in a few minutes began to cry out, ’ My heart, my heart 1 ’ and fell to the ground trembling and sweating exceedingly. One of her aunts went to her to hinder her from beating herself and tearing her hair; but three or four could scarce restrain her. After calling upon God above two hours with strong cries and tears, and all possible expressions of the strongest agonies of soul, that horrible dread was in a good measure taken away, and she found some rest. The 8th, the child which had been ill on Monday was in as strong an agony as before, to the conviction of many who doubted; but others still mocked on, nor indeed would these [believe], though one rose from the dead. August rr, two were seized with strong pangs at Weavers’ Hall, but were not as yet set at liberty. Sunday, four were wounded in the evening, but not healed. Our time is in Thy hand, O Lord. Four were seized the next evening in Gloucester Lane; one of whom was on the point of leaving our Society, but she hath now better learned Christ. To his Brother Charles ISLINOTON, September 21, 1739. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- A Scotch gentleman who was present here [Diary: ‘4.45 Islington, within to man.’ ‘Sat. 22--7.3o at Exall’s, tea.’ He evidently finished the letter there.] gave us a plain account of Mr. Erskine and his associates, the substance of which was this :- Some years since, Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, preaching before the Assembly, reproved them for several faults with all simplicity. This was so resented by many that in a following Assembly he was required to make an open recantation; and, persisting in the charge, the Assembly determined that he, with three other ministers who spoke in his behalf, should be deprived and their livings declared vacant. Four messengers were sent for this purpose; but they returned re infecta, fearing the people lest they should stone them. In another Assembly directions were given to the neighbouring ministers to procure informations concerning the doctrine and behavior of Mr. Erskines [Ebenezer and Ralph] and their adherents, Out of these informations an indictment was formed, to which they were summoned to answer in the next Assembly. Here it was debated whether they should be suffered to come in, and carried by a small majority that they should. The Moderator then spoke to this effect: ‘My reverend brethren, ye are summoned to answer an indictment charging you with erroneous doctrine and irregular practices; but if ye will submit to the Kirk and testify your amendment, we will receive you with open arms.’ Mr. Erskine answered for himself and brethren (they were now increased to eight) to this purpose: ‘Moderator, both you and those that are with you have erred from the faith, and your practices are irregular too; and you have no discipline: therefore you are no Kirk. We are the Kirk, and we alone, who continue in her faith and discipline. And if ye will submit to us and testify your amendment, we will receive ye with open arms.’ None answered a word; so after a short time they withdrew. The Moderator then asked, ‘My reverend brethren, what shall we do’ One replied, ‘Moderator, I must answer you in our proverb —“You have put the cat into the kirn (i.e. churn), and ye must get her out again how you can.”’ Again silence ensued; after which the Moderator asked, ‘Shall these men be excommunicated or only deposed’ Answer was made, ‘The question is not right. Let it be asked, “Shall they be deposed or not”’ This was accordingly done, and it was carried by five votes ‘that they should not be deposed.’ Having received help from God, they continue to this day; declaring to all that their congregation is the Kirk of Scotland; that they (the ministers, now ten in all) are the proper Presbytery, and there is no other; those commonly so called having made shipwreck both of the faith and discipline once delivered to the saints. Friday, September 14, I expounded again at Islington; but the house being too small for the company, I stood in the garden and showed them how vainly they trusted in baptism for salvation unless they were holy of heart, without which their circumcision was actually become uncircumcision. Afterwards I went to Fetter Lane, where I brought down the high looks of the proud by an exposition of those words, ‘All things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.’ Saturday, September 15, I expounded those words on which the book opened at Lady Hume’s: ‘The cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires of other things, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.’ At Fetter Lane I was directed to those words, ‘I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever.’ Many were cut to the heart, both here and at Mr. Exall’s, where I enforced those words of our Lord, ‘Except ye be born again, ye cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Sunday, the 16th, I preached at Moorfields to about ten thousand, and at Kennington Common to between twenty and thirty thousand, on those words, ‘We desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know it is everywhere spoken against.’ At both places I described in very plain terms the diffrence between true old Christianity, commonly called by the new name of Methodism, and the Christianity now generally taught. Thence I went to Lambeth (where I found oar congregation considerably increased), and exhorted them to cry mightily to our Lord that He might say unto them, as unto the sick of the palsy, ’Be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven thee.’ From our lovefeast at Fetter Lane I went to Islington House. Sufficient for this day was the labor thoreof. Pray my love to Brother Mitchell; and let the leaden cistern be gone about. On Monday se’nnight I intend, God willing, to set out. Tuesday I hope to spend at Oxford. On Wednesday night let James Ellis meet me at Gloucester. Then I will lay out the three or four following days as we ,shall agree, if God permit. I heartily thank our brothers Westall, Oldfield, Cross, Haydon, and Wynne; and our sisters Deftel, Shafto, Oldfield, Thomas, Stephens, Mrs. Thomas, and Mrs. Deschamps. I wish any would write by Wednesday post. Pray for us. Adieu. Sat. night, Mrs. Exall’s. To Nathanael Price BRISTOL, December 6, 1739. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Our sincere thanks attend you for your seasonable assistance. I have writ to our dear brother Howell Harris, and sent him a short account of our design which we are carrying on in Kingswood also: which perhaps may be agreeable to them who are with you too; for which reason I have sent you a copy of it, namely :-- ‘Few persons have lived long in the West of England who have not heard of the colliers of Kingswood: a people famous, from the beginning hitherto, for neither fearing God nor regarding man; so ignorant of the things of God that they could only be compared to the beasts that perish; and therefore utterly without desire of instruction, as well as without the means of it. ‘To this people Mr. Whitefield last spring began to preach the gospel of Christ; and as there were thousands of them who went to no place of public worship, he went out into their own wilderness “to seek and to save that which was lost.” When he was called away, others went “into the highways and hedges to compel them to come in.” And by the grace of God their labor was not in vain. The scene was entirely changed. Kingswood does not now, as a year ago, resound with cursing and blasphemy. It is no longer the seat of drunkenness, uncleanness, and all idle diversions that lead thereto. It is no longer filled with wars and rightings, with clamor and bitterness, with strife and envying. Peace and love are now there: the people in general are become mild, gentle, and easy to be entreated; they do not cry, neither strive, and hardly is their voice heard in the streets, or indeed in their own wood, unless when they are at their usual evening diversions, singing praise unto God their Savior. ‘That their children also might know the things that make for their peace, it was proposed some months since to build a school in Kingswood; and after many difficulties, the foundation of it was laid in June last in the middle of the wood, on a place called Two-Mile-Hill, between the London and Bath Roads, about three measured miles from Bristol. A large room was begun there for a school, having four small rooms at each end for the schoolmasters (and hereafter, if it should please God, some poor children) to lodge in it. Two persons are ready to teach, so soon as the house is fit to receive them, the shell of which is nearly finished. It is proposed in the usual hours of the day to teach chiefly the poorer children to read, write, and cast accounts; but more especially, by God’s assistance, “to know God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent”: the elder people, being not so proper to be mixed with children (for we expect scholars of all ages, some of them gray-headed), will be taught in the inner room, either early in the morning of late at night, so as their work nay not be hindered. ‘It is true, although the masters will not take nay pay (for the love of Christ constrains them, as they freely received, freely to give), yet this undertaking is attended with great expense. But let Him that feedeth the young ravens see to that. If He puts it into your heart, or the hearts of any of your friends, to assist us in bringing this work to perfection, in this world look for no recompense; but it shall be remembered in that day, when our Lord shall say unto you, “Inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these My brethren, ye did it unto me.”’ My love and service attends all our brethren at Cardiff, especially My. Glascot. [Thomas Glascot, one of the overseers of the poor, entertained Wesley on Oct. 18 1739, and went with him to Newport next morning. Charles Wesley stayed with him on his first visit to Cardiff in Nov. 1740 (W.H.S. iii. 176). On Sept. 1, 1758, many followed Wesley to Mr. Glascot’s house, ‘where two of three were cut to the heart, particularly both his daughters and cried to God with strong cries and tears.’ On May 10, 1781 Wesley is at Cardiff, and refers to him as a member of the old Society now ‘gone hence.’ See letter of May 13, 1764.] – I am, in haste, my dear brother, Your Affectionately. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This letter was written to a priest who had brought some proposals of the late Rector of Epworth before the Sorbonne in the University of Paris. The proposals may have had reference to the Rector’s scheme for an octavo edition of the Bible in Hebrew, Chaldee, and the Septuagint and the Vulgate. On January 26, 1725, he asks his son John’s help in this labor, ‘some time since designed.’ He had long been engaged in such studies. His translation of Hebrew poetry had been destroyed in the fire of 1709. His last work was the Dissertations o~ Job, which was almost through the press when he died. He acknowledges in the Preface the valuable help of his three sons in this work. John spent some time in London in x754 overlooking the printing, and before he sailed for Georgia was able to present a copy of the work to Queen Caroline, to whom it was dedicated. See letter of October 15, 1735. [2] Samuel Wesley wrote on December 13, 1738: ‘Your misapplication of the witness of the Spirit is so thoroughly cleared by Bishop Bull, that I shall not hold a candle to the sun’ (Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 109, where this letter is dated ’ in the beginning of the present year’). George Bull (1634-1710) became Bishop of St. David’s in 1705. His Sermons were published in 1713 by Robert Nelson in three volumes. See letter of August 22, 1744. [3] The date of ’the following letter is February 2o’ in Whitefield’s Works; but Wesley’s Journal gives ‘26,’ where the Diary says ‘writ to G. Whitefield.’ Whitefield was in Bristol, and received the letter there on March 1. The incumbent of St. Katherine’s near the Tower was the Hon. John Berkeley. The meeting at Mr. Crouch’s was on Tuesday {ibid. ii. 146d). [4] James Hervey had been one of Wesley’s pupils at Lincoln College and one of the Oxford Methodists. His sympathy and support were very grateful to Wesley in his later days of persecution at Oxford. When the brothers were in Georgia, Hervey refers to them as ‘glorious combatants.’ After Wesley’s return from Georgia, he wrote to ‘welcome the friend of my studies, the friend of my soul, the friend of all my valuable and eternal interests.’ See Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, p. 215. Wesley gives this letter in his Journal, under date June 11, 1739, and describes it as written ‘some time since.’ The Diary for March 20 says ‘writ to J. Hervey.’ Hervey’s criticism which called forth the letter has not been preserved; but its purport may be gathered from Wesley’s reply and from Hervey’s letter of August 21. Wesley’s vindication is one of the classics of the Evangelical Revival. It supplies the famous saying on the Wesley tablet in Westminster Abbey, and lays bare the secret springs of his labors as an evangelist. [5] Whitefield replied: ‘I thank you most heartily for your kind rebuke, &c.’ See Tyerman’s Whitefield, i. 193. [6] Whitefield had begun to preach in the open air at Kingswood on February 17. He begged Wesley to come to his help; on March 23 he wrote: ‘I beseech you, come next week; it is advertised in this day’s journal. I pray for a blessing on your journey and in our meetings. The people expect you much.’ Wesley consulted the Society at Fetter Lane about the invitation; and they finally agreed by lot that he should go (Journal, ii. 157-8; C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 146). He left London the next day (the 29th), and met Whitefield in Bristol on the evening of the 31st. Wesley’s letters to James Hutton and his friends at Fetter Lane gave the first intelligence as to the great awakening in Bristol and kindled expectation of similar blessing in London. They throw light at many points on the record which appeared later in the Journal. This letter is dated on the day he ’ submitted to be more vile’ by preaching in the open air (Journal, ii. 172). [7] John Edmonds lived in London. He was influenced by l~Iolther, and later in the year agreed with Hutton and others, who wished ’ to raise a Church’ (i.e. a Moravian Church) in England. See ii. 327-3I, 366. [8] This letter describes one of the most memorable weeks in Wesley’s life--the first week of his field-preaching in Bristol. When compared with his Journal (ii. 168-76) for the same time, it adds some vivid touches tot he scene. The closing paragraph shows how much he counted on the prayers and counsels of his friends in Fetter Lane. [9] Anthony Purver (1702-77) was a poor schoolmaster at Andover, who spent thirty years in making a new translation of the Bible, but could not get it published. Dr. Fothergill, the Quaker physician, examined and approved the work, gave Purver 1,000 for it, had it printed at his own expense, and revised the sheets. It was issued in two large folio volumes in 1764. Purver married in 1739 Rachel Cotterill, mistress of a girls’ boarding-school in Frenchay, and settled there. See Journal, ii. 188n; Fox’s Dr. John Fothergill and His Friends, p. 27; W.H.S. iv. 49-50, v. 6; and next letter. [10] William Seward, of Badsey, near Evesham, had worked successfully in reviving the Charity Schools in London. Six days after meeting Charles Wesley, he ’ testified faith,’ on November 19, 1738. Early in 1739 he became Whitefield’s traveling companion, and in August went with him to America. While on a preaching-tour with Howell Harris in October 1740 he was struck senseless by a rioter at Hay, and died a few days after, the first Methodist martyr. See Journal, ii. 285-6n, 395-6n. The last paragraph of this letter is in another hand, probably Mr. Seward’s. See at end of letter of June 7. [11] The Diary shows that this letter was ‘writ to Fetter Lane.’ Richard Merchant (or Marchant) proved a true friend for a time, but afterwards told Wesley he could not let him preach any more in his ground, as the crowd spoiled it and his neighbors were displeased. It was probably on Merchant’s field, now covered by the Circus and the Park, that Beau Nash interrupted Wesley (see letter of June 7). Other details of this time are given in the Journal, ii. 193-8; see also 244, 256. [12] Wesley’s encounter with the King of Bath is one of the historic events of the time. Richard Nash was an adventurer and a gamester; but he held the gay city and its fashionable crowd under strict control; not even royalty was allowed to deviate from the Rules which he posted in the Pump Room. He went to Bath in 1705, and established the Assembly Rooms there. Nash (whose father was a glass manufacturer in Wales) was born on October 18, 1674, at Swansea, where the Corporation has affixed a memorial tablet to the house. He was educated at Carmarthen Grammar School; and was expelled from Jesus College, Oxford,’ for his wild conduct. His success at the gambling-tables enabled him to wear costly clothes adorned with lace, and to drive about in a postchaise with six gray horses, with outriders, footmen, and French horns. He scattered his money freely, but died in poverty in 1761. The city had allowed him 10 a month, and gave him a magnificent funeral. See Journal, ii. 210-12n; Tyerman’s Wesley, i. 237; Telford’s Wesley, pp. 125-7. [13] Charles Wesley’s Journal for June 23 says: ‘My inward conflict continued. I perceived it was the fear of man; and that, by preaching in the field next Sunday, as George Whitefield urges me, I shall break down the bridge and become desperate, &c.’ Next day (Sunday) he preached to near ten thousand in Moorfields. ‘My lead was gone, and all my doubts and scruples. God shone upon my path; and I knew this was His will concerning me.’ See the letter of March 20 to James Hervey. [14] Wesley set out at 4 a.m. on June 12, and reached London on the 13th, in response to a pressing appeal to return from Bristol, as the brethren in Fetter Lane were in great confusion for want of his presence and advice. That same evening, when he met them, many misunderstandings were removed. The next day he went with Whitefield to Blackheath, where his friend ‘a little surprised’ him by asking him to preach, which he did to about 12,000 or 14,000, his brother Charles being present. On Sunday, at seven, he preached in Upper Moorfields to 6,000 or 7,000, and at five on Kennington Common to about 15,000; then early on Monday morning returned to Bristol. For further details referred to in this letter, see Journal, ii. 219-30. [15] Henry Stebbing, D.D. (1687-1763), was Preacher at Gray’s Inn 1732, and Chaplain to George II 1732. Bishop Sherlock made him Chancellor of Sarum in 1739, for his writing against Hoadly in the Bangorian Controversy. He published in 1739 A Caution against Religious Delusion. A Sermon on the New Birth: Occasioned by the Pretensions of the Methodists. Price 3d. Six editions were sold the same year. Stebbing also issued, in 1745, An Earnest and Affectionate Address to the People called Methodists. He wrote as a scholar and a gentleman. See Journal, ii. 248-9n; Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, Nos. 17,200. For Whitefield’s position, see Tyerman’s Whitefield, i. 261-3, 286. [16] This extract and two others written in August 1739 are in another handwriting than that of Wesley, but are evidently copied from his letter to the Moravian Synod. They are headed ‘Extract from a letter from Mr. John Wesley directed for Mr. James Hutton, Bookseller, near Temple Bar, concerning persons falling into fits at their being new born.’ The conversation is referred to in Wesley’s Journal and Diary for July 7; on which date Whitefield says he ’had a useful conversation about many things with my honored friend Mr. John Wesley.’ See Journal, ii. 239-40; Tyerman’s Whitefield, i. 259. [17] Hervey’s reply to the letter of March 20 (or a later one) seems to have miscarried. Wesley therefore wrote the following letter from Bristol. See letter of August 21. [18] This and the letter of August 24 give additional details to those in the Journal, ii. 246-8, and show how close were the relations between Wesley and his friend and convert. [19] Hervey was ordained deacon in September 1736 by Dr. Potter, Bishop of Oxford, and had been curate to Charles Kinchin, Rector of Dummer, near Basingstoke. He was in feeble health, and was for two years the guest of Mr. Paul Orchard at Stoke Abbey in Devonshire, where he heard reports about Wesley. This letter and the one to Kinchin on April 18 (Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 220-1) show his feeling concerning Wesley’s actions, especially his itinerant preaching. Hervey’s health improved so much that in 1740 he was able to accept the curacy of Bideford, which he held till about July 1743. He afterwards became curate to his father at Weston Flavel, near Northampton, where he died in 1758. See letter of October 15, 1756. ‘Ouranius’ (in Law’s Serious Call, chap. xxi.) ‘is an holy priest, full of the spirit of the gospel, watching, laboring, and praying for a poor country village. Every soul in it is as dear to him as himself, and he loves them all as he loves himself, because he prays for them all as often as he prays for himself.’ This is a beautiful picture; but Providence had raster and harder tasks for Wesley. See letters of March 20 and August 8 to Hervey. [20] Ebenezer Blackwell was born at Tewkesbury, and in 1731 became a principal clerk and then junior partner in Martin’s Bank, Lombard Street. He was one of Wesley’s most faithful friends, in whose judgment he had great confidence, and at whose house in Lewisham he became a frequent and honored guest. Blackwell retired in 1780, and died on April 21, 1782. The money mentioned had been collected on Blackheath on Sunday, August 12, when Whitefield preached his last sermon there before he sailed for America. ‘When I said, Finally, brethren, farewell I thousands immediately burst out into strong cryings and tears! . . . I continued my discourse till it was near dark, and collected near 15 for Kingswood School.’ It was with great difficulty that he got away by coach to Lewisham, ‘where an hospitable entertainment was prepared for me and my friends.’ Next day he went to Blendon, and then to Gravesend, whence he sailed for Philadelphia on the Tuesday. (Whitefield’s Journal.) Wesley did not yet know Blackwell. The banker had supped on the Sunday night with Whitefield and William Seward, who promised to send him the collection. This he forwarded by ‘our Shop Note.’ See Journal, ii. 259-60n. [21] Wesley was keenly interested in the Erskines, about whom he had been reading in the previous February. They were formally deposed in 1740, and on May 13 he read the Account. ’See Journal, ii. 146d, 230-1; viii. 165-6. [22] Wesley directed this letter to Thomas Price, of Cardiff. It appears with some variations in the Journal, ii. 322-3, where Wesley says it was written to ‘Mr. D. according to his request.’ The letter was begun and ended by Wesley. The part given in the Journal was transcribed by John Purdy, and ‘Nathanael’ is substituted for ‘Thomas’ in the address (see also ii. 342n, vi. 316). It was evidently sent to several friends who were instated in Kingswood. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: 23. 1740 ======================================================================== 1740 To James Huton BRISTOL, March 21, 1740. DEAR JEMMY, -- Where are the books I desired you to send -- Mr. Newman’s If they are not sent, I wish you would send with them twenty of the Collection of Prayers [A Collection of Forms of Prayer for Every Day in the Week, 1733. Wesley says: ’In the same year I printed (the first time I ventured to print anything) for the use of my pupils A Collection of forms of Prayer.’ See letter of May 14, 1765.] and twenty (if printed) of the Count’s Sermons. [Sixteen Discourses on the Redemption of Man by the Death of Christ. Translated from the High Dutch, 1740.] After my hearing of what Brother Tltschig [Wesley knew John Tltschig intimately in Savannah, and consulted him as to Miss Hopkey. He went with him to Herrnhut. See Journal, i. 478-9n.] said, I had no time to see him before I left London. Therefore I writ it as soon as I thought of it; so that may pass. What you say in your last concerning justification I have no exception to. But what plots you speak of I don’t understand. When we can no longer speak freely to one another, I verily think we should not speak at all. But I hope that time will never come. As to Nowers, I doubt not but, if he is wrong, our Savior will show it to him. But I find no sign of it yet. I see all his behavior, and hear almost all his words; for we are seldom apart, sleeping or waking. And I am apt to think every day will give me fresh occasion to stand amazed at the goodness of God in permitting first G. Whitefield and then the Moravians to reject him, and at length giving him to me. He was the man I wanted. I have not yet personally known any other who had so much gentleness and longsuffering toward them that are out of the way, and so impartial a love to all men. Nay (what you will be least ready to believe), I have not had full proof of any one who appeared to have more of the discernment of spirits, and that sometimes without a word being spoken. One instance of it I saw on Wednesday. Many persons were present with whom he had not talked at all. For one of these he prayed, without her asking him, as full of unbelief. I knew she was before full of faith (according to the first gift), and therefore thought him quite wrong. But soon after she declared her state before us all, and I acknowledged (in my heart) by what spirit he spake. The short of the case is this: I think him to be full of love and Christ and the Holy Ghost. And I think the Brethren wrong in a few things, not because I believe him, but because I believe the Bible. The chief thing wherein I think them wrong is in mixing human wisdom with divine, in adding worldly to Christian prudence. And hence cannot but proceed closeness, darkness,’ reserve, diffusing itself through the whole behavior; which to me appears as contrary to Christianity as blasphemy or adultery. I can find no Christianity in the Bible but what is a plain, artless, blunt thing. A Scripture Christian I take to be simple in quite another sense than you do: to be quite transparent, far from all windings, turnings, and foldings of behavior. This simplicity I want in the Brethren; though I know when it comes they will be persecuted in good earnest. And till they witness a good confession, as upon the house-top, whether men will hear or whether they [will forbear], I can in no wise believe them to be perfect, entire, and wanting nothing. -- Dear Jemmy, my love to all. To James Hutton BRISTOL, April 12, 1740. DEAR JEMMY, -- I am just come from Wales, where there is indeed a great awakening. God has already done great things by Howell Harris. There is such a simplicity among’ the Welsh, who are waiting for salvation, as I have not found anywhere in England. I have not had time to read the Count’s Sermons yet. I have sent you one more hymn. [See Methodist Hymn-Book Illustrated, pp. 264-5. The hymn, ‘I thirst, Thou wounded Lamb of God,’ appeared in Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1740, and in the Moravian Hymn-Book, 1742. It was based on four hymns in the Appendix to the Herrnhut Gesang-Buch, 1735.] Captain Williams’s affidavit [Captain Williams’s slanderous affidavit as to Wesley’s life in Georgia was sworn before the Mayor of Bristol on March 14, 1740, and led Wesley to publish his Journal. Williams was a Georgia planter, who resented Wesley’s attitude as to slavery. See letter of Aug. 3, 1742.] was cried about the streets here. But the hawkers were so complaisant that, when I went by any of them, they stopped till I was a good way off. I want to hear from C. Delamotte. Does his sugar quite swallow him up I have little time and much to write to-night. Dear Jemmy, suffer people to use the means of grace. If this caution is needless, I shall rejoice; for I am Your loving brother. To Philip Henry Molther [BISTOL, April 12, 1740.] DEAR BROTHER MOLTHER, -- Our brother Nowers never laid Sutor’s behavior to the charge of the Brethren. He is well satisfied with what you say about it, and desires his love may be remembered to them all. It is my great desire that there may be nothing but love between them and you and Your affectionate brother. To Howell Harris LONDON, July 29, 1740. MY DEAR BROTHER, --- Is the devil a fool Or has he forgot his old maxim, ‘Divide and conquer’ Beware you forget not the royal law, ‘Love thinketh no evil.’ I have no time myself now, so I have desired our brother Purdy [John Purdy was Wesley’s companion when he went to begin his field-preaching in Bristol. Wesley lightened his labor by thus using his friend’s help. See letters of Dec. 6, 1739, and Feb. 1, 1784.] to transcribe a paragraph or two of my Journal for you. ‘In the evening (after I had explained, “We wrestle not with flesh and blood, &c.”) Mr. Acourt complained that Mr. Nowers had hindered his going into our Society. Mr. Nowers answered, “It was by Mr. C. Wesley’s order.” “What,” said Mr. Acourt, “do you refuse admitting a person into your Society only because he differs from you in opinion” I answered, “No; but what opinion do you mean” He said, “That of Election. I hold a certain number is elected from eternity. And these must and shall be saved. And the rest of mankind must and shall be damned. And many of your Society hold the same.” I replied, “I never asked whether they hold it or no. Only let them not trouble others by disputing about it.” He said, “Nay, but I will dispute about it.” “What, wherever you come” “Yes, wherever I come.” “Why, then, would you come among us, who you know are of another mind” “Because you are all wrong, and I am resolved to set you all right.” “I fear your coming with this view would neither profit you nor us.” He concluded, “Then I will go and tell all the world that you and your brother are false prophets. And I tell you, in one fortnight you will all be in confusion.”’ [From Journal, ii. 353.] I say, So be it, if we do not preach the truth as it is in Jesus. You see, my brother, that the reason why Mr. Acourt was not admitted into our Society was not holding Election separate from Reprobation, but openly declaring his fixed purpose to introduce and carry on the dispute concerning Reprobation wherever he came. -- I am, my dear brother, Ever yours. To the Church at Herrnhut August 8, 1740. JOHN WESLEY, A PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF GOD IN ENGLAND, TO THE CHURCH OF GOD AT HERRNHUT IN UPPER LUSATIA. 1. It may seem strange that such an one as I am should take upon me to write to you. You I believe to be dear children of God, through faith which is in Jesus. Me you believe (as some of you have declared) to be ’ a child of the devil, a servant of corruption, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin.’ Yet, whatsoever I am or whatsoever you are, I beseech you to weigh the following words; if haply God, who sendeth by whom He will send, may give you light thereby: although the mist of darkness (as one of you affirms) should be reserved for me for ever. 2. My design is freely and plainly to speak whatsoever I have seen or heard among you in any part of your Church which seems not agreeable to the gospel of Christ. And my hope is that the God whom you serve will give you thoroughly to weigh what is spoken, and if in anything ye have been otherwise-minded than the truth is will reveal even this unto you. 3. And first, with regard to Christian salvation, even the present salvation which is through faith, I have heard some of you affirm: (1) That it does not imply the proper taking away our sins, the cleansing our souls from all sin, from all unholiness whether of flesh or spirit, but only the tearing the system of sin in pieces, so that sin still remains in the members if not in the heart. (2) That it does not imply liberty from evil thoughts, neither from wanderings in prayer, neither from the first motions of desire, as (suppose) of ease in pain. (3) That it does not imply an assurance of future salvation, the seal of the Spirit relating only to the present moment. 4. I have heard some of you affirm, on the other hand: (1) That it does imply liberty from the commandments of God, so that one who is saved through faith is not obliged or bound to obey them, does not do anything as a commandment or as a duty. (To support which they have affirmed that there is [ In the answer to this letter, which I received some weeks after, this is explained as follows: ‘All things which are a commandment to the natural man are a promise to all that have been justified. The thing itself is not lost, but the notion which people are wont to have of commandments, duties, &c.’ I reply: 1. If this be all you mean, why do you not say so explicitly to all men 2. Whether this be all, let any reasonable man judge, when he has read what is here subjoined.]* no command in the New Testament but to believe; that there is no duty required therein but that of believing; and that to a believer there is no commandment at all.) (2) That it does imply liberty to conform to the world, [The Brethren answer to this, ‘We believe it much better to discourse out of the newspapers than to chatter about holy things to no purpose.’ Perhaps so. But what is this to the point I believe both the one and the other to be useless, and therefore an abomination to the Lord. This objection, then, stands in full force, the fact alleged being rather defended than denied. The joining in worldly diversions in order to do good (another charge which cannot be denied), I think, would admit of the same defense -- viz. ‘that there are other things as bad.’]* by talking on useless if not trifling subjects; by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good; by putting on of gold and costly apparel, [‘We wear,’ say the Brethren, neither gold nor silver.’ You forget. I have seen it with my eyes. ‘But we judge nobody that does.’ How! Then you must judge both St. Peter and Paul false witnesses before God. ‘And because those professions that minister thereto’ (to sin, to what God has flatly forbidden) ‘relate to trade, and trade is a thing relating to the magistrate, we therefore let all these things alone, entirely suspending our judgment concerning them.’ What miserable work is here! Because trade relates to the magistrate, am I not to consider whether my trade be innocent or sinful Then the keeper of a Venetian brothel is clear. The magistrate shall answer for him to God!]* or by continuing in those professions the gain of which depends on ministering hereto. (3) That it does imply liberty to avoid persecution, by [This fact also you grant, and defend thus: ‘The power of reproving relates either to outward things or to the heart. Nobody has any right to the former but the magistrate.’ (Alas! alas I what casuistry is this!)’ And if one will speak to the heart, he must be first sure that the Savior has already got hold of it.’ What, then, must become of all other men Oh how pleasing is all this to flesh and blood!]* not reproving even those who sin in your sight; by not letting your light shine before those men who love darkness rather than light; by not using plainness of speech, and a frank, open carriage to all men -- nay, by a close, ark, reserved conversation and behavior, especially toward strangers. And in many of you I have more than once found (what you called being wise as serpents) much subtlety, much evasion and disguise, much guile and dissimulation. You appeared to be what you were not, or not to be what you were. You so studied ‘to become all things to all men,’ as to take the color and shape of any that were near you. So that your practice was indeed no proof of your judgment, but only an indication of your design nulli laedere os, [Terence’s Adelphi, v. iv. 10: ‘To insult no one to his face.’] and of your conformity to that (not scriptural) maxim, Sinere roun-durn vadere ut vult : ham vult vadere. [‘To let the world go as it will: for it will go.’]* 5. Secondly, with regard to that faith through which we are saved, I have heard many of you say, ‘A man may have justifying faith and not know it.’ Others of you, who are now in England (particularly Mr. Molther), I have heard affirm [In the Preface to the Second Journal the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake. [See Journal, i. 430. Bhier, in a letter to Wesley, written several years later, denied that Molther ever held the opinions imputed to him (Moore’s Wesley, i. 491n).]]* that ‘there is no such thing as weak faith; that there are no degrees in faith; that there is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt; that there is no justifying faith without the plerophory of faith, the clear, abiding witness of the Spirit; that there is no justifying faith where there is not, in the full, proper sense, a new heart; and that those who have not these two gifts are only awakened, not justified.’ 6. Thirdly, as to the way to faith, here are many among us whom your brethren have advised (what it is not to be supposed they would as yet speak to me, or in their public preaching) [The substance of the answer to this and the following paragraphs is: (I) That none ought to communicate till he has faith -- that is, a sure trust in the mercy of God through Christ. This is granting the charge. (2) That ‘if the Methodists hold this sacrament is a means of getting faith, they must act according to their persuasion.’ We do hold it, and know it to be so to many of those who are previously convinced of sin.]* not to use those ordinances which our Church terms means of grace till they have such a faith as implies a clean heart and excludes all possibility of doubting. They have advised them, till then, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate; and have often affirmed that to do these things is seeking salvation by works, and that, till these works are laid aside, no man can receive faith: for ‘no man’ (say they) ‘can do these things without trusting in them; if he does not trust in them, why does he do them’ 7. To those who answered, ‘It is our duty to use the ordinances of God,’ they replied, ‘There are no ordinances of Christ the use of which is now bound upon Christians as a duty or which we are commanded to use. As to those you mention in particular (viz. prayer, communicating, and searching the Scripture), if a man have faith he need not, if he have not he must not, use them. A believer may use them, though not as enjoined; but an unbeliever (as before defined) may not.’ 8. To those who answered, ‘I hope God will through these means convey His grace to my soul,’ they replied, ‘There is no such thing as means of grace; Christ has not ordained any such in His Church. But if there were, they are nothing to you: for you are dead; you have no faith; and you cannot work while you are dead. Therefore let these things alone till you have faith.’ 9. And some of our English brethren, who are joined with yours, have said openly, ‘You will never have faith till you leave running about to church and sacrament and societies.’ Another of them has said (in his public expounding), ‘As many go to hell by praying as by thieving.’ Another, ‘I knew one who, leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down to give God thanks: so he lost it immediately. And I know not whether he will ever have it again.’ And yet another, ‘You have lost your first joy; therefore you pray: that is the devil. You read the Bible: that is the devil. You communicate: that is the devil.’ 10. Let not any of you, my brethren, say, ‘We are not chargeable with what they speak.’ Indeed you are; for you can hinder it if you will. Therefore, if you do not, it must be charged upon you. If you do not use the power which is in your hands, and thereby prevent their speaking thus, you do in effect speak thus yourselves. You make their words your own, and are accordingly chargeable with every ill consequence which may flow therefrom. 11. Fourthly, with regard to your Church, [’A religion,’ you say, ’and a Church are not all one: a religion is an assembly wherein the Holy Scriptures are taught after a prescribed rule.’ This is too narrow a definition. For there are many Pagan (as well as a Mahometan) religions. Rather, a religion is a method of worshipping God, whether in a right or a wrong manner. ’The Lord has such a peculiar hand in the several constitutions of religion that one ought to respect every one of them.’ I cannot possibly: I cannot respect either the Jewish (as it is now) or the Romish religion. You add: ‘A Church (I will not examine whether there are any in this present age, or whether there is no other beside ours) is a congregation of sinners who have obtained forgiveness of sins. That such a congregation should be in an error cannot easily happen.’ I find no reason, therefore, to retract anything which is advanced on this or any of the following heads.]* you greatly, yea above measure, exalt yourselves and despise others. I have scarce heard one Moravian brother in my life own his Church to be wrong in anything. I have scarce heard any of you (I think not one in England) own himself to be wrong in anything. Many of you I have heard speak of your Church as if it were infallible, or so led by the Spirit that it was not possible for it to err in anything. Some of you have set it up (as indeed you ought to do, if it be infallible) as the judge of all the earth, of all persons (as well as doctrines) therein; and you have accordingly passed sentence upon them at once, by their agreement or disagreement with your Church. Some of you have said that there is no true Church on earth but yours; yea, that there are no true Christians out of it. And your own members you require to have implicit faith in her decisions, and to pay implicit obedience to her directions. 12. Your Church discipline is novel and unprimitive throughout. Your Bishops as such are mere shadows, and are only so termed to please those who lay stress upon the Threefold Order. The Eldest is (in fact) your Bishop, as far as you have arly; but he is only half an ancient Bishop. The ancient Presbyter you have split into Sympresbyters, Lehrers, Aufsehers, and Ermahners; the ancient Deacon into Hilfers, Krankenwarters, Dieners, and so on. 13. The ordination (or whatever it is termed) of your Eldest plainly shows you look upon Episcopal ordination as nothing; although it is true you make use of it at other times, ‘that you may become all things to all men.’ But the Constitution of your Church is indeed congregational, only herein differing from others, -- (1) that you hold neither this nor any other form of Church government to be of divine right: (2) that the Count has, in fact, the whole power which was ever lodged, either in the Bishops and priests of the ancient Church, in the King and Convocation in England, the General Assembly in Scotland, or the Pope in Italy; nay, there is scarce an instance in history of such a stretch of episcopal or royal or papal power, as his causing the Lot to be cast over again in the election of the Eldest at Herrnhut. 14. Fifthly, you receive not the Ancients but the modern Mystics as the best interpreters of Scripture, and, in conformity to these, you mix much of man’s wisdom with the wisdom of God; you greatly refine the plain religion taught by the letter of Holy Writ, and philosophize on almost every part of it, to accommodate it to the Mystic theory. Hence you talk much, in a manner wholly unsupported by Scripture, against mixing nature with grace, against imagination, and concerning the animal spirits, mimicking the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence your brethren zealously caution us against animal joy, against natural love of one another, and against selfish love of God; against which (or any of them) there is no one caution in all the Bible. And they have in truth greatly lessened, and had wellnigh destroyed, brotherly love from among us. 15. In conformity to the Mystics, you likewise greatly check joy in the Holy Ghost by such cautions against sensible comforts as have no title of Scripture to support them. Hence also your brethren here damp the zeal of babes in Christ, talking much of false zeal, and forbidding them to declare what God hath done for their souls, even when their hearts burn within them to declare it, and compared those to uncorked bottles who simply and artlessly speak as of the ability which God giveth. 16. Hence, lastly, it is that you undervalue good works (especially works of outward mercy), never publicly insisting on the necessity of them, nor declaring their weight and excellency. Hence, when some of your brethren have spoken of them, they put them on a wrong foot -- viz. If you find yourself moved, if your heart is free to it, then reprove, exhort, relieve. By this means you wholly avoid the taking up your cross in order to do good; and also substitute an uncertain, precarious inward motion in the place of the plain written Word. Nay, one of your members has said of good works in general (whether works of piety or of charity), ‘A believer is no more obliged to do these works of the law than a subject of the King of England is obliged to obey the laws of the King of France.’ 17. My brethren, whether ye will hear, or whether ye will forbear, I have now delivered my own soul. And this I have chosen to do in an artless manner, that if anything should come home to your hearts the effect might evidently flow, not from the wisdom of man, but from the power of God. To George Whitefield LONDON, August 9, 1740. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I thank you for yours, May the 24th. The case is quite plain. There are bigots both for Predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one of his own opinion. Therefore for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion and I of another. But when His time is come God will do what man cannot--namely, make us both of one mind. Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves so that we may finish our course with joy.--I am, my dearest brother, Ever yours. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Edward Nowers had withdrawn from the Moravians at Herrnhaag. Hutton tells Count Zinzendorf on March 14, 1740: ‘Charles [Wesley] had determined to go to Germany; but now he will not, since he has seen Nowers. John Wesley has carried Nowers wherever he could, speaking against the Brethren. I told Nowers he should smart for speaking against us.’ Mr. and Mrs. Nowers were members of the Foundry. See Benham’s Memoirs of James Hutton, p. 47; Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, pp. 34, 37; and letter of July 29. [2] This note was written at the bottom of the preceding letter. For Molther, see Journal, ii. 312n. [3] Howell Harris was born at Trevecca in 1714, was converted a few months before the Wesleys left for Georgia, and was the means of a great revival in Wales before Wesley began his work in Bristol. Harris heard him preach there on June 18, 1739, and was ‘so overpowered with joy and love that he had much ado to walk home.’ He had been much dissuaded from hearing or seeing Wesley, but called on him after listening to his sermon. Whitefield, who had met him at Cardiff, says in his Journal, March 8, 1739: ‘A burning and shining light has he been in those parts; a barrier against profaneness and immorality, and an indefatigable promoter of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.’ A beautiful letter from Harris to Wesley is given in W.H.S. xiii. 102-3. See Journal, ii. 223-4; and letter of July 2, 1739. [4] On July 20, 1740, Wesley had withdrawn from connexion with the Society in Fetter Lane. Molther, who came to London the previous October, had thrown discredit on public ordinances by his doctrine of Stillness, and had maintained that the blessing gained under Bhler’s ministry was not justifying faith. Wesley labored earnestly to avoid a breach with his old friends; but after what his brother called ‘our delay and false moderation,’ he made a final protest, and took his members to the Foundry. This letter of remonstrance was sent to Herrnhut three weeks later. On September 3, 1741, he had a long conversation with Zinzendorf in Gray’s Inn Walks, when the Count referred to this letter. The conversation (in Latin) and the letter are given in an abbreviated form in the Journal, ii. 488-95. Charles Wesley was in Bristol, but says in his Journal for September 6: ‘I was astonished by a letter from my brother, relating his conference with the Apostle of the Moravians.’ A translation of the conversation is given in Moore’s Wesley, i. 481-8. The footnotes marked by an asterisk, &c., are Wesley’s. [5] Whitefield was in America on May 24. His letter thence to Wesley from ’Cape-Lopen’ is given in Tyerman’s Whitefield, i. 389-90, expressing his regret that Wesley denied the doctrines of Election and Final Perseverance of the Saints. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: 24. 1741 ======================================================================== 1741 To his Brother Charles LONDON, April 21, 1741. It is not possible for me to set out yet. I must go round and glean after G. Whitefield. I will take care of the books you mention. My Journal is not written yet. The bands and Society are my first care. The bands are purged; the Society is purging: and we continually feel whose hand is in the work. Send the new-printed Hymns [Whitefield went to Bristol on April 22, and on the 25th wrote (Life, i. 478), ‘Dear Brother Charles [Wesley] is more and more rash. He has lately printed some very bad hymns.’ These were the Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love; to which were added ‘The Cry of a Reprobate and the Horrible Decree.’ 18 hymns, 12mo, 36 pp. Printed in 1741 by S. & F. Farley, Bristol. The hymns were ‘very bad’ to a Calvinist.] immediately. We presented a thousand of Barclay [Wesley’s Diary shows that he prepared Serious Considerations on Absolute Predestination, extracted from Robert Barclay, in Dec. 1740. It was published by Farley in 1741, 12mo, 24 pp.] to G. Whitefield’s congregation on Sunday. On Sunday next I propose to distribute a thousand more at the Foundry. I am settling a regular method of visiting the sick here. Eight or ten have offered themselves for the work, who are likely to have full employment; for more and more are taken ill every day. Our Lord will thoroughly purge His floor. I rejoice in your speaking your mind freely. O let our love be without dissimulation! But I can’t yet agree with you in all points. Who is your informer concerning N. Bath I doubt the facts. Have you had them face to face Brother Nowers [See letter of March 21, 1740.] is not [in love with her]. Ask him about them. Let the premises be but proved, and I greatly commend the conclusion. I am not clear that Brother Maxfield [Thomas Maxfield had been converted at Bristol in 1739 (see letter of May 28 of that year). Hecame to London with Wesley on March 25, 1741, and was busy there for the next few months.] should not expound at Greyhound Lane; nor can I as yet do without him. Our clergymen have miscarried full as much as the laymen; and that the Moravians are other than laymen I know not. As yet I dare in no wise join with the Moravians: (1) Because their general scheme is Mystical, not scriptural, -- refined in every point above what is written, immeasurably beyond the plain doctrines of the gospel. (2) Because there is darkness and closeness in all their behavior, and guile in almost all their words. (3) Because they not only do not practice, but utterly despise and decry, self-denial and the daily cross. (4) Because they, upon principle, conform to the world in wearing gold and gay or costly apparel. (5) Because they extend Christian liberty, in this and many other respects, beyond what is warranted by Holy Writ. (6) Because they are by no means zealous of good works; or, at least, only to their own people. And (lastly) because they make inward religion swallow up outward in general. For these reasons chiefly I will rather, God being my helper, stand quite alone than join with them -- I mean, till I have full assurance that they will spread none of these errors among the little flock committed to my charge. O my brother, my soul is grieved for you; the poison is in you; fair words have stole away your heart. I fear you can’t now find any at Bristol in so great liberty as Marschall! ‘No English man or woman is like the Moravians!’ [Charles Wesley was now in Bristol. He endorsed the copy of this letter in the Colman Collection: ‘When I inclined to the Germans.’ He had evidently used the words ‘No English man or woman is like the Moravians.’ His brother refers to the danger in the Journal, if. 418-20, 424. The trouble was not over. Lady Huntingdon (Life and Times, i. 41), in a letter to John Wesley on Oct. 24, speaks of Charles having declared open war on the Moravian Stillness, and regarded herself as ‘the instrument in God’s hand that had delivered him from them.’] So the matter is come to a fair issue. Five of us did still stand together a few months since: but two are gone to the right hand (poor Hutchings [See letter of Dec. 20, 1746.] and Cennick); and two more to the left (Mr. Hall and you). Lord, if it be Thy gospel which I preach, arise and maintain Thine own cause! To Joseph Humphreys LONDON, April 27, 1741. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not understand you. What doctrines do you mean that ‘Christ died for all’ or that ‘he that is born of God sinneth not’ These are not peculiar to me. The first is St. Paul’s, the second is St. John’s. What grievous temptation do you mean Let us deal openly with one another. But if any doubt arise, O fly to Christ, and confer not with flesh and blood! I least of all understand what you mean by ‘loving and respecting me.’ Ah, my brother, this will not hold for one month. You will in a very short time love and respect me just as poor Mr. Seward [See letter of March 20, 1739, to Whitefield.] did. Yet ‘gracious art Thou, O Lord, and true are Thy judgments.’ Adieu. To George Whitefield LONDON, April 27, 1741. Would you have me deal plainly with you, my brother I believe you would: then, by the grace of God, I will. Of many things I find you are not rightly informed; of others you speak what you have not well weighed. ‘The Society room at Bristol,’ you say, ‘is adorned.’ How Why, with a piece of green cloth nailed to the desk, two sconces for eight candles each in the middle, and -- nay, I know no more. Now, which of these could be spared I cannot tell; nor would I desire either more adorning or less. But ‘lodgings are made for me or my brother.’ That is, in plain English, there is a little room by the school, where I speak with the people that come to me; and a garret, in which a bed is placed for me. And do you grudge me this Is this the voice of my brother, my son Whitefield You say, farther, ‘that the children at Bristol are clothed as well as taught.’ I am sorry for it; for the cloth is not paid for yet, and was bought without my consent or knowledge. ‘But those of Kingswood have been neglected.’ This is not so, notwithstanding the heavy debt which lay upon it. One master and one mistress have been in the house ever since it has been capable of receiving them; a second master was placed there some months since; and I have long been seeking for two proper mistresses: so that as much has been done, as matters stand, if not more, than I can answer to God and man. Well, but ‘you sent down Brother Cennick to be schoolmaster, whom I have turned out.’ What, from being schoolmaster You know he never was so at all. You know he now neither designs nor desires it. Hitherto, then, there is no ground for the heavy charge of ‘perverting your design for the poor colliers.’ Two years since, your design was to build them a school, that their children also might be taught to fear the Lord. To this end you collected some money more than once; how much I cannot say, till I have my papers. But this I know, it was not near one half of what has been expended on the work. This design you then recommended to me, and I pursued it with all my might, through such a train of difficulties as (I will be bold to say) you have not yet met with in your life. For many months I collected money wherever I was: in Kingswood for that house only; in Bristol for the schoolhouse to be built there; in other places generally for Bath. In June 1739, being able to procure none any other way, I bought a little piece of ground and began building thereon, though I had not then a quarter of the money requisite to finish. However, taking all the debt upon myself, the creditors were willing to stay: and then it was that I took possession of it in my own name -- viz. when the foundation was laid; and from that time to this only I immediately made my will, fixing my brother and you to succeed me therein. Now, my brother, I will answer your main question. I think you can claim no right to that building, either in equity or law, before my demise. And every honest lawyer will tell you the same. But if you repent of your collecting the money towards it I will repay it as speedily as I can; although I now owe more than two hundred pounds on account of Kingswood School only. But it is a poor case that you and I must be talking thus. Indeed, these things ought not so to be. It lay in your power to have prevented all, and yet to have borne testimony to what you call the truth. If you had disliked my sermon, you might have printed another on the same text, and have answered my proofs, without mentioning my name: this had been fair and friendly. Whereas to proceed as you have done is so far from friendship that it is not moral honesty. Moral honesty does not allow of a treacherous wound or of the bewraying of secrets. I will refer the point even to the judgment of Jews, Turk, Infidel, or heretic. Indeed, among the latter (i.e. heretics) you publicly place me; for you rank all the maintainers of universal redemption with Socinians themselves. Alas! my brother, do you not know even this,--that the Socinians allow no redemption at all; that Socinus himself speaks thus -- Tota redemptionis nosfrae per Christurn metaphora [‘The whole of our redemption by Christ is a metaphor.’ See letters of June 19, 1731, and Sept. 24, 1753.] and says expressly, Christ did not die as a ransom for any, but only as an example for all mankind How easy were it for me to hit many other palpable blots in that which you call an answer to my sermon! And how above measure contemptible would you then appear to all impartial men, either of sense or learning! But I spare you; mine hand shall not be upon you. The Lord be judge between me and thee! Alas, my brother, in what manner are you proceeding now, in what manner have you been proceeding even since you unwisely put that weapon into the enemies’ hand Why, you have been continually gathering up all the improper expressions of those who were supposed to be (in some sense) perfect, and then retailing them in your public preaching to the scoffers of the world! Now, you well know that this was just the same thing (in effect), and made the same impression on your hearers, as if under every one of those pictures [you wrote], ‘John Wesley.’ Was this fair or upright dealing A Spaniard would have behaved more tenderly to his English prisoners. Put the case now that I should make reprisals, that I should deal with you as you have done with me, that I should publicly repeat all the wrong expressions Which I have heard from Predestinarians, what would follow Why, all that heard me would run from a Predestinarian as they would from a mad dog. But you are very safe; I cannot meet you here. This field you have all to yourself. I cannot dwell on those things, which have an immediate tendency to make you odious and contemptible. The general tenor both of my public and private exhortations, when I touch thereon at all (as even my enemies know if they would testify), is, ‘Spare the young man, even Absalom, for my sake.’ To Dr. Butler, Bishop of Bristol. BRISTOL, October 13, 1741. MY LORD, -- Several persons have applied to flue for baptism. It has pleased God to make me instrumental in their conversion. This has given them such a prejudice for me, that they desire to be received into the Church by my ministry. They choose likewise to be baptized by immersion, and have engaged me to give your Lordship notice, as the Church requires. To his Brother Charles BRISTOL, November 7, 1741. DEAR BROTHER, -- All last week I found hanging upon me the effects of a violent cold I had contracted in Wales; not, I think (as Mr. Turner and Walcam supposed), by lying in a damp bed at St. Bride’s, but rather by riding continually in the cold and wet nights and preaching immediately after. But I believed it would pass off, and so took little notice of it till Friday morning. I then found myself exceeding sick, and as I walked to Baptist Mills (to pray with Susanna Basil, who was ill of a fever) felt the wind pierce me, as it were, through. At my return I found myself something better; only I could not eat anything at all. Yet I felt no want of strength at the hour of intercession, nor at six in the evening, whilie I was opening and applying those words, ’Sun, stand thou still in Gibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon.’ I was afterwards refreshed, and slept well; so that I apprehended no farther disorder, but rose in the morning as usual, and declared, with a strong voice and enlarged heart, ‘Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love.’ About two in the afternoon, just as I was set down to dinner, a shivering came upon me and a little pain in my back, but no sickness at all, so that I ate a little; and then, growing warm, went to see some that were sick. Finding myself worse about four, I would willingly have lain down. But having promised to see Mrs. Grevil, who had been out of order for some days, I went thither first, and thence to Weavers’ Hall. A man gave me a token for good as I went along: ‘Aye,’ said he, ‘he will be a martyr too by-and-by.’ The scripture I enforced was, ‘My little children, these things I write unto you that ye sin not. But if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.’ I found no want either of inward or outward strength. But afterwards finding my fever increased, I called on Dr. Middleton. By his advice I went home and took my bed: a strange thing to me who had not kept my bed a day (for five-and-thirty years) ever since I had the small-pox. I immediately fell into a profuse sweat, which continued till one or two in the morning. God then gave me refreshing sleep, and afterwards such tranquility of mind that this day, Sunday, November I, seemed the shortest day to me I had ever known in my life. I think a little circumstance ought not to be omitted, although I know there may be an ill construction put upon it. Those words were now so strongly impressed upon my mind that for a considerable time I could not put them out of my thoughts: ‘Blessed is the man that provideth for the poor and needy; the Lord shall deliver him in the time of trouble. The Lord shall comfort him when he lieth sick upon his bed; make Thou all his bed in his sickness.’ On Sunday night likewise I slept well, and was easy all Monday morning. But about three in the afternoon the shivering returned much more violent than before. It continued till I was put to bed. I was then immediately as in a fiery furnace. In a little space I began sweating; but the sweating seemed to increase rather than allay the burning heat. Thus I remained till about eight o’clock, when I suddenly awaked out of a kind of doze, in such a sort of disorder (whether of body or mind, or both) as I know not how to describe. My heart and lungs, and all that was within me, and my soul too, seemed to be in perfect uproar. But I cried unto the Lord in my trouble, and He delivered me out of my distress. I continued in a moderate sweat till near midnight, and then slept pretty well till morning. On Tuesday, November 3, about noon, I was removed to Mr. Hooper’s. Here I enjoyed a blessed calm for several hours, the fit not returning till six in the evening; and then in such a manner as I never heard or read of. I had a quick pulse, attended with violent heat; but no pain, either in my head, or back, or limbs; no sickness, no stitch, no thirst. Surely God is a present help in time of trouble. And He does ‘make all’ my ‘bed in’ my ‘sickness.’ Wed. 4. -- Many of our brethren agreed to seek God to-day by fasting and prayer. About twelve my fever began to rage. At two I dozed a little, and suddenly awaked in such a disorder (only more violent) as that on Monday. The silver cord appeared to be just then loosing, and the wheel breaking at the cistern. The blood whirled to and fro, as if it would immediately force its way through all its vessels, especially in the breast, and excessive burning heat parched up my whole body, both within and without. About three, in a moment the commotion ceased, the heat was over, and the pain gone. Soon after, it made another attack, but not near so violent as the former. This lasted till half-past four, and then vanished away at once. I grew better and better till nine; then I fell asleep, and scarce awaked at all till morning. Thur. 5. -- The noisy joy of the people in the streets [Guy Fawkes Day.] did not agree with me very well; though I am afraid it disordered their poor souls much more than it did my body. About five in the evening my cough returned, and, soon after, the heat and other symptoms; but with this remarkable circumstance, that for fourteen or fifteen hours following I had more or less sleep in every hour. This was one cause why I was never light-headed at all, but had the use of my understanding from the first hour of my illness to the last, as fully as when in perfect health. Fri. 6. -- Between ten and twelve the main shock began. I can but give a faint account of this, not for want of memory, but of words. I felt in my body nothing but storm and tempest, hail-stones and coals of fire. But I do not remember that I felt any fear (such was the mercy of God!) nor any murmuring. And yet I found but a dull, heavy kind of patience, which I knew was not what it ought to be. The fever came rushing upon me as a lion, ready to break all my bones in pieces. My body grew weaker every moment; but I did not feel my soul put on strength. Then it came into my mind, ‘Be still, and see the salvation of the Lord. I will not stir hand or foot; but let Him do with me what is good in His own eyes.’ At once my heart was at ease. ‘My mouth was filled with laughter, and my tongue with joy.’ My eyes overflowed with tears, and I began to sing aloud. One who stood by said, ‘Now he is light-headed.’ I told her, ‘Oh no; I am not light-headed, but I am praising God. God is come to my help, and pain is nothing; glory be to God on high!’ I now found why it was not expedient for me to recover my health sooner: because then I should have lost this experimental proof, how little everything is which can befall the body so long as God carries the soul aloft, as it were on the wings of an eagle. An hour after, I had one more grapple with the enemy, who then seemed to collect all his strength. I essayed to shake myself, and praise God as before, but I was not able; the power was departed from me. I was shorn of my strength, and became weak and like another man. Then I said, ‘Yet here I hold; lo, I come to bear Thy will, O God.’ Immediately He returned to my soul, and lifted up the light of His countenance. And I felt, ‘He rideth easily enough whom the grace of God carrieth.’ I supposed the fit was now over, it being about five in the afternoon, and began to compose myself for sleep; when I felt first a chill, and then a burning all over, attended with such an universal faintness, and weariness, and utter loss of strength, as if the whole frame of nature had been dissolved. Just then my nurse, I know not why, took me out of bed and placed me in a chair. Presently a purging began, which I believe saved my life. I grew easier from that hour, and had such a night’s rest as I have not had before since it pleased God to lay His hand upon me. To James Hutton BRISTOL, November 14, 1741. DEAR JEMMY, -- Almost ever since the beginning of my illness [See previous letter.] (which it has now pleased God in some measure to remove) it has been much upon my mind, especially when I knew not but my Lord was requiring my soul of me, to cause a few words to be written in my name to you or some of the Brethren; and I look upon yours as a providential indication that the time of doing it is now come. I am afraid that the Moravian teachers who have been lately in London (I mean Mr. Spangenberg, Molther, and the rest) have, with regard to my brother and me (I speak plainly), acted contrary to justice, mercy, and truth. 1. To justice. Is it just for you, my brethren, to enter thus into other men’s labors without (I speak of present things), nay, quite contrary to, the judgment and consent of those who were laboring therein before Let us put a case. Suppose I, having learned German perfectly, should in the neighborhood of Marienborn, or in Herrnhut itself (the thing is supposable, if not practicable), go and preach directly contrary to the judgment and consent of the Count, I should think myself to be equally just with a robber on the highway. 2. To mercy. For where is your mercy in separating chief friends, in alluring from us to yourselves by oily words those who have grown up with us from the beginning, who have with us borne the burthen and heat of the day, and were till lately determined to live and die with us I mean (to mention no more) Mr. Gambold, Hutchings, Kinchin, and my brother Hall. What use are these of to you now you have them although, indeed, they are utterly useless to us. What possible end could the bereaving us of them answer, except it were this -- that, by necessitating us to undergo labours which our bodies could not bear, you might hasten our return to Him that sent us For my part, I cannot but declare my sense to be this--that, if I had now gone hence, I should have fallen in my uprightness, but my blood would God have required at your hands. 3. As to truth. How little have you regarded that golden rule ‘Let love be without dissimulation’! How much, very much, of reserve, darkness, and evasion has been in all your proceedings! so much that in very deed I know not now where to have you or how to understand what you say. I know not whether you receive the gospel as the adequate rule either of faith or practice. The good God have mercy upon you if you do or if you do not. To Him I commend my cause, and remain Your sincere friend. To Mr. James Hutton, Bookseller, In Little Wild Street, Near Clare Market, London. To a Clergyman Sunday Morning, [ about 1741.] REVEREND SIR, -- A flying report which I heard last night occasions you this trouble. That I may not put you to any inconvenience (which I should be sorry to do; it would not be doing as I would be done to), I beg to know whether you have any scruples as to administering the Lord’s Supper to, Reverend sir, Your brother and servant. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] After his return from America on March 11, 1741, Whitefield spent several weeks in the neighborhood of London; and Wesley found it necessary to stay there to deal with the difficulties he had created. It was a time of great anxiety, which told heavily on Wesley’s health. No wonder his heart burned towards such Moravians as Peter Bhler, with whom he had long conversations on April 6 and May 2. His brother had been even more drawn to them; and this letter shows why Wesley could not join their Church. See Journal, if. 441-2, 451-2. Jackson considers Wesley was mistaken in thinking Charles had again been affected by Moravian Stillness. See his Charles Wesley, i. 275-8. [2] On September 9, 1790, Wesley read over Humphreys’ Experience and wrote that he was ‘the first lay preacher that assisted me in England in the year 1738. [Probably at Fetter Lane. On Sept. 1, 1740, he began to assist Wesley at the Foundry. See Journal, ii. 352n; Tyerman’s Wesley, i. 347.] . . . He turned Calvinist, and joined Mr. Whitefield, and published an invective against my brother and me.’ He afterwards became a Presbyterian minister, and at last received Episcopal ordination. The ‘invective’ was a letter, not a bitter one, which Whitefield sent to the newspapers. He declared his love for Wesley, but his intention ‘openly to renounce your peculiar doctrines.’ [3] Whitefield had written a long letter to Wesley from Georgia on December 24, 1740. This was printed without his leave or Wesley’s, and great numbers of copies were given away at the Foundry. Wesley procured one of them, explained the situation, and tore it in pieces. ‘Every one who had received it did the same.’ Wesley went to see Whitefield in London on March 28, and found that he was resolved to preach against the Wesleys, whose gospel he held to be different from his. On April 4 (Diary) Wesley talked freely with him as they rode in the coach, and on the 27th wrote this letter. See Journal, ii. 421-2, 439, 441; Tyerman’s Whitefield, i. 469-75; and letter of April 21. John Cennick was born at Reading in 1718, and was introduced to the Wesleys and Whitefield by Charles Kinchin. Wesley met him at Reading on March 9, 1739 (see letter of March i6 of that year). Cennick says in his Life that he stayed several days with Whitefield in London in June 1739. When he said he had a mind to visit the brethren at Bristol, Whitefield told him that Wesley was going to build a school for the colliers’ children at Kingswood, and asked if he was willing to be one of the masters there. Cennick says he was ‘obedient’ to Whitefield’s suggestion. He reached Bristol on June 12. Wesley had left that day in haste for London, but had given directions that Cennick was to be received ‘as his own self.’ Two days later he began to preach; and though on his return Wesley was desired to forbid him, he encouraged him to go on. Cennick recommended Wesley on August 16, 1740, to appoint William Spencer to be ‘a sort of usher to the school at Kingswood under me.’ Cennick himself was employed as lay preacher, not as schoolmaster. Whitefield was wrong in saying that Wesley had turned him out of his position as schoolmaster. He never held that position, though he seems to have taken some oversight of the school, and to have given it an hour or two when not engaged in preaching. Cennick became a strong Calvinist, and in March 1741 caused a division in the Society at Kingswood. In 1745 he joined the Moravians. He died in 1755, leaving hymns which are still loved and cherished. See Journal, if. 149-50n, 228n; W.H.S. vi. 101, 133. [4] Joseph Butler (1692-1752), author of the Analogy, was Bishop of Bristol 1738-50. Wesley had two interviews with him, on August 16 and 18, 1739. See Diary in Journal, ii. 256-8n. [5] Captain Turner and his wife were Bristol Methodists. Wesley’s Diary (Journal, viii. 161-2, 164; ii. 415) notes his visits to their house. The captain was with Wesley in Wales (ibid. ii. 509-12). His report about a Religious Society at St. Ives led Charles Wesley to begin work in Cornwall in 1743 (Moore’s Wesley, ii. 8). -- John Walcam was a broker and teaman in Castle Precincts, whose daughter’s illness is described in Journal, iii. 527-30: see W.H.S. iv. 95-6. -- Dr. Middleton attended Charles Wesley without fee in August 1740. In July 1744 Charles ‘passed two hours in Christian conference and prayer with Dr. Middleton and the Church in his house.’ In 1754 he says the doctor had been a father to Mrs. Charles in her illness. When he died in 1760, the poet wrote some beautiful memorial verses about this true friend. -- Mr. Hooper was a maltster in Old Market Street. Charles Wesley visited Mrs. Hooper in her last illness, and preached her funeral sermon on May 8, 1741. [6] Spangenberg was the Moravian minister in Savannah who asked Wesley the pointed questions as to his religious state on his arrival in America. He reached Georgia in June 1735, and on May 15, 1736, left to take charge of the work in Pennsylvania. He returned to London on October 24, 1739, and ‘on the next day was present at the English lovefeast, when he spoke so well respecting the phlegmatica cornplexio, ardent temperament, and warmth of affection infused into the soul by grace, and respecting the quiet repose to be found in the blood of Christ, that many of the brethren were penetrated to the heart.’ Wesley was in Bristol, and did not return to London till November 3, when he found that Molther’s doctrine of Stillness was working mischief. Next day he heard Spangenberg exhort all to lie still in God’s hand. On the 7th he had a long conference on the subject with Spangenberg. Molther had come to London on October 18 on his way to Pennsylvania, and remained till September 1740, when he was summoned to Germany. In 1741 a Synodal Conference was held in Red Lion Street from September 11 to 23, consisting of ‘the principal laborers in the Church of the Brethren.’ See Journal, i. 151, if. 312-16; Benham’s Hutton, pp. 44, 74-5. [7] This is an early letter, evidently sent to the clergyman in some place where Wesley was not even sure that he would be allowed to take the Lord’s supper. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: 25. VOLUME 2 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 2 Events A PERIOD OF GREAT EXTENSION MAY 17, 1742, TO NOVEMBER 27, 1750 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1742 May 28 First Visit to Newcastle-upon-Tyne June 6 Preaches on his father’s tomb. July 30 Death of Susanna Wesley 1743 May 29 Opens West Street Chapel, London Aug.26 Sets out for Cornwall Oct.20 Riot at Wednesbury 1744 June 25 First Conference Aug.24 His last University sermon 1747 Aug. 9 First Visit to Ireland 1749 Apr. 8 Marriage of Charles Wesley Oct. 3 Grace Murray marries John Bennet Up to this period Wesley’s parish had been limited to London and Bristol, with Oxford and a few places between these centres. John Nelson, who dreamt that the Wesleys were sitting at his fireside, wrote urgent invitations for Birstall to be visited. This and Lady Huntingdon’s call to Donnington Park prepared the way for that extension to Newcastle-upon-Tyne which she had previously suggested to Wesley. He found that he had not come too soon. Newcastle became one of the chief centres of Methodist life and influence. Cornwall was also visited, and soon took rank as pre-eminently the Methodist county. Fierce riots mark this period in Staffordshire, Cornwall, and Ireland, which have left their trace on the letters. The personal vindication of February 8, 1745, has been ascribed to John Wesley in Mr. Arnold Lunn’s Life, and is therefore given in full, but the initials to the shorthand copy are Ch.W., who himself refers to it as his. See page 33. Wesley’s patriotism is seen in his letters from Newcastle when the city was threatened in 1745 by the army of the Young Pretender; and his detachment of spirit in the correspondence with ’John Smith,’ begun in the midst of the panic. His correspondence with Ebenezer Blackwell shows how Wesley enjoyed the confidence of the London banker and was ready to make inquiries for him in Ireland. Wesley laid before him his project for A Christian Library; and also warned him against being immersed in business cares. He himself found them ’apt to damp and deaden’ his soul; what, then, must his friend feel, ‘engaged all the day long with such a multiplicity of them!’ Charles Wesley’s marriage in 1749 gave him a home in Bristol. The deadly blow to Wesley’s personal happiness caused by the marriage of Grace Murray to John Bennet gives a final touch of pathos to the letters of a period which includes the death of his mother and the distress caused by the moral collapse of his brother-in-law Westley Hall. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: 26. 1742 ======================================================================== 1742 To his Brother Charles LONDON, May 17, 1742 DEAR BROTHER, -- I am in a great strait. I wrote to Lady Huntingdon (just as I did to you), ’I am inclined to believe one of us must soon take a journey into Yorkshire.’ It was then in my mind to desire you to go first; only I was afraid you would think I shifted off the laboring-oar. But on the receipt of your last I altered my design, and determined to think of it no farther yet. I sent word this morning to Brentford and Windsor of my preaching there on Thursday in my way to Bristol; but within two or three hours I received a letter from Lady Huntingdon, part of which is as follows: MY DEAR FRIEND, -- The very thought of seeing you here has filled us with great joy. Poor dear Miss Cooper is still living; and, it is very remarkable, in the beginning of her illness she said, ‘I should be glad to see one of them just before I died.’ Her eyes with mine overflow with the loving-kindness of the Lord, who has even a regard to the desires of our hearts. I beg you will set out as soon as may be after receiving this; as every day she has lived this last fortnight seems a fresh miracle, wrought for some purpose not yet known. She then tells me she has ordered an horse for John Taylor [John Taylor and his brother David (see Journal, iii. 24-5n) were in the service of the Earl of Huntingdon. He went with Wesley to Birstall, and was with him at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and at Epworth, where he stood in the churchyard and gave notice as the people came out from the service: ‘Mr. Wesley, not being permitted to preach in the church, designs to preach here at six o’clock.’] to come down with me. It seems to me I ought to go, and that without delay. I think of going early in the morning to Bexley and correcting Mr. Piers’s sermon, [The elaborate care which they used in revising such deliverances may be seen from the Diary notes in Journal, ii. 387-8.] and of setting out for Donnington on Wednesday. If you write thither as soon as you receive this, your letter will be there near as soon as me; and I will either go on into Lincolnshire for a week, or come straight to Bristol, as you will. Let all the brethren pray for me. Adieu! To his Brother Charles LONDON, Saturday, July 31, 1742. Yesterday, about three in the afternoon, as soon as Intercession was ended, I went up to my mother. I found her pulse almost gone and her fingers dead; so that it was easy to see her spirit was on the wing for eternity. After using the Commendatory Prayer, I sat down on her bedside, and with three or four of our sisters sung a requiem to her parting soul. She continued in just the same way as my father was, struggling and gasping for life, though (as I could judge by several signs) perfectly sensible, till near four o’clock. I was then going to drink a dish o’ tea, being faint and weary, when one called me again to the bedside. It was just four o’clock. She opened her eyes wide and fixed them upwards for a moment. Then the lids dropped, and the soul was set at liberty without one struggle or groan or sigh. My heart does not, and I am absolutely assured [God does not condemn me for any want of duty toward] her in any kind, except only [that I have not reproved her so plainly and fully as I should have done]. Absurdum, iniquum, injustum, supra omnem modum mihi videtur, quod quis isto modo me lacessat. [‘Absurd, unfair, unjust beyond all measure it seems to me, that any one should attack me in that way.’] Now, I would have you send me word immediately whom I shall take into the house, to keep the Accounts, &c. &c. &c., in the room of T. Meyrick, and what [woman as hired girl or a lady in place of Betty Brown]. I wait your answer. I will carry the books to Evesham, [He was at Evesham on Aug. 17. The books were probably Charles Wesley’s Hymns and Sacred Poems, published that year.] if I do not send before. The day of my setting out hence (if I have life and health) is Monday fortnight, and on Thursday fortnight I hope to be at Bristol. I shall write Lady Huntingdon [He was at this time on very intimate terms with Lady Huntingdon, and frequently visited her at Donnington Park (Life and Times, i. 58). His recent journey to the North had been suggested by a letter from her. See letter of July 12, 1743.] word of my mother’s death to-night. She is to be buried to-morrow evening. Adieu. To Captain Robert Williams LONDON, August 3, 1742. SIR, -- To prove that Robert Williams traded very largely during the time he was at Savannah, that he built several considerable buildings both at Savannah and other parts of the colony, that he greatly improved large tracts of land there, and was esteemed to have one of the chief settlements in the colony, you have not so much as quoted ‘common fame.’ So he that will believe it, let him believe it. But you have quoted common fame to support several charges against John Wesley, clerk: as, that he seduced its common persons settled there to idleness; that he used too great familiarities with Miss Hopkey, and continued so to do till she was married to Mr. William Williamson of Savannah, a gentleman of considerable note there (’tis much a gentleman of so considerable note as Mr. William Williamson would marry her!); that he sent her several letters and messages after her marriage, desiring her to meet him at divers unseasonable hours and places, many of which (hours or places) were at his, the said Wesley’s, own closet. A report was, you say, that these things were so. Would any man desire better proof I am not surprised at all that upon such evidence you should advance such assertions. But I really am at what you afterwards assert as upon your own personal knowledge -- viz. that two Bills of Indictment being preferred against John Wesley and sent to the Grand Jury of Savannah (Bills of Indictment sent to a Grand Jury! What kind of proceeding is this), this deponent and the rest of the Grand Jury did UNANIMOUSLY agree to the said Bills. How dare you, sir, assert so gross a falsehood Have you no regard either for your reputation or your soul Do you think there is no God to judge the earth You know, you must know, how large a part of that Grand Jury did absolutely disagree to every Bill of the two presentments; and gave those reasons of their disagreement to the Trustees, which neither you nor any man has yet chose to answer. You assert, farther, that I was bailed by two freeholders of Savannah for my appearance at the then next Sessions. Here I charge you with a second gross, willful falsehood. You know I never was bailed at all. If I was, name the men (Henry Lloyd is ready to confront you) or produce an attested copy of the Record of Court. You assert, thirdly, that a little before the Sessions came on (viz. the next Sessions after the Bills were found) I deserted my bail. Here is another gross, willful, palpable untruth. For (1) no bail was ever given; (2) I appeared at seven Sessions successively after those Bills were found -- viz. on Thursday, Sept. 1, or Friday, Sept. 2; at three other Sessions held in September and October; on Thursday, Nov. 22 [3]; and lastly, on Thursday, Nov. 22 [24]. Your smaller falsehoods--as that I quitted the colony about the middle of the night, that from Purrysburg to Charlestown is about two hundred miles (you should have said about ninety), that I walked on foot from thence to Charlestown -- I pass over as not material. You, lastly, assert that the Justices threatened to prosecute and imprison my bail for such my desertion, who were in the utmost confusion concerning the same; but by the interposition of this deponent and several others on behalf of the said bail, and to prevent destruction to their several families, the Justices respited their recognizances during pleasure. This is altogether fit to crown the whole. Now, sir, as you know in your own soul that every word of this is pure invention, without one grain of truth from the beginning to the end, what amends can you ever make, either to God, or to me, or to the world Into what a dreadful dilemma have you here brought yourself! You must openly retract an open slander, or you must wade through thick and thin to support it; till that God, to whom I appeal, shall maintain His own cause and sweep you away from the earth. -- I am, sir, Your friend. N.B. -- This was written July 16, but I had not leisure to transcribe it before August 3, 1742. [Wesley left Bristol on July 18 and found when he got to London that his mother was dying. The letter was transcribed two days after her funeral. It appeared in the Weekly History for Aug. 14, 1742.] To Howell Harris LONDON, August 6, 1742. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I must write; though where my letter will find you, that I know not, only that it will be under the shadow of the Almighty -- yea, in the arms of Him that loveth you. Now, let Him cover your head in the day of battle! Let His faithfulness and truth be thy shield and buckler! Let Him comfort thy heart, and, after thou hast suffered awhile, make thee perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle thee! I have just read yours dated at Trevecca, October 19, 1741 And what is it that we contend about Allow such a perfection as you have there described, and all farther dispute I account vain jangling and mere strife of words. As to the other point, we agree (1) that no man can have any power except it be given him from above; (2) that no man can merit anything but hell, seeing all other merit is in the blood of the Lamb. For those two fundamental points both you and I earnestly contend. Why then, if we both disclaim all power and all merit in man, what need of this great gulf to be fixed between us Brother, is thy heart with mine, as my heart is with thy heart If it be, give me thy hand. I am indeed a poor, foolish, sinful worm; and how long my Lord will use me I know not. I sometimes think the time is coming when He will lay me aside; for surely never before did He send such a laborer into such an harvest. But, so long as I am continued in the work, let us rise up together against the evildoers. Let us not weaken, but (if it be our Lord’s will) strengthen one another’s hands in God. My brother, my soul is gone forth to meet thee; let us fall upon one another’s neck. The good Lord blot out all that is past, and let there henceforward be peace between me and thee! --I am, my dear brother, Ever yours. PS.--On Friday last my mother went home with the voice of praise and thanksgiving. [See letter of July 31.] To Captain Robert Williams BRISTOL, October 17, 1742 SIR, -- I really did you wrong. I believed the letter said to come from your very humble servant had been of your own composing till I had read it half through. But, on a narrower observation, I soon took knowledge both of the style and turn of thought so peculiar to Mr. Thomas Christie, once Recorder of Savannah, but now I fear (as before) wandering about to seek a piece of bread. I would not tread upon a worm; therefore let him pass. My concern, sir, is with you. Not that I should take notice of such a composition; only some might think silence a proof of guilt. That Mr. Wesley’s answer is so indirect and full of evasion as to be a justification rather than confutation of your charge; that his leaving any doubt as to your great and well-known improvements plainly shows his malice and insincerity; and that Mr. Christie has still farther mementoes to convince the world what a base and jesuitical man he is, -- these, being mere rhetorical flowers fit to embellish the discourse, need no particular reply. But the fact (says your friend) with regard to the indictments stands in a different light than he tells it, and, as to his relation of persons dissenting on the Grand Jury, must be a story of his own making. That is easily known. The original paper is lodged at the Trustees’ Office at Palace Yard. And Mr. Fallowfield, one of those dissenters, you know succeeded Mr. Causton when Mr. Christie and he were displaced from their offices. ’Tis great pity that your friend, too, did not make affidavit of the extraordinary particulars following: that Mr. Wesley continued to disturb the public peace; that he endeavored to make an insurrection in the public Court while sitting; that the Magistrates received several petitions, laying fresh accusations to his charge, and declaring his design of leaving the colony privately (an extremely private design, of which five days before I had given notice by an advertisement set up in the market-place!); that several persons took an opportunity of going off with him with several sums of money; that they gave out that they would oppose with violence any person that should attempt to seize any of them; and that, immediately after, a great reward was affixed publicly for apprehending of Mr. Wesley. You can’t but own these are a great improvement upon your design, and would sound as well as your own affidavit itself. But would it not be needful first for Mr. Christie and you to confer together and agree upon your story else he may again blunder out more than you desire and confute you instead of me. This it is undeniable he has done now, and that in the most material parts of your evidence. For, first, you aver that Mr. Wesley, being bailed for the appearance at the then next Sessions, a little before the Sessions came on, deferred his bail and went away. No, says Mr. Christie, Mr. Wesley, after he was bailed, did appear at the next Court. I desired his trial might be brought on, or his recognizance estreated. Again, Mr. Christie flatly affirms that Mr. John Coats, who was one of his bail, went off with Mr. Wesley and never returned; whereas you aver upon oath that the Justices threatened to prosecute and imprison his bail, who were in the utmost confusion. But by the interposition of this deponent and several others, on behalf of the said bail, and to prevent destruction to their respective families, the Justices respited their recognizances during pleasure. Now, sir, feeling these accounts are utterly inconsistent, feeling it is impossible ever to reconcile them, give me leave to ask you one plain question, which I would beg you seriously to consider. Is Thomas Christie, Esq., a gross, notorious liar, one who neither fears God nor regards man Or is Robert Williams, merchant, a vain, weak man, who, having causelessly and willfully forsworn himself, neither knows how to get backward or forward, how to retract his perjury or how to defend it -- I am, sir, Your friend. To a Gentleman NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, November 16, 1742 My father’s method was to visit all his parishioners, sick or well, from house to house, to talk with each of them on the things of God and observe severally the state of their souls. What he then observed he minuted down in a book kept for that purpose. In this manner he went through his parish (which was near three miles long) three times. He was visiting it the fourth time round when he fell into his last sickness. To Mrs. Hall (Martha Wesley) NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, November 17, 1742. DEAR SISTER, -- I believe the death of your children is a great instance of the goodness of God towards you. You have often mentioned to me how much of your time they took up! Now that time is restored to you, and you have nothing to do but to serve our Lord without carefulness and without distraction till you are sanctified in body, soul, and spirit. As soon as I saw Mr. Hall I invited him to stay at the Foundry, but he desired I would have him excused. There is a strange inconsistency in his tempers and sentiments with regard to me. The still brethren have gradually infused into him as much as they could of their own contempt of me and my brother, and dislike of our whole method of proceeding, which is as different from theirs as light from darkness: nay, they have blunderingly taught him to find fault even with my economy and outward management both of my family and Society; whereas I know this is the peculiar talent which God has given me, wherein (by His grace) I am not behind the very chiefest of them. Notwithstanding this there remains in him something of his old regard for me which he had at Oxford, and by-and-by it will prevail. He will find out these wretched men, and the clouds will flee away. My belief is that the present design of God is to visit the poor desolate Church of England, and that therefore neither deluded Mr. Gambold [Gambold had preached before the University at Oxford in 1741 but formally separated from the Church of England in 1742, and joined the Moravians, among whom he became an assistant bishop in 1754. He was estranged from the Wesleys. See Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 176-8.] nor any who leave it will prosper. O pray for the peace of Jerusalem! ‘They shall prosper that love thee.’ Mr. Hall has paid me for the books. I don’t want any money of you; your love is sufficient. But write as often and as largely as you can to. Your affectionate friend and Brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] On Monday, May 17, 1742 Wesley had arranged to set out for Bristol, but was unexpectedly prevented. In the afternoon he received a letter from Lady Huntingdon at Donnington Park telling him that Miss Cooper was at the point of death and pressing him to come and pay the last office of friendship. He set out on Thursday, and reached Lady Huntingdon’s on Saturday afternoon. He found his friend just alive; but she revived on his coming, and for three days they ‘rejoiced in the grace of God, whereby she was filled with an hope full of immortality.’ Lady Huntingdon sent a touching account of her death to Mrs. Bethel, of Bath: ‘Her last hours were all spent in prayer; and when her change came, her countenance spoke her blessed; and I for a moment tasted her joy, for I thought my whole soul was so filled with delight it could have followed.’ See Journal, iii 9-11; Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon i. 52-3 and letter of February 17, 1780. Henry Piers, Vicar of Bexley, found peace with God through Charles Wesley and John Bray on June 10, 1738. In 1742 when he preached at Sevenoaks, before the clergy of the Deanery of Shoreham, on I Cor. iv. 1-2, Wesley revised his sermon. He went with the Wesleys and John Meriton to St. Mary’s, Oxford, on August 24, 1744, when John Wesley preached on Scriptural Christianity. A dishonest agent in the West Indies involved him in financial difficulties in 1759. He died on January 27, 1770, aged seventy-five. See C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 103-4 W.H.S. v. 225-7. [2] Wesley returned to London on July 20, after his visit to Epworth. He found his mother ‘on the borders of eternity.’ She died on Friday afternoon, the 30th. Early editions of the Journal give that date, but in later ones and on the tombstone the 23rd is put in error. This letter and that of August 6 to Howell Harris give the date as July 30. The pieces of the letter within brackets are in shorthand in the original, and difficult to decipher. They seem to point to some unjust criticism of his relations to his mother. The reproof probably refers to her attitude to his Methodist beliefs such as Charles Wesley had in mind when he wrote the verses for her tombstone, which spoke of her ‘legal night of seventy years.’ See her letter to her son Samuel in Priestley’s Letters, pp. 91-4. Works, xiii. 409; letter of Dec. 24, 1785. Thomas Meyrick was one of the preachers who had been trained for the Law, and had evidently taken charge of Book Affairs at the Foundery. He was now resuming his itinerancy. The Journal gives a remarkable account of his recovery from a malignant fever, and also contains a grateful letter from him to Wesley. He afterwards became curate of a chapel near Halifax, where he died about 1770. See Journal, iii. 56, 173-4; Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 270-2: and for the history and purchase of the Foundery, Works, viii. 37-8; Journal, ii. 316-19n; Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 534-6. [3] A scurrilous attack in Hudibrastic verse was published at Bristol in 1743, The Progress of Methodism in Bristol, with an Appendix on the charges made by Robert Williams that two freeholders of Savannah became bail for Wesley’s appearance at the Sessions, and that he left them in the lurch. See Journal, i. 85-6, iii. 456, viii. 256-7; Tyerman’s Wesley, i. 429-30; Green’s Bibliography, No. 20, and Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 156; and letters of April 12, 1740, and October 17, 1742. [4] This letter is to be read in connection with that of August 3. Thomas Christie issued the warrant for the arrest of Wesley at Savannah on August 8, 1737. So far from leaving secretly, Wesley put up this advertisement in the great square on November 24: ‘Whereas John Wesley designs shortly to set out for England, This is to desire those who have borrowed any books of him, to return them as soon as they conveniently can.’ See Journal, i. 376-400, viii. 304-7. [5] This gentleman asked Wesley to send him an account of what his father called his Notitia Parochialis (Clarke’s Wesley Family, i. 355). Samuel Wesley’s Advice to a Young Clergyman is printed in Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 500-34 (for Notitia, see p. 506). Wesley published it in 1735 (Rivington). [6]Martha Wesley married Westley Hall in 1735. Next year he became curate at Fisherton, near Salisbury, where they had a large house and garden near the church. Nine of the ten children died in infancy. See letter of August 18, 1743. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: 27. 1743 ======================================================================== 1743 To Mrs. Harper (Emilia Wesley) NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE:, June 30, 1743. DEAR EMLY, -- Once, I think, I told you my mind freely before; I am constrained to do so once again. You say, ‘From the time of my coming to London till last Christmas you would not do me the least kindness.’ Do I dream, or you Whose house were you in for three months and upwards By whose money were you sustained It is a poor case that I am forced to mention these things. But ‘I would not take you lodgings in fifteen weeks.’ No, nor should I have done in fifteen years. I never once imagined that you expected me to do this! Shall I leave the Word of God to serve tables You should know I have quite other things to mind; temporal things I shall mind less and less. ‘When I was removed, you never concerned yourself about me.’ That is not the fact. What my brother does I do. Besides, I myself spoke to you abundance of times before Christmas last. ‘When I was at preaching, you would scarce speak to me.’ Yes; at least as much as to my sister Wright, or indeed as I did to any else at those times. ‘I impute all your unkindness to one principle you hold--that natural affection is a great weakness, if not a sin.’ What is this principle I hold That natural affection is a sin or that adultery is a virtue or that Mahomet was a prophet of God and that Jesus Christ was a son of Belial You may as well impute all these principles to me as one. I hold one just as much as the other. O Emmy, never let that idle, senseless accusation come out of your mouth. Do you hold that principle, ‘that we ought to be just (i.e. pay our debts) before we are merciful’ If I held it, I should not give one shilling for these two years either to you or any other. And, indeed, I have for some time stayed my hand; so that I give next to nothing, except what I give to my relations. And I am often in doubt with regard to that, not whether natural affection be not a sin, but whether it ought to supersede common justice. You know nothing of my temporal circumstances and the straits I am in almost continually; so that, were it not for the reputation of my great riches, I could not stand one week. I have now done with myself, and have only a few words concerning you. You are of all creatures the most unthankful to God and man. I stand amazed at you. How little have you profited under such means of improvement! Surely, whenever your eyes are opened, whenever you see your own tempers, with the advantages you have enjoyed, you will make no scruple to pronounce yourself (whores and murderers not excepted) the very chief of sinners. -- I am, &c. To the Mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne NEWCASTLE, July 12 1743. MR. MAYOR, -- A message was delivered to me yesterday in the street by one at the head of a crowd of people, to this effect: ‘Mr. Mayor, being informed of the tumult you raised on Sunday, discharges you from preaching at the Sand Hill any more.’ I reverence all magistrates as the ministers of God. Therefore at the Sand Hill I will preach no more. This is my answer to you as a magistrate. But will you not pardon me, sir, if I add a few words, not as one accused to a judge, but as one reasonable man speaking to another When I was first pressed by the Countess of Huntingdon to go and preach to the colliers in or near Newcastle, that objection immediately occurred, ‘Have they no churches and ministers already’ It was answered, ‘They have churches, but they never go to them! and ministers, but they seldom or never hear them! Perhaps they may hear you. And what if you save (under God) but one soul’ I yielded. I took up my cross and came. I preached Jesus, the Savior of sinners. Many sinners of all sorts came and heard. Many were (and are) saved from their sins. The drunkards are sober, the common swearers fear God, the Sabbath-breakers now keep that day holy. These facts are undeniable, the persons being well known and ready at any time to attest them. Last week I was informed that abundance of Sabbath-breakers and drunkards used to wander about the Sand Hill on Sunday evenings. Immediately my heart burned within me to call those sinners also to repentance. I came, and (nothing terrified by their noise) cried aloud in the name of the Lord, -- ‘Sinners, turn; why will you die God, your Maker, asks you why.’ They subsided apace, and more and more began to sink into seriousness. Some gentlemen (I am sorry to say it) labored exceedingly to prevent this; and one particularly, in light gray clothes, went to and fro with great diligence, and gave money to, I believe, twenty or thirty persons, to shout and strike or push their neighbors. Much tumult arose. In the intervals of calm I cried the more earnestly, ‘Turn ye, turn ye; for why will ye die, O house of Israel’ After almost an hour (the time I had first proposed) I withdrew, walking through the thickest of the rioters, who dropped away to the right and left, and could no more bear my eye than they could His that sent me. [See Journal, iii 80-1.] Now, sir, what an insult it is upon common sense to say that I raised that tumult. Had only these gentlemen (so called) stood quietly, I would have answered for the behavior of the rest, who within one quarter of an hour would have been as orderly and silent as an assembly in a court of justice. However that be, I have now delivered my own soul; and if these poor sheep do continue in sin, and consequently perish, I am clear. I have done what in me lay; their blood is not on my head. I am persuaded, sir, you do not take the freedom with which I have spoken as a mark of disrespect, but rather as a proof that I am, sir, Your most obedient servant. To Westley Hall LONDON, August 18, 1743. DEAR BROTHER, -- You are angry. Therefore you do not see clearly. Compose yourself (by the grace of God), and I will speak. I did think you sincere. I think otherwise now. There is no inconsistency in this. I have forgiven but not forgotten you for poor Brother Hodges. Do you separate chief friends, and then wipe your mouth and say you have done no evil You are quite insincere in this, as well as in calling yourself a presbyter of the Church of England. Why, you believe the Church of England to be no Church at all, no part of the Church of Christ. Don’t shuffle and evade. You spoke plain enough to Mrs. Clark and to Mrs. Stotesbury and her husband; and your trying to palliate the matter made it still worse, and was a fresh proof of your insincerity. Alas, my brother! who will tell you the plain truth You are a weak, injudicious, fickle, irresolute man; deeply enthusiastic and highly opiniated of yourself; and therefore a fit tool for those who apply to your weak side, vanity. The first considerable step you took, after God had put you under my care, without preconsulting me, was the courting my poor sister Kezzy, to which I cannot but ascribe her death.[See heading to letter of Dec. 22, 1747.] What a gross piece of weakness and enthusiasm was this! For you may remember you fathered all upon God! You then jilted one of my sisters, and married the other; and all was by inspiration still. Your life has been one blunder ever since. I pray God give you a sound mind. -- I am Your true friend and affectionate Brother. Indeed, my brother, you need a tutor now more than when you came first to Oxford. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Mrs. Harper’s husband died about the time she came to London in 1740. She was with her mother when she died, and was a regular attendant at the Foundery. After Wesley took West Street Chapel, Mrs. Harper lived in the chapel-house (which passed into Wesley’s hands in May 1743), and died there in 1771 Mrs. Wright (Hefty Wesley) was living at Stanmore in 1743, and tells her brother that she had ‘long desired to know one thing, Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ See Journal, iii. 78n; Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 315 [2] The name of the Mayor is not given, though Wesley was always careful in these matters. The fact is that John Ord, the Mayor of the year, died on July 1. His successor, Matthew Ridley, was not appointed until July 15. He served for the remainder of the civic year, and was elected again in 1751 and 1759. James Everett says this letter was never printed, but Thomas Marriott gave him a copy. [3] Westley Hall had come under the influence of Moravian Stillness He had lost his faith, and fallen into serious delusions. He wrote to Wesley on August 16, 1743: DEAR BROTHER. – ’Tis well if you have not tasted of the gall of bitterness. Take heed that you be not led captive in the bonds of uncharitableness! To profess as you did your generous persuasions of my sincerity, &c., even till now, if you had ever found such witnesses as you pretend of guile and dissimulation, was such a stretch of inconsistency (not to say insincerity) as one should not have suspected had not you yourself declared it! It might perhaps have given some appearance of strength and terror to your weak words, if you had added but the names of such formidable accusers I Pray let me know them, that I may publish them with this if need be to all the world, that so, all deceit and guile being thus discovered, you may find yourself undeceived at last, and own as publicly, yourself aright, nor yet that you have neither known Your affectionate Brother. See letters of November 17, 1742 and December 30, 1745 to him. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: 28. 1744 ======================================================================== 1744 To Richard Viney To King George II March 5, 1744. To THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The humble Address of the Societies in England and Wales, in derision called Methodists. MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, -- So inconsiderable as we are, ‘a people scattered and peeled, and trodden under-foot, from the beginning hitherto,’ we should in no wise have presumed even on this great occasion to open our lips to your Majesty, had we not been induced, indeed constrained, so to do by two considerations: the one, that, in spite of all our remonstrances on that head, we are continually represented as a peculiar sect of men, separating ourselves from the Established Church; the other, that we are still traduced as inclined to Popery, and consequently disaffected to your Majesty. Upon these considerations we think it incumbent upon us, if we must stand as a distinct body from our brethren, to tender for ourselves our most dutiful regards to your sacred Majesty; and to declare, in the presence of Him we serve, the King of kings and Lord of lords, that we are a part (however mean) of that Protestant Church established in these kingdoms; that we unite together for this and no other end -- to promote, so far as we may be capable, justice, mercy, and truth, the glory of God, and peace and goodwill among men; that we detest and abhor the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Rome, and are steadily attached to your Majesty’s royal person and illustrious house. We cannot, indeed, say or do either more or less than we apprehend consistent with the written Word of God; but we are ready to obey your Majesty to the uttermost in all things which we conceive to be agreeable thereto. And we earnestly exhort all with whom we converse, as they fear God, to honor the King. We of the clergy in particular put all men in mind to revere the higher powers as of God; and continually declare, ‘Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.’ Silver and gold (most of us must own) we have none; but such as we have we humbly beg your Majesty to accept together with our hearts and prayers. May He who hath bought us with His blood, the Prince of all the kings of the earth, fight against all the enemies of your Majesty with the two-edged sword that cometh out of His mouth! And when He calleth your Majesty from this throne, full of years and victories, may it be with that voice, ‘Come, receive the kingdom prepared for thee from the beginning of the world!’ These are the continual prayers of your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, JOHN WESLEY, &c. To John Haime [March] 1744. It is a great blessing whereof God has already made you a partaker; but if you continue waiting upon Him, you shall see greater things than these. This is only the beginning of the kingdom of heaven, which He will set up in your heart. There is yet behind the fullness of the mind that was in Christ; ’righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ It is but a little thing that men should be against you while you know that God is on your side. If He give you any companion in the narrow way, it is well; and it is well if He do not. So much the more will He teach and strengthen you by Himself: He will strengthen you in the secret of your heart; and by-and-by He will raise up, as it were out of the dust, those who shall say, ’Come, and let us magnify His name together.’ But by all means miss no opportunity. Speak, and spare not. Declare what God has done for your soul; regard not worldly prudence; be not ashamed of Christ, or of His word, or of His servants. Speak the truth in love, even in the midst of a crooked generation; and all things shall work together for good until the work of God is perfect in your soul. To John Nelson May 1744. Well, my brother, is the God whom you serve able to deliver you and do you find Him faithful to His word Is His grace still sufficient for you I doubt it not. He will not suffer you to be weary or faint in your mind. But He had work for you to do which you knew not of, and thus His counsel was to be fulfilled. O lose no time! Who knows how many souls God may by this means deliver into your hands Shall not all these things be for the furtherance of the gospel And is not the time coming when we shall cry out together, ‘Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that hath loved us’ To the Moravian Church LONDON, June 24, 1744. To THE MORAVIAN CHURCH, [So called by themselves, though improperly (Wesley).] MORE ESPECIALLY THAT PART OF IT NOW OR LATELY RESIDING IN ENGLAND. 1. I am constrained at length to speak my present sentiments concerning you, according to the best light I have: and this, not only upon my own account that (if I judge amiss) I may receive better information, but for the sake of all those who either love or seek the Lord Jesus in sincerity. Many of these have been utterly at a loss how to judge; and the more so because they could not but observe (as I have often done with sorrow of heart) that scarce any have wrote concerning you (unless such as were extravagant in your commendation) who were not evidently prejudiced against you. Hence they either spoke falsely, laying to your charge things which you knew not; or at least unkindly putting the worst construction on things of a doubtful nature, and setting what perhaps was not strictly right in the very worst light it would bear. Whereas (in my apprehension) none is capable of judging right, or assisting others to judge right, concerning you, unless he can speak of you as he does of the friend who is as his own soul. 2. Yet it is not wholly for their sake but for your own also that I now write. It may be the ‘Father of lights,’ the Giver of ‘every good gift,’ may even by a mean instrument speak to your hearts. My continual desire and prayer to God is that you may clearly see ‘what is that good and perfect will’ of the Lord, and fully discern how to separate that which is precious among you from the vile. 3. I have delayed thus long because I loved you, and was therefore unwilling to grieve you in anything; and likewise because I was afraid of creating another obstacle to that union which (if I know my own heart in any degree) I desire above all things under heaven. But I dare no longer delay, lest my silence should be a snare to any others of the children of God, and lest you yourselves should be more confirmed in what I cannot reconcile to the law and the testimony. This would strengthen the bar which I long to remove; and were that once taken out of the way, I should rejoice to be a doorkeeper in the house of God, an hewer of wood or drawer of water among you. Surely I would follow you to the ends of the earth, or remain with you in the uttermost parts of the sea. 4. What unites my heart to you is the excellency (in many respects) of the doctrine taught among you: your laying the true foundation, ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’; your declaring the free grace of God the cause, and faith the condition, of justification; your bearing witness to those great fruits of faith, ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’; and that sure mark thereof, ‘He that is born of God doth not commit sin.’ 5. I magnify the grace of God which is in many among you, enabling you to love Him who hath first loved us; teaching you, in whatsoever state you are, therewith to be content; causing you to trample under-foot the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life; and, above all, giving you to love one another in a manner the world knoweth not of. 6. I praise God that He hath delivered, and yet doth deliver, you from those outward sins that overspread the face of the earth. No cursing, no light or false swearing, no profaning the name of God, is heard among you. No robbery or theft, no gluttony or drunkenness, no whoredom or adultery, no quarrelling or brawling (those scandals of the Christian name), are found within your gates. No diversions but such as become saints, as may be used in the name of the Lord Jesus. You regard not outward adorning, but rather desire the ornament of a serious, meek, and quiet spirit. You are not slothful in business, but labor to eat your own bread; and wisely manage ‘the mammon of unrighteousness,’ that ye may have to give to others also, to feed the hungry, and cover the naked with a garment. 7. I love and esteem you for your excellent discipline, scarce inferior to that of the apostolic age; for your due subordination of officers, every one knowing and keeping his proper rank; for your exact division of the people under your charge, so that each may be fed with food convenient for them; for your care that all who are employed in the service of the Church should frequently and freely confer together; and, in consequence thereof, your exact and seasonable knowledge of the state of every member, and your ready distribution either of spiritual or temporal relief, as every man hath need. 8. Perhaps, then, some of you will say, ‘If you allow all this, what more can you desire’ The following extract [The Fourth Part of the Journal (Nov. 1, 1739-Sept. 3, 1741).] will answer you at large, wherein I have first given a naked relation (among other things) of many facts and conversations that passed between us in the same order of time as they occurred; and then summed up what I cannot approve of yet, that it may be tried by the Word of God. 9. This I have endeavored to do with a tender hand: relating no more than I believed absolutely needful; carefully avoiding all tart and unkind expressions, all that I could foresee would be disobliging to you, or any farther offensive than was implied in the very nature of the thing; laboring everywhere to speak consistently with that deep sense which is settled in my heart that you are (though I cannot call you Rabbi, infallible) yet far, far better and wiser than me. 10. And if any of you will smite me friendly and reprove me, if you will show me wherein I have erred, either in the matter or manner of the following relation or any part thereof, I will by the grace of God confess it before angels and men in whatsoever way you shall require. Meanwhile do not cease to pray for Your weak but still affectionate brother. To John Bennet [June 1744.] You are in great danger of running from one extreme to the other, from Calvinism to Pelagianism. If the Bible be true, then none is a Christian who has not the marks of a Christian there laid down. One of these is the love of God, which must be felt (if it is in the soul) as much as fire upon the body. Another is the witness of God’s Spirit with my spirit that I am a child of God. Till I have these marks I am not a Christian; and no power can give me these but that which made the world. It is God alone who worketh in me both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Faith is seeing God; love is feeling God. You may order your affairs so as to ride with me to London to our Conference. Then we can clear these things up more fully. Mercy and truth be with you. To Mrs. Hutton OXON, August 22, 1744 MADAM,--Had I no other motive to speak than gratitude for past favors, I ought not to be wholly silent. 1. Dreams and visions were never allowed by us to be certain marks of adoption; no, not though they were supposed to be from God. Therefore this mistake, whosesoever it is, is none of mine. 2. Neither did we ever allow the falling into fits (whether natural or preternatural) to be a certain mark; yet we believe the Spirit of God, sharply convincing the soul of sin, may occasion the bodily strength to fail. And what outward effects may possibly follow I believe no man living has skill enough to determine. 3. The power which God may sometimes permit the devil to have either over the soul or body is of quite another consideration. Yet even at those times He can constrain the father of lies to speak some truth, if it be for His own glory. But let those facts plead for themselves. Those persons are now alive; and not one of them is a member of our Society. 4. Fits (as you term them) are not left off. They are frequent now, both in Europe and America, among persons newly convinced of sin. I neither forward nor hinder them. 5. I love Calvin a little, Luther more; the Moravians, Mr. Law, and Mr. Whitefield far more than either. I have many reasons likewise to esteem and love Mr. Hutton. But I love truth more than all. Nor does it appear to me yet that he has dealt near so tenderly with me (since our opinions differed) as I have done with him. 6. In every congregation in England which I remember to have observed there was undeniably a faulty respect of persons. In our chapel there is a place kept for Lady Huntingdon [Lady Huntingdon was a regular worshipper at West Street Chapel.] till the Creed; if she does not come before then, any one takes it that is next, as also when she is out of town. I doubt whether this respect to her be not too great; but I yield in this point to my brother’s judgment. 7. We have no 5s. or 2s. 6d. places at the Foundry, nor ever had, nor ever will. If any one asks me for a place in the gallery (we make no distinction but between men and women), he has it; I refuse none. And some hundreds have places there who pay nothing at all. First come also is first served, at every time of preaching. And the poorest have frequently the best places, because they come first. I am glad you mentioned the volume of Bishop Bull, [The Huttons had evidently lent Bishop Bull’s Teachings of the Spirit to Wesley. See letter of Jan. 1739, and his reference (Journal, ii. 144d) on Feb. 22 – ‘10.30 at James Hutton’s read Bishop Bull upon the teachings of the Spirit.’] for I had quite forgot whose it was. I will look for it, and send it. I desire the continuance of yours and Mr. Hutton’s prayers. Your obliged and affectionate servant. To Mrs. Hutton, In College Street, Westminster. To the Countess of Huntingdon OXFORD, August 1744. MADAM, -- It has been a common remark for many years that poetry, which might answer the noblest purposes, has been prostituted to the vilest, even to confound the distinctions between virtue and vice, good and evil; and that to such a degree that, among the numerous poems now extant in our language, there is an exceeding small proportion which does not more or less fall under this heavy censure. So that a great difficulty lies on those who are not willing, on the one hand, to be deprived of an elegant amusement; nor, on the other, to purchase it at the hazard of innocence or virtue. Hence it is that many have placed a chaste collection of English poems among the chief desiderata of this age. Your mentioning this a year or two ago, and expressing a desire to see such a collection, determined me not to delay the design I had long had of attempting something in this kind. I therefore revised all the English poems I knew, and selected what appeared most valuable in them. Only Spenser’s Works I was constrained to omit, because scarce intelligible to the generality of modern readers. I shall rejoice if the want of which you complained be in some measure supplied by the following collection; of which this at least may be affirmed, --there is nothing therein contrary to virtue, nothing that can any way offend the chastest ear, or give pain to the tenderest heart. And perhaps whatever is really essential to the most sublime divinity, as well as the purest and most refined morality, will be found therein. Nor is it a small circumstance that the most just and important sentiments are here represented with the utmost advantage, with all the ornaments both of wit and language, and in the clearest, fullest strongest light. I inscribe these poems to you, not only because you was the occasion of their thus appearing in the world, but also because it may be an inducement to many to read them. Your name, indeed, cannot excuse a bad poem; but it may recommend good ones to those who would not otherwise consider whether they were good or bad. And I am persuaded they will not be unacceptable to you, were it only on this account --that many of them describe what a person of quality ought, and what I trust you desire, to be. My heart’s desire and prayer to God for you is that you may never rest short of this: That ‘whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are venerable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are honorable; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, you may think on these things: and my God shall supply all your need, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.’ -- I am Your Ladyship’s obliged and obedient servant for Christ’s sake. To Thomas Church LONDON, December 22, 1744. REVEREND SIR, -- Since this was in the press I have seen your Remarks upon my ‘last Journal.’ I will endeavor, as you desire, ‘attentively to consider the points’ therein ‘objected to me.’ In the meantime I am, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. Editor’s Introductory Notes: 1744 [1] A letter which has not survived is mentioned in the manuscript Diary of Richard Viney (January 22, 1744). ‘About noon the postboy brought me a letter from Mr. Wesley, dated Bristol, January 14. He wrote that he had received mine [asking for an interview] but a day or two before, that his brother [Charles] is to go to Newcastle this winter, and therefore he should not be in Yorkshire before May; but that he thinks to be in London on the 31st inst., that any time in the next month he should be glad to see me there. That at any time or in any place my company would be agreeable to him. He subscribes himself “Affectionate brother.” N.B.--To-morrow will be four weeks since I wrote to him.’ The Diary shows that Viney arrived in London on February 18, 1744, and spent nine days as inmate in Wesley’s family at the Foundry, then returned to Pudsey. Viney gives a long account of his visit. He attended the early morning services, and Wesley employed him in writing out lists of tradesmen with whom the Methodists were to deal. See W.H.S. xiii. 152; xiv. 25-31, 49-54. [2] In February 1744 there were rumors of a French invasion, and all Papists were ordered to leave London. It was reported that Wesley was a Papist and a secret agent of the Pretender. The news of the invasion, says Charles Wesley in his Journal, February 20, ‘only quickened us in our prayers especially for His Majesty King George.’ Charles was consulted about the Address, but replied: ‘My objection to your Address in the name of the Methodists is, that it would constitute us a sect -- at least, it would seem to allow that we are a body distinct from the National Church; whereas we are only a sound part of that Church. Guard against this; and in the name of the Lord address to-morrow.’ See Journal, iii. 123-4; C. Wesley’s Journal. i. 353-5. [3] John Haime had heard Charles Wesley at Brentford, and had been greatly helped by some conversation with him. He had come safely through the battle of Dettingen; and at Ghent, in the winter quarters of the Army, had formed a little Society of soldiers. He wrote to Wesley on February 2, 1744, for advice. His labors in the Army were apostolic. See Journal, iii. 115-16 Wesley’s Veterans, i. 1-59. [4] John Nelson was pressed for a soldier on May 4, 1744, Wesley was at Birstall on the 15th and on June II met Nelson at Durham. He was discharged on July 28 by an order from the Earl of Stair, Commander-in-Chief in South Britain. After his release he says, ‘Now I find the words true which Mr. John Wesley wrote to me at York,’ and quotes this passage. Nelson was in York from May 14 to June 7. See Wesley’s Veterans, iii. 104-53; and heading to letter of March 16, 1745. [5] This letter forms the Preface to the Fourth Part of Wesley’s Journal, the date being that of its publication. See the notes there, vol. ii. pp. 309, 500. [6] John Bennet was born at Chinley. Lady Huntingdon introduced him to Wesley, and he became an itinerant in 1743, He created a ‘Round’ of Methodist Societies in Derbyshire, Cheshire, and Lancashire, Wesley was in Derbyshire on June 15, 1744, and rode through Epworth to London, reaching there on the 20th. The Conference met on Monday, June 25. It was the first Conference, and Bennet’s Minutes (published in 1896 by the Wesley Historical Society) show that he and three other lay preachers were invited to be present. What a tragic scene it is! -- Wesley riding to the first of the great succession of Conferences with the man who was to inflict on him the most grievous sorrow of his life! See letter of September 7, 1749. [7] When Samuel Wesley, jun., left Westminster for Tiverton, the Huttons invited John and Charles to use their house as they had used Samuel’s, and treated them with the utmost kindness. Mr. and Mrs. Hutton were still living in College Street, Westminster. He died in 1750, and his wife on July 6, 1752 Benham says they both ‘had a love for the Brethren.’ One of James Hutton’s hymns, set to music by Brother Schlicht, his mother described as ‘heavenly.’ It is also said that she wrote a very sharp letter to Wesley ‘about his contradictions in his Journal; for praising the Brethren and then saying all he could against them.’ This is the Fourth Part of the Journal, in which the separation from the Society at Fetter Lane is described. The letter of June 24, 1744, is prefixed to it. The Moravian Minutes upon it are dated July 12. Here Wesley replies to Mrs. Hutton, See Journal, ii. 307-500; Benham’s Hutton, pp, 33, 127, 156n, 260. [8] This letter appears as a dedication ’To the Right Honorable the Countess of Huntingdonin A Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems from the most celebrated English Authors, which Wesley published in three volumes in 1744. See letter of February 8, 1745, to Dodsley. [9] Thomas Church’s Remarks were dated November 3, 1744; so that this brief letter, which appears on the last page of Part I of A Farther Appeal, is a striking illustration of Wesley’s viligant promptness as a defender of Methodism. His Answer is dated February 2, 1745. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: 29. 1745 ======================================================================== 1745 To Thomas Church Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. 1 Kings xx. 11. BRISTOL, February 2, 1745 REVEREND SIR, -- 1. My first desire and prayer to God is, that I may live peaceably with all men: My next, that if I must dispute at all, it may be with a man of understanding. Thus far, therefore, I rejoice on the present occasion. I rejoice also in that I have confidence of your sincerity, of your real desire to promote the glory of God, by peace and good-will among men. I am likewise thankful to God for your calm manner of writing; (a few paragraphs excepted;) and yet more for this, — that such an opponent should, by writing in such a manner, give me an opportunity of explaining myself on those very heads whereon I wanted an occasion so to do. 2. I do not want, indeed, (though perhaps you think I do), to widen the breach between us, or to represent the difference of the doctrines we severally teach as greater than it really is. So far from it, that I earnestly wish there were none at all; or, if there must be some, that it may be as small as possible; being fully persuaded, that, could we once agree in doctrines, other differences would soon fall to the ground. 3. In order to contribute, as I am able, to this, it will be my endeavor to acknowledge what I think you have spoken right, and to answer what I cannot think right as yet, with what brevity and clearness I can. I desire to do this in as inoffensive a manner as the nature of the thing will bear, and consistently with that brotherly love which I cannot deny you without wronging my own soul. 4. You sum up your charge thus: ‘You have now, Sir, my sentiments. — It is impossible for you to put an entire stop to the enormities of the Moravians, while you still, -- I. Too much commend these men; II. Hold principles in common with them, from which these enormities naturally follow; And III. Maintain other errors more than theirs, and are guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree.’ (Remarks, pp. 73-4.) I. 1. You, First, charge me with too much commending the Moravians. That the case may be fully understood, I will transcribe the passages which you cite from the Journal concerning them, and then give a general answer: — ‘She told me Mr. Molther had advised her, till she received faith, to be still, ceasing from outward works. In the evening, Mr. Bray also was highly commending the being still: He likewise spoke largely of the great danger that attended the doing of outward works, and of the folly of people that keep running about to church and sacrament.’ (Journal, ii. 312.) ‘Sunday, November 4. Our society met, and continued silent till eight.’ (ii.313.) ‘Sunday, June 22. I spoke thus: Eight or nine months ago, certain men arose, who affirmed that there is no such thing as any means of grace, and that we ought to leave off these works of the law.’ (ii. 354-5.) ‘You, Mr. Molther, believe that the way to attain faith, is, not to go to church, not to communicate, not to fast, not to use so much private prayer, not to read the Scripture, not to do temporal good, or attempt to do spiritual good.’ (ii. 329.) ‘You undervalue good works, especially works of outward mercy, never publicly insisting on the necessity of them.’ (ii. 495.) ‘Some of our brethren asserted, (1.) That till they had true faith, they ought to be still; that is, (as they explained themselves,) to abstain from the means of grace, as they are called, the Lord’s supper in particular. (2.) That the ordinances are not means of grace, there being no other means than Christ.’ (ii. 313.) ‘I could not agree, either that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear; or that, till we have it, we ought to abstain from the ordinances of God.’ (ii. 314.) ‘Mr. Br—d [In the Journal this name is printed B--n, and may be Richard Brampton, journeyman periwig-maker in Bucklersbury, born 1710, at Canon Frome, Hereforshire. In the Works, viii. 377, it is Br--d, which probably stands for Abraham Louis Brandt, painter, brother of Mrs. James Hutton, and a Moravian leader in London.] speaks so slightingly of the means of grace, that many are much grieved to hear him; but others are greatly delighted with him. Ten or fourteen of them meet at our brother Clarke’s, with Mr. Molther, and make a mere jest of going to the church or to the sacrament.’ (ii. 327.) ‘You, Mr. Molther, believe it is impossible for a man to use these means, without trusting in them.’ (ii. 329.) ‘“Believers,” said Mr. Simpson, “are not subject to ordinances, and unbelievers have nothing to do with them.”’ (ii. 343.) ‘“Believers need not, and unbelievers may not, use them. These do not sin when they abstain from them; but those do sin when they do not abstain.”’ (ii. 356.) ‘“For one who is not born of God to read the Scriptures, or to pray, or to communicate, or to do any outward work, is deadly poison. If he does any of these things, he destroys himself.” Mr. Bell earnestly defended this.’ (ii. 365.) ‘At eight, the society at Nottingham met: I could not but observe that not one who came in used any prayer at all. I looked for one of our Hymn-books; but both that and the Bible were vanished away, and in the room thereof lay the Moravian Hymns and the Count’s Sermons.’ (ii. 464-5.) ‘One of our English brethren, joined with you, said in his public expounding, “As many go to hell by praying as by thieving.” Another, “I knew one who, leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down to give God thanks: So he lost it immediately; and I know not whether he will ever have it again.” And yet another: “You have lost your first joy. Therefore, you pray: That is the devil. You read the Bible: That is the devil. You communicate: That is the devil.”’ (ii. 493.) ‘They affirmed that there is no commandment in the New Testament but to believe; that no other duty lies upon us; and that, when a man does believe, he is not bound or obliged to do anything which is commanded there.’ (ii. 354-5.) ‘Mr. Stonehouse told me, “No one has any degree of faith till he is perfect as God is perfect.”’ (ii. 345.) ‘You believe there are no degrees in faith.’ (ii. 344.) ‘I have heard Mr. Molther affirm, that there is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt.’ (ii. 492.) ‘The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth, till death, he is neither more nor less holy.’ (ii. 489.) ‘We are to grow in grace, but not in holiness.’ (ii. 490.) 2. I have frequently observed that I wholly disapprove of a these positions: ‘That there are no degrees in faith; that in order to attain faith we must abstain from all the ordinances of God; that a believer does not grow in holiness; and that he is not obliged to keep the commandments of God.’ But I must also observe, (1.) That you ought not to charge the Moravian Church with the first of these; since in the very page from which you quote those words, ‘There is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt,’ that note occurs: ‘In the preface to the Second Journal, the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.’ [See the letter of Aug. 8, 1740, for this and other points referred to.] (2.) That with respect to the ordinances of God, their practice is better than their principle. They do use them themselves, I am a witness; and that with reverence and godly fear. Those expressions, however, of our own countrymen are utterly indefensible; as I think are Mr. Molther’s also; who was quickly after recalled into Germany. The great fault of the Moravian Church seems to lie in not openly disclaiming all he had said; which in all probability they would have done, had they not leaned to the same opinion. I must, (3.) Observe that I never knew one of the Moravian Church, but that single person, affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness. And perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection. But I am still afraid their whole Church is tainted with Quietism, Universal Salvation, and Antinomianism: I speak, as I said elsewhere, of Antinomian opinions, abstracted from practice, good or bad. 3. But I should rejoice if there lay no other objection against them, than that of erroneous opinions. I know in some measure how to have compassion on the ignorant: I know the incredible force of prepossession. And God only knows, what ignorance or error (all things considered) is invincible; and what allowance his mercy will make, in such cases, to those who desire to be led into all truth. But how far what follows may be imputed to invincible ignorance or prepossession, I cannot tell. Many of ‘you greatly, yea, above measure, exalt yourselves, (as a Church,) and despise others. I have scarce heard one Moravian brother own his Church to be wrong in anything. Many of you I have heard speak of it, as if it were infallible. Some of you have set it up as the judge of all the earth, of all persons as well as doctrines. Some of you have said, that there is no true Church but yours; yea, that there are no true Christians out of it. And your own members you require to have implicit faith in her decisions, and to pay implicit obedience to her directions.’ (ii. 493-4.) I can in no degree justify these things. And yet neither can I look upon them in the same light that you do, as ‘some of the very worst things which are objected to the Church of Rome.’ (Remarks, p. 7.) They are exceeding great mistakes: Yet in as great mistakes have holy men both lived and died; — Thomas Kempis, for instance, and Francis Sales. And yet I doubt not they are now in Abraham’s bosom. 4. I am more concerned for their ‘despising and decrying self-denial;’ for their ‘extending Christian liberty beyond all warrant of holy writ;’ for their ‘want of zeal for good works;’ and, above all, for their supposing, that ‘we may, on some accounts, use guile;’ in consequence of which they do ‘use guile or dissimulation in many cases.’ ‘Nay, in many of them I have found’ (not in all, nor in most) ‘much subtlety, much evasion and disguise; so “becoming all things to all men,” as to take the color and shape of any that were near them.’ (Journal, ii. 329-30, 448, 492, 496.) I can neither defend nor excuse those among the Moravians whom I have found guilty of this. But neither can I condemn all for the sake of some. Every man shall give an account of himself to God. But you say, ‘Your protesting against some of their opinions is not sufficient to discharge you. Have you not prepared the way for these Moravians, by countenancing and commending them; and by still speaking of them as if they were in the main the best Christians in the world, and only deluded or mistaken in a few points’ (Remarks, pp. 11, 12.) I cannot speak of them otherwise than I think. And I still think (1) that God has some thousands in our own Church who have the faith and love which is among them, without those errors either of judgment or practice; (2) that, next to these, the body of the Moravian Church, however mistaken some of them are, are in the main, of all whom I have seen, the best Christians in the world. 5. Because I am continually charged with inconsistency herein, even by the Moravians themselves, it may be ‘needful to give a short account of what has occurred between us from the beginning. ‘My first acquaintance with the Moravian brethren began in my voyage to Georgia. Being then with many of them in the same ship, I narrowly observed their whole behavior. And I greatly approved of all I saw.’ (The particulars are related in the First Journal. [From Oct. 14, 1735, to Feb. 13, 1736. See Journal, i. 106-56; and also ii.495-7.]) ‘From February 14, 1735, to December 2, 1737, being with them (except when I went to Frederica or Carolina) twice or thrice every day, I loved and esteemed them more and more. Yet a few things I could not approve of. These I mentioned to them from time to time, and then commended the cause to God. ‘In February following I met with Peter Bhler. My heart clave to him as soon as he spoke. And the more we conversed, so much the more did I esteem both him and the Moravian Church. So that I had no rest in my spirit till I executed the design which I had formed long before; till, after a short stay in Holland, I hastened forward, first to Marienborn, and then to Hernhut.’ It may be observed, that I had before seen a few things in the Moravians which I could not approve of. In this journey I saw a few more, in the midst of many excellent things; in consequence whereof, "in September, 1738, soon after my return to England, I began the following letter to the Moravian Church. But being fearful of trusting my own judgment, I determined to wait yet a little longer, and so laid it by unfinished: — ‘“MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- I CANNOT but rejoice in your steadfast faith, in your love to our blessed Redeemer, your deadness to the world, your meekness, temperance, chastity, and love of one another. I greatly approve of your conferences and bands [The band society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany (Wesley).], of your method of instructing children; and, in general, of your great care of the souls committed to your charge. ‘“But of some other things I stand in doubt, which I will mention in love and meekness. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would, on each of those heads, First,plainly answer whether the fact be as I suppose; and if so, Secondly, consider whether it be right. ‘“Is not the Count all in all among you ‘“Do you not magnify your own Church too much ‘“Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases ‘“Are you not of a close, dark, reserved temper and behavior’ [See letter in Sept. 1738 to the Moravians, where this is given in fuller form.] ‘It may easily be seen, that my objections then were nearly thesame as now.’ Only with this difference, — I was not then assuredthat the facts were as I supposed. ‘Yet I cannot say my affectionwas lessened at all: (For I did not dare to determine anything:) Butfrom November 1, I could not but see more and more things whichI could not reconcile with the gospel.’ ‘These I have set down with all simplicity. Yet do I this, because Ilove them not God knoweth: Yea, and in part, I esteem them still;because I verily believe they have a sincere desire to serve God;because many of the a have tasted of his love, and some retain it insimplicity; because they love one another; because they have somuch of the truth of the gospel, and so far abstain from outwardsin. And lastly, because their discipline is, in most respects, so truly excellent; notwithstanding that visible blemish, the paying toomuch regard to their great patron and benefactor, CountZinzendorf.’ 6. I believe, if you coolly consider this account, you will not find,either that it is inconsistent with itself, or that it lays you under anynecessity of speaking in the following manner: "What charms theremay be in a demure look and a sour behavior, I know not. Butsure they must be in your eye very extraordinary, as they can besufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes, and keepup the same regard and affection for the authors and abettors of them. I doubt your regard for them was not lessened, till theybegan to interfere with what you thought your province. You wasinfluenced, not by a just resentment to see the honor of religionand virtue so injuriously and scandalously trampled upon, but bya fear of losing your own authority.’ (Remarks, pp. 18-19.) I doubt, there is scarce one line of all these which is consistenteither with truth or love. But I will transcribe a few more, before Ianswer: ‘How could you so long and so intimately converse with,so much commend, and give such countenance to, such desperately wicked people as the Moravians, according toyour own account, were known by you to be And you still speakof them, as if they were, in the main, the best Christians in theworld. In one place you say, ‘A few things I could not approve of;’but in God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of ourduty, of every Christian ordinance, to be so gently touched Candetestation in such a case be too strongly expressed Either theyare some of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsestaccuser in the world. Christian charity has scarce an allowance tomake for them as you have described them. If you have done thistruly, they ought to be discouraged by all means that can beimagined.’ 7. Let us now weigh these assertions. ‘They’ (that is, ‘the charms oftheir sour behavior’) ‘must be in your eye veryextraordinary.’ — Do not you stumble at the threshold TheMoravians excel in sweetness of behavior. ‘As they can besufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes.’ Such amultitude of errors and crimes! I believe, as to errors, they holduniversal salvation, and are partly Antinomians, (in opinion,) andpartly Quietists; and for this cause I cannot join with them. Butwhere is the multitude of errors Whosoever knows two or threehundred more, let him please to mention them. Such a multitude ofcrimes too! That some of them have used guile, and are of a closereserved behavior, I know. And I excuse them not. But to thismultitude of crimes I am an utter stranger. Let him prove thischarge upon them who can. For me, I declare I cannot. ‘To keep up the same regard and affection.’ — Not so. I say, myaffection was not lessened, till after September, 1739, till I hadproof of what I had feared before. But I had not the same degree ofregard for them when I saw the dark as well as the bright side oftheir character. ‘I doubt your regard for them was not lessened tillthey began to interfere with what you thought your province.’ Ifthis were only a doubt, it were not much amiss; but it presentlyshoots up into an assertion, equally groundless: For my regard forthem lessened, even while I was in Georgia; but it increased again after my return from thence, especially while I was at Hernhuth;and it gradually lessened again for some years, as I saw more and more which I approved not. How then does it appear that ‘I wasinfluenced herein by a fear of losing my own authority; not by ajust resentment to see the honor of religion and virtue so scandalously trampled upon’ — Trampled upon!By whom Not by the Moravians: I never sawany such thing among them. But what do you mean by ‘a just resentment’ I hope you do notmean what is commonly called zeal; a flame which often ‘sets onfire the whole course of nature, and is itself set on fire of hell!" "Rivers of water run from my eyes, because men keep not thy law.’ This resentment on such an occasion I understand. From all other may God deliver me! 8. You go on: ‘How could you so long and so intimately conversewith — such desperately wicked people as the Moravians, accordingto your own account, were known by you to be’ O Sir, whatanother assertion is this! ‘The Moravians, according to your ownaccount, were known by you to be desperately wicked people,while you intimately conversed with them!’ Utterly false andinjurious. I never gave any such account. I conversed intimatelywith them, both at Savannah and Hernhuth. But neither then, norat any other time, did I know, or think, or say, they were ‘desperately wicked people.’ I think and say, nay, you blame me for saying, just the reverse, viz., that though I soon ‘found among them a few things which I could not approve;’ yet I believe they are ‘in the main some of the best Christians in the world.’ You surprise me yet more in going on thus: ‘In God’s name, Sir, isthe contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christianordinance, to be so very gently touched’ Sir, this is not the case. This charge no more belongs to the Moravians, than that ofmurder. Some of our countrymen spoke very wicked things. TheMoravians did not sufficiently disavow them. These are thepremises. By what art can you extort so dreadful a conclusion fromthem ‘Can detestation, in such a case, be too strongly expressed’ Indeedit can; even were the case as you suppose. ‘Either they are some of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsest accuser in the world.’ Neither one nor the other: Though I prove what I allege,yet they may be, in the main, good men. ‘Charity has scarce anallowance to make for them, as you have described them." I have described them as of a mixed character, with much evil amongthem, but more good. Is it not a strange kind of charity, whichcannot find an allowance to make in such a case ‘If you havedescribed them truly, they ought to be discouraged by all means that can beimagined.’ By all means! I hope not by fire and faggot; though thehouse of mercy imagines these to be, of all means, most effectual. 9. You proceed: ‘How can you justify the many good things yousay of the Moravians, notwithstanding this character You saythey love God: But how can this be, when they even plead againstkeeping most of his commandments You say, you believe theyhave a sincere desire to serve God. How, then, can they despise hisservice in so many instances You declare some of them muchholier than any people you had yet known. Strange! if they fail in so many prime points of Christian duty, and this not only habitually and presumptuously, but even to the denying their use and necessity. You praise them for trampling under foot “the lust ofthe flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life:” And yet youmake them a close, reserved, insincere, deceitful people. ‘How you will explain those things, I know not.’ (Remarks, pp. 20, 21.) By nakedly declaring each thing as it is. They are, I believe,the most self-inconsistent people now under the sun: And I describethem just as I find them; neither better nor worse, but leaving thegood and bad together. Upon this ground I can very easily justifythe saying many good things of them, as well as bad. For instance: I am still persuaded that they (many of them) love God; althoughmany others of them ignorantly ‘plead against the keeping,’ not ‘most,’ but some, ‘of his commandments.’ I believe ‘they have asincere desire to serve God:’ And yet, in several instances, some ofthem, I think, despise that manner of serving him which I knowGod hath ordained. I believe some of them are much holier thanany people I had known in August, 1740: Yet sure I am that othersamong them fail, not indeed in the ‘prime points of Christianduty,’ (for these are faith, and the love of God and man,) but in several points of no small importance. Not that they herein sinpresumptuously, neither; for they are fully, though erroneously,persuaded in their own minds. From the same persuasion they act,when they, in some sense, deny the use or necessity of those ordinances. How far that persuasion justify or excuse them, I leave to Him who knoweth their hearts. Lastly. I believe they trample under foot, in a good degree, ‘the lust of the flesh, the lust of theeye, and the pride of life:’ And yet many of them use reserve, yea, guile. Therefore, my soul mourns for them in secret places. 10. ‘But I must observe,’ you say, ‘that you fall not only into inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions. You commend them for “loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of;” and yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one another.” You say, “They caution us against natural love of one another; and had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us.”’ ‘You praise them for “using no diversions, but such as become saints;” and for “not regarding outward adorning:” Yet you say they “conform to the world in wearing gold and costly apparel; and by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good.”’ ‘You call their discipline, “in most respects, truly excellent.” I wish you had more fully explained yourself. I am sure it is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell themyourself, “I can show you such a subordination as answers all Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you as the heavens are from the earth.”’ ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after; as if it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”’ ‘And now, Sir, how can you reconcile these opposite descriptions’ (pages 21-3). Just as easily as those before, by simplydeclaring the thing as it is. ‘You commend them’(the Moravians) ‘for loving one another [See letter of June 24, 1744.]; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another’ (Journal, ii. 310, 328) ‘Them’! Whom Not the Moravians; but the English brethren of Fetter-Lane, before their union with the Moravians. Here, then, is no shadow ofcontradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons. ‘You say, “They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love fromamong us;” partly by “cautions against natural love.”’ (ii. 494)It is a melancholy truth; so they had. But we had then no connection with them. Neither, therefore, does this contradict their ‘loving one another in a manner the world knoweth not of.’ ‘You praise them for using no diversions but such as become saints;’ (ii. 310) ‘and yet say,’ (I recite the whole sentence,) ‘I have heard some of you affirm, that “Christian salvationimplies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good”’ (ii. 491). And both these aretrue. The Moravians, in general, ‘use no diversions but such as become saints;’ and yet I have heard some of them affirm, incontradiction to their own practice, that ‘one then mentioned did well, when he joined in playing at tennis in order to do good.’ 11. ‘You praise them for not “regarding outward adorning”’ (ii. 310). So I do, the bulk of the congregation. ‘And yet you say,’ (I again recite the whole sentence,) ‘I have heard some of you affirm,that “Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world,by putting on of gold and costly apparel.”’ (ii. 491). I have so.And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by thegeneral practice of their own Church. ‘You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent” (ii. 310). I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.’ I have,in the Second Journal (ii. 19-56.) ‘It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations;’ that is, error in opinion, and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstrationagainst it. For there may be good discipline even in a College ofJesuits. Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. Andyet, ‘in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.’ ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every oneknows and keeps his proper rank” (ii. 310). Soon after, as itwere with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethrenhave neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to letit alone”’ (ii. 327). Pardon me, Sir. I have no design either toconfute or to contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian brethren; the latter, of the Englishbrethren of Fetter-Lane. 12. You need not therefore ‘imagine, that either the strongpretences or warm professions of the Moravians,’ or their ‘agreeing with me on some favorite topics,’ (for my love to them was antecedent to any such agreement,) ‘induce me to overlook their iniquity, and to forgive their other crimes.’ (Remarks, p. 23.) No. Ilove them upon quite different grounds; even because I believe, notwithstanding all their faults, they ‘love the Lord Jesus insincerity,’ and have a measure of ‘the mind that was in him.’ AndI am in great earnest when I declare once more, that I have a deep, abiding conviction, by how many degrees thegood which is among them overbalances the evil; that I cannotspeak of them but with tender affection, were it only for thebenefits I have received from them; and that, at this hour, I desire union with them (were those stumbling-blocks once put away,which have hitherto made that desire ineffectual) above all things under heaven. II. 1. Your second charge is, ‘That I hold, in common with them,principles from which their errors naturally follow.’ You meanjustification by faith alone. To set things in the clearest light I can, Iwill first observe what I hold, and what you object; and then inquire what the consequences have been. First. As to what I hold. My latest thoughts upon justification are expressed in the following words: — ‘Justification sometimes means our acquittal at the last day. But this is out of the present question; that justification whereof ourArticles and Homilies speak, meaning present pardon andacceptance with God; who therein declares his righteousness and mercy, by or for the remission of the sins that are past. ‘I believe, the condition of this is faith: I mean, not only, thatwithout faith we cannot be justified; but also, that, as soon as anyone has true faith, in that moment he is justified. ‘Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works,springing from holiness of heart. But — entire sanctification goesbefore our justification at the last day. ‘It is allowed, that repentance, and “fruits meet for repentance,” gobefore faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meetfor it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean, conviction ofsin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment;and by “fruits meet for repentance,” forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and, in general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received. But these I cannot, as yet, term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.’ 2. ‘Faith, in general, is a divine, supernatural e (evidence or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifyingfaith implies, not only a divine e that God “was in Christ,reconciling the world unto himself,” but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my sins, that he loved me, and gave himself forme. And the moment a penitent sinner thus believes, God pardonsand absolves him’ [A Farther Appealto Men of Reason and Religion, Part I. See Works, viii. 46, 47]. Now, it being allowed, that both inward and outward holiness arethe stated conditions of final justification, what more can youdesire, who have hitherto opposed justification by faith alonemerely upon a principle of conscience, because you was zealous forholiness and good works Do I not effectually secure these fromcontempt, at the same time that I defend the doctrines of the Church I not only allow, but vehemently contend, that none shall everenter into glory, who is not holy on earth, as well in heart as ‘in all manner of conversation.’ I cry aloud, ‘Let all that have believed, be careful to maintain good works;’ and, ‘Let every one that nameth the name of Christ, depart from all iniquity.’ I exhort even those who are conscious they do not believe, ‘Cease to do evil,learn to do well. The kingdom of heaven is at hand;’ therefore, ‘repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance.’ Are not thesedirections the very same, in substance, which you yourself wouldgive to persons so circumstanced 3. ‘Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works asyou, think I have allowed you too much. Nay, my brethren, buthow can we help allowing it, if we allow the Scriptures to be fromGod For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord” And how then,without fighting about words, can we deny, that holiness is acondition of final acceptance And as to the first acceptance orpardon, does not all experience as well as Scripture prove, that noman ever yet truly believed the gospel who did not first repent Repentance therefore we cannot deny to be necessarily previous tofaith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into willful,known sin (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles thatrepentance or conviction And can that repentance come to anygood issue in his soul, who resolves not to forgive his brother orwho obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word Would you scrupleyourself to tell one of these, “Unto him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not,” that is, uses it not, “shall be taken eventhat which he hath” Would you scruple to say this But in sayingthis, you allow all which I have said, viz., that previous tojustifying faith, there must be repentance, and, if opportunitypermit, “fruits meet for repentance.” ‘And yet I allow you this, that although both repentance and thefruits thereof are in some sense necessary before justification, yetneither the one nor the other is necessary in the same sense, or in the same degree, with faith. Not in the same degree. For in whatever moment a man believes, (in the Christian sense of theword,) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, “his faith is countedto him for righteousness.” But it is not so, at whatever moment herepents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faithalone therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; muchless any outward work. And consequently, none of these arenecessary to justification, in the same degree with faith. ‘No in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate arelation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessarythereto; repentance remotely, as it is necessary (to faith. And the fruits of repentance still more remotely, as they are necessary [These words (omitted through a printer’s error) are restored by Wesley in his second letter to Mr. Church. See page 255.]) to the increase or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, these are only necessary on supposition — if there be time and opportunity for them; for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance: So that the general proposition is not overthrown, but clearly established, by these concessions; and we conclude still, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.’ 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next briefly toobserve what you object. ‘If faith,’ say you, ‘is the sole condition of justification, then it is our sole duty.’ (Remarks, p. 25.) I deny theconsequence. Faith may be, in the sense above described, the sole condition of justification; and yet not only repentance be our dutybefore, but all obedience after, we believe. You go on: ‘If good works are not conditions of ourjustification, they are not conditions of our (final) salvation’ (ibid.). I deny the consequence again. Good works, properly so called, cannot be the conditions of justification; because it is impossible to do any good work before we are justified. And yet, notwithstanding, good works may be, and are, conditions of finalsalvation. For who will say it is impossible to do any good workbefore we are finally saved You proceed: ‘Can we be saved in the contemptuous neglect of repentance, prayer,’ &c. (Page 26.) No, nor justified neither; but while they are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be goodworks. You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus: ‘Yournotion of true stillness is, “a patient waiting upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works of his commandments.” But how is it possible toreconcile to this, the position, that these duties are not conditions ofour justification If we are justified without them, we may be savedwithout them. This consequence cannot be too often repeated.’ (Ibid.) Let it be repeated ever so often, it is good for nothing. For, far otherqualifications are required in order to our standing before God inglory, than were required in order to his giving us faith andpardon. In order to this, nothing is indispensably required, butrepentance, or conviction of sin. But in order to the other it isindispensably required, that we be fully ‘cleansed from all sin;’ that the ‘very God of peace sanctify us wholly,’ even t , ‘our entire body, soul, and spirit.’ It is notnecessary, therefore, (nor indeed possible,) that we should, beforejustification, ‘patiently wait upon God, by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law.’ And yet it isnecessary, in the highest degree, that we should thus wait uponhim after justification: Otherwise, how shall we be "meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light’ 5. Soon after, you add: ‘In the passages last cited, you plead for thenecessity of a good life: But in others, the force of your principlesshows itself. An answer approved by you, is, “My heart is desperately wicked; but I have no doubt or fear; I know mySavior loves me, and I love him.” Both these particulars areimpossible, if the Scripture be true.’ (Page 29.) You amaze me! Is it possible you should be ignorant that your ownheart is desperately wicked Yet I dare not say, either that God does not love you, or that you do not love him. ‘Again: You say, you described the state of those who haveforgiveness of sins, but not a clean heart;’ (page 30); not in the full, proper sense. Very true; but even then they had power over both inward and outward corruptions; far from being, as you suppose, ‘still wedded to their vices, and resolved to continue in them.’ ‘In another place, after having observed that “sin does remain in one that is justified, though it has not dominion over him,” you go on: “But fear not, though you have an evil heart; yet a little while, and you shall be endued with power from on high, whereby ye may purify yourselves, even as he is pure.” Sinners, if they believe this, may be quite secure, and imagine they have nothing to fear, though they continue in their iniquities. For God’s sake, Sir, speak out. If they that have an evil heart have not, who has reason to fear’ (Pages 30-1.) All who have not dominion over sin; all who continue in their iniquities. You, for one, if any sin has dominion over you. If so, I testify against you this day, (and you will not be quite secure, if you believe me,) ‘The wrath of God abideth on you!’ ‘What do you mean by, “sin remains in one that is justified” that he is guilty of any known, willful, habitual sin’ (pages 31-2). Judge by what is gone before: — I mean the same as our Church means by, ‘sin remains in the regenerate.’ 6. You proceed to another passage, which in the Journal stands thus: ‘After we had wandered many years in the new path of salvation by faith and works, about two years ago it pleased God to show us the old way of salvation by faith only. And many soon tasted of this salvation, being justified freely, having peace with God, “rejoicing in hope of the glory of God,” and having ’his love shed abroad in their hearts.”’ (ii. 354.) Thus I define what I mean by this salvation, viz., ‘righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ But you object, ‘Here you deny the necessity of good works in order to salvation.’ (Remarks, p. 33.) I deny the necessity, nay, possibility, of good works, as previous to this salvation; as previous to faith or those fruits of faith, ‘righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ This is my real sentiment, not a slip of my pen, neither any proof of my want of accuracy. 7. ‘I shall now,’ you say, ‘consider the account you give, in this Journal, of the doctrine of justification.’ (pages 36-7). I will recite the whole, just as it stands, together with the occasion of it: — ‘In the afternoon I was informed how many who cannot, in terms, deny it, explain justification by faith. They say, (1.) Justification is two-fold; the first in this life, the second at the last day. (2.) Both these are by faith alone, that is, by objective faith, or by the merits of Christ, which are the object of our faith. And this, they say, is all that St. Paul and the Church mean by, “we are justified by faith only.” But they add, (3.) We are not justified by subjective faith alone, that is, by the faith which is in us. But good works also must be added to this faith, as a joint condition both of the first and second justification. . . . ‘In flat opposition to this, I cannot but maintain, (at least, till I have clearer light,) (1.) That the Justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our Articles, is not twofold. It is one, and no more. It is the present remission of our sins, or our first acceptance with God. (2.) It is true, that the merits of Christ are the sole cause of this our justification. But it is not true, that this is all which St. Paul and our Church mean by our being justified by faith only; neither is it true, that either St. Paul or the Church mean, by faith, the merits of Christ. But, (3.) By our being justified by faith only, both St. Paul and the Church mean that the condition of our justification is faith alone, and not good works; inasmuch as all works done before justification have in them the nature of sin. Lastly. That faith which is the sole condition of justification, is the faith which is wrought in us by the grace of God. It is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ hath loved him and died for him." (Journal, ii. 326) 8. To the first of these propositions you object, ‘that justification is not only twofold, but manifold. For a man may possibly sin many times, and as many times be justified or forgiven.’ (Remarks, pp. 37-9.) I grant it. I grant also, that justification sometimes means a state of acceptance with God. But all this does not in the least affect my assertion, that ‘that justification which is spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and by our Church in the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, is not our acquittal at the last day, but the present remission of our sins.’ You add, ‘You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held “a degree of justifying faith short of the full assurance of faith, theabiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him;” and yet you afterwards “warned all not to think they were justified before they had a clear assurance, that God had forgiven their sins.” What difference there is between this clearassurance, and the former full assurance and clear perception, Iknow not.’ (Page 40.) Let us go on step by step, and you will know. ‘Once you held “adegree of justifying faith, short of the full assurance of faith, theabiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christabideth in him.”’ And so I hold still, and have done for some years. ‘And yet you afterwards warned all not to think they werejustified before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiventheir sins.’ I did so. ‘What difference there is between this clear assurance, and that full assurance and clear perception, I knownot.’ Sir, I will tell you. The one is an assurance that my sins areforgiven, clear at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. Theother is such a plerophory or full assurance that I am forgiven, andso clear a perception that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludesall doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no, not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the differencebetween the light of the morning and that of the midday sun. 9. On the second proposition you remark (1) that I ‘ought to havesaid, the merits of Christ are (not the sole cause, but) the sole meritorious cause of this our justification.’ (page 41); (2) That ‘St. Paul and the Church, by justifying faith, mean, faith in the gospel and merits of Christ.’ The very thing; so I contend, in flatopposition to those who say they mean only the object of this faith. Upon the third proposition, ‘By our being justified by faith only,both St. Paul and the Church mean, that the condition of ourjustification is faith alone, and not good works;’ you say, ‘Neither of them mean any such thing. You greatly wrong them, inascribing so mischievous a sentiment to them.’ (Ibid.) Let me begyou, Sir, to have patience, and calmly to consider, (1.) What I meanby this proposition. Why should you any longer run as uncertainly, and fight as one that beateth the air (2.) What is advancedtouching the sentiments of the Church, in the tract referred to above. Till you have done this, it would be mere loss of time todispute with you on this head. I waive, therefore, for the present, the consideration of some of your following pages. Only I cannot quite pass over that (I believe, new) assertion, ‘that the Thirteenth Article, entitled, “Of Works done before Justification,” does not speak of works done before justification, but of works before grace, which is a very different thing!’ (page 45). I beseech you, Sir, to consider the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Articles, just as they lie, in one view: And you cannot but see that it is as absolutely impossible to maintain that proposition, as it is to prove that the Eleventh and Twelfth Articles speak not of justification, but of some very different thing. 10. Against that part of the fourth proposition, ‘Faith is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ loved him and died for him,’ you object, ‘This definition is absurd; as it supposes that such a sure trust can be in one who does not repent of his sins.’ (page 48). I suppose quite the contrary, as I have declared over and over; nor, therefore, is there any such danger as you apprehend. But you say, ‘There is nothing distinguishing enough in this to point out the true justifying faith.’ (ibid.) I grant it; supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more nothing whereby to distinguish true faith from false Touching this Journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I everywhere insist, that we are to distinguish them by their fruits, by inward and outward righteousness, by the peace of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active joy in the Holy Ghost. You conclude this point: ‘I have now, Sir, examined at large your account of justification; and, I hope, fully refuted the several articles in which you have comprised it’ (page 49). We differ in our judgment. I do not apprehend you have refuted any one proposition of the four. You have, indeed, amended the second, by adding the word meritorious; for which I give you thanks. 11. You next give what you style, ‘the Christian scheme of justification;’ (page 50;) and afterwards point out the consequences which you apprehend to have attended the preaching justification by faith; the Third point into which I was to inquire. You open the cause thus: ‘The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, directly draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice. It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men, and in the last century occasioned great confusions in this nation. These are points which are ever liable to misconstructions, and have ever yet been more or less attended with them. And it appears from what you have lately published, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse ones; it has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused, than ever.’ (Remarks, pp. 1-2.) ‘The denying the necessity of good works, as the condition of justification, draws after it, or rather includes in it, all manner of impiety and vice.’ Here stands the proposition; but where is the proof Till that appears, I simply say, It does not. ‘It has often perplexed and disturbed the minds of men.’ And so have many other points in St. Paul’s Epistles. ‘But these are points which are ever liable to misconstructions; and have ever yet, more or less, been attended with them.’ And what points of revealed religion are those which are not ever liable to misconstructions Or of what material point can we say, that it has not ever yet, more or less, been attended with them ‘In the last century it occasioned great confusions in this nation.’ It occasioned! No; in no wise. It is demonstrable, the occasions of those confusions were quite of another kind. ‘And it appears, that since you have preached the doctrine, it has had its old consequences, or rather worse. It has been more misunderstood, more perverted and abused, than ever.’ What! worse consequences than regicide, (which, you say, was the old one,) and making our whole land a field of blood Or has it been more perverted and abused than when (in your account) it overturned the whole frame both of Church and State 12. You go on: ‘The terms of the gospel are, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. But when we undervalue either of these terms, we involve the consciences of the weak in fatal perplexities; we give a handle to others to justify their impieties; we confirm the enemies of religion in their prejudices.’ (Page 2.) All this I grant. But it affects not me. For I do not undervalue either faith or repentance. ‘Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough in the nation, but we must — throw snares in people’s way, and root out the remains of piety and devotion, in the weak and well-meaning That this has been the case, your own confessions put beyond all doubt. And you even now hold and teach the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.’ (Page 3.) ‘Was not irreligion and vice already prevailing enough,’ (whether I have increased them, we will consider by and by,) ‘but we must throw snares in people’s way’ God forbid! My whole life is employed in taking those snares out of people’s way, which the world and the devil had thrown there. ‘And root out the remains of piety and devotion in the weak and well-meaning’ Of whom speaketh the Prophet this of himself, or of some other man ‘Your own confessions put this beyond all doubt.’ What! that ‘I root out the remains of piety and devotion’ Not so. The sum of them all recited above amounts to this and no more: ‘That while my brother and I were absent from London, many weak men were tainted with wrong opinions, most of whom we recovered at our return; but even those who continued therein did, notwithstanding, continue to live a holier life than ever they did before they heard us preach.’ ‘And you even now hold the principles from which these dangerous consequences do plainly and directly follow.’ But I know not where to find these consequences, unless it be in your title-page. There indeed I read of the very fatal tendency of justification by faith only: ‘The divisions and perplexities of the Methodists, and the many errors relating both to faith and practice, which,’ as you conceive, ‘have already arisen among these deluded people.’ However, you ‘charitably believe, I was not aware of these consequences at first.’ (page 4). No, nor am I yet; though it is strange I should not, if they so naturally succeed that doctrine. I will go a step farther. I do not know, neither believe, that they ever did succeed that doctrine, unless perhaps accidentally, as they might have succeeded any doctrine whatsoever. And till the contrary is proved, those consequences cannot show that these principles are not true. 13. Another consequence which you charge on my preaching justification by faith, is, the introducing the errors of the Moravians. ‘Had the people,’ say you, ‘gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them, it would have been impossible for the Moravian tenets to have prevailed among them. But when they had been long and often used to hear good works undervalued, I cannot wonder that they should plunge into new errors, and wax worse and worse.’ (Page 12.) This is one string of mistakes. ‘Had the people gone on in a quiet and regular practice of their duty, as most of them did before you deluded them.’ Deluded them! Into what Into the love of God and all mankind, and a zealous care to keep his commandments. I would to God this delusion (if such it is accounted) may spread to the four corners of the earth! But how did most of them go on before they were thus deluded Four in five, by a moderate computation, even as other baptized Heathens, in the works of the devil, in all the ‘wretchlessness of most unclean living.’ ‘In a quiet and regular practice of their duty!’ What duty the duty of cursing and swearing; the duty of gluttony and drunkenness; the duty of whoredom and adultery; or of beating one another, and any that came in their way In this (not very ‘quiet or regular’) practice did most of those go on before they heard us, who have now ‘put off the old man with his deeds,’ and are ‘holy in all manner of conversation.’ Have these, think you, ‘been long and often used to hear good works undervalued’ Or are they prepared for receiving the Moravian errors, by the knowledge and love of God O Sir, the Moravians know, if you do not, that there is no such barrier under heaven against their tenets as those very people whom you suppose just prepared for receiving them. But ‘complaints,’ you say, ‘of their errors, come very ill from you, because you have occasioned them.’ Nay, if it were so, for that very cause they ought to come from me. If I had occasioned an evil, surely I am the very person who ought to remove it as far as I can; to recover, if possible, those who are hurt already, and to caution others against it. 14. On some of those complaints, as you term them, you remark as follows: — ‘Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed’ (these are my words) ‘were thrown into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears’ (page 13). ‘This,’ you add, ‘it is to be feared, has been too much the case of the Methodists in general. — Accordingly we find, in this Journal, several instances, not barely of doubts and fears, but of the most desperate despair. This is the consequence of resting so much on sensible impressions. — Bad men may be led into presumption thereby; an instance of which you give,’ (Journal, ii. 415). That instance will come in our way again: ‘Many of those who once knew in whom they had believed were thrown,’ by the Antinomians, ‘into idle reasonings, and thereby filled with doubts and fears. This,’ you fear, ‘has been the case with the Methodists in general.’ You must mean, (to make it a parallel case,) that the generality of the people now termed Methodists were true believers till they heard us preach, but were thereby thrown into idle reasonings, and filled with needless doubts and fears. Exactly contrary to truth in every particular. For, (1.) They lived in open sins till they heard us preach, and, consequently, were no better believers than their father the devil. (2.) They were not then thrown into idle reasonings, but into serious thought how to flee from the wrath to come. Nor, (3.) Were they filled with needless doubts and fears, but with such as were needful in the highest degree, such as actually issued in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘Accordingly, we find in this Journal several instances of the most desperate despair’ (ii. 333, 347, 410). Then I am greatly mistaken. But I will set down at length the several instances you refer to: — ‘I was a little surprised, in going out of the room, at one who catched hold of me, and said abruptly, “I must speak with you, and will. I have sinned against light and against love.” (N. B. She was soon after, if not at that very time, a common prostitute.) “I have sinned beyond forgiveness. I have been cursing you in my heart, and blaspheming God, ever since I came here. I am damned: I know it: I feel it: I am in hell: I have hell in my heart.” I desired two or three who had confidence in God, to join in crying to him on her behalf. Immediately that horrible dread was taken away, and she began to see some dawnings of hope.’ (ii. 333.) ‘The attention of all was soon fixed on poor Lucretia Smith. One so violently and variously torn of the evil one did I never see before. Sometimes she laughed till almost strangled; and then broke out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped, and struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could scarce hold her; then cried out, ‘O eternity, eternity! O that I had no soul! O that I had never been born!” At last she faintly called on Christ to help her; and the violence of her pangs ceased.’ (ii. 347.) It should be remembered, that from that time to this, her conversation has been as becometh the gospel. ‘Thursday, December 25, I met with such a case as I do not remember either to have known or heard of before: Lucretia Smith (the same person), after many years’ mourning, (long before she heard of us,) was filled with peace and joy in believing. In the midst of this, without any discernible cause, such a cloud suddenly overwhelmed her, that she could not believe her sins were ever forgiven at all, nor that there was any such thing as forgiveness of sins. She could not believe that the Scriptures were true; that there was any heaven, or hell, or angel, or spirit, or any God. One more I have since found in the same state: But observe, neither of these continued therein; nor did I ever know one that did. So sure it is that all faith is the gift of God, which the moment he withdraws, the evil heart of unbelief will poison the whole soul.’ (ii. 410.) Which of these is an ‘instance of the most desperate despair’ Surely the most desperate of any, yea, the only one which is properly said to be desperate at all, is that which produces instant self-murder; which causes a poor wretch, by a sin which he cannot repent of, to rush straight through death into hell. But that was not the case in any of these instances; in all which we have already seen the end of the Lord. 15. That I ‘raise separate societies against the Church’ (Remarks, p. 14) is a charge which I need not examine till the evidence is produced. You next cite a Moravian’s words to me: (an Englishman joined with the Moravians:) ‘You have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; you take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of damnation;’ and remark, ‘This is only returning some of your own treatment upon yourself. Here also you set the pattern.’ At what time and place, when and where, were ‘such abuses as these thrown out by me against our Universities, and against our regular Clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted’ I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: Neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the Clergy, than they have received from me to this day. You have a note at the bottom of this page which runs thus: ‘See pages 71, 77, and 73, [Journal, ii. 427, 431, and 433.] where some Methodists said they had heard both your brother and you many times preach Popery.’ I am afraid you advance here a willful untruth, purely ad movendam indiviam. For you cannot but know, (1.) That there is not one word of preaching Popery, either in page 71 or 77. And (2.) That when Mr. Cennick and two other Predestinarians (as is related page 73) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me many times preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of Universal Redemption. 16. You proceed: ‘Kingswood you call your own house: And whenone Mr. C. opposed you there, you reply to him, “You should nothave supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of thepeople.” The parochial Clergy may call their several districts theirown houses, with much more propriety than you could call Kingswood yours. And yet how have you supplanted them therein,and labored to steal the hearts of the people! You have sufferedby the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and maliceagainst your brethren. ‘Your brother’s words to Mr. Cennick are, — ‘Whether his doctrine is true or false, is not the question. But you ought first to have fairly toldhim, I preach contrary to you. Are you, willing, notwithstanding,that I should continue in your house, gainsaying you Shall I stayhere opposing you, or shall I depart ‘Think you hear this spokento you by us. What can you justly reply — Again, if Mr. Cennick hadsaid thus to you, and you had refused him leave to stay; I ask you,whether in such a case he would have had reason to resent such arefusal I think you cannot say he would. And yet how loudlyhave you objected our refusing our pulpits to you!’ (Remarks, pp. 15-16.) So you judge these to be exactly parallel cases. It lies therefore uponme to show that they are not parallel at all; that there is, in manyrespects, an essential difference between them. (1.) ‘Kingswood you call your own house.’ So I do, that is, theschool-house there. For I bought the ground where it stands, andpaid for the building it, partly from the contribution of my friends, (one of whom contributed fifty pounds,) partly from the income of my own Fellowship. No Clergyman therefore can call his parish his own house with more propriety than I can call this house mine. (2.) ‘Mr. Cennick opposed you there.’ True; but who was Mr. Cennick One I had sent for to assist me there; a friend that was as my own soul; that, even while he opposed me, lay in my bosom. What resemblance then does Mr. Cennick, thus opposing me, bear to me opposing (if I really did) a parochial minister (3.) ‘You said to Mr. Cennick, “You should not have supplanted me in my own house, stealing the hearts of the people.” Yet you have supplanted the Clergy in their own houses.’ What, in the same manner as Mr. C. did me Have I done to any of them as he has done to me You may as justly say I have cut their throats! Stealing the hearts of their people. Nor are these their people in the same sense wherein those were mine -- namely, servants of the devil brought, through my ministry, to be servants and children of God. ‘You have suffered by the same ways you took to discharge your spleen and malice against your brethren.’ To discharge your spleen and malice! Say, your muskets and blunderbusses: I have just as much to do with one as the other. (4.) ‘Your brother said to Mr. Cennick, “You ought to have told my brother fairly, I preach contrary to you. Are you willing I should continue in your house, gainsaying you Shall I stay here opposing you, or shall I depart” Think you hear this spoken to you by us. What can you justly reply’ I can justly reply, Sir, Mr. Cennick’s case totally differs from yours. Therefore it makes absolutely nothing to your purpose. 17. A farther consequence (you think) of my preaching this doctrine, is, ‘the introducing that of absolute predestination. And whenever these errors,’ say you, ‘gain ground, there can be no wonder, that confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which you give us among your followers, should be the consequences.’ (page 52.) You should by all means have specified a few of those instances, or, at least, the pages where they occur. Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no other than a flourish of your pen. To conclude this head: You roundly affirm, once for all, ‘The grossest corruptions have ever followed the spreading of this tenet. The greatest heats and animosities have been raised thereby. The wildest errors have been thus occasioned. And in proportion to its getting ground, it has never failed to perplex the weak, to harden the wicked, and to please the profane. Your Journal is a proof that these terrible consequences have of late prevailed, perhaps more than ever.’ (Page 51.) Suppose that Journal gives a true account of facts, (which you seem not to deny,) could you find there no other fruits of my preaching, than these terrible ones you here mention O who so blind, as he that will not see! [Matthew Henry on Jer. xx. See Swift’s Polite Conversation, dial. 3.] 18. But that we may not still talk at large, let us bring this question into as narrow a compass as possible. Let us go no farther as to time, than seven years last past; as to place, than London and the parts adjoining; as to persons, than you and me, Thomas Church preaching one doctrine, John Wesley the other. Now then, let us consider with meekness and fear, what have been the consequences of each doctrine. You have preached justification by faith and works, at Battersea, and St. Ann’s, Westminster; while I preached justification by faith alone, near Moorfields, and at Short’s Gardens. I beseech you then to consider, in the secret of your heart, how many sinners have you converted to God By their fruits we shall know them. This is a plain rule. By this test let them be tried. How many outwardly and habitually wicked men have you brought to uniform habits of outward holiness It is an awful thought! Can you instance in a hundred in fifty in twenty in ten If not, take heed unto yourself and to your doctrine. It cannot be that both are right before God. Consider now (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) what have been the consequences of even my preaching the other doctrine. By the fruits shall we know those of whom I speak; even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel I preach to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger now flees fornication. He that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly enslaved to various habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their several places of abode. One of them was an avowed Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number Papists; the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form, as to the power, of godliness. When you have weighed these things touching the consequences of my preaching, on the one hand, (somewhat different from those set down in your Remarks,) and of your preaching, on the other, I would earnestly recommend the following words to your deepest consideration: — ‘Beware of false prophets; ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles Even so every good tree’ (every true Prophet or Teacher) ‘bringeth forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire’ (Matt. vii. 15-19). III. 1. Having spoken more largely than I designed on the principle I hold in common with the Moravians, I shall touch very briefly on those errors (so called) which you say I hold more than theirs. (Remarks, p. 55.) You name, as the first, my holding that ‘a man may have a degree of justifying faith before he has, in the full, proper sense, a new, a clean heart.’ (ibid.) I have so often explained this, that I cannot throw away time in adding any more now; only this, — that the moment a sinner is justified, his heart is cleansed in a low degree. But yet he has not a clean heart, in the full, proper sense, till he is made perfect in love. 2. Another error you mention is this doctrine of perfection. (page 60.) To save you from a continual ignoratio elenchi, I wave disputing on this point also, till you are better acquainted with my real sentiments. I have declared them on that head again and again; particularly in the sermon on Christian Perfection. 3. Into this fallacy you plunge from the beginning to the end of what you speak on my third error, (so you term it,) relating to the Lord’s supper; confuting, as mine, notions which I know not (pages 56-7.) I cannot think any farther answer is needful here, than the bare recital of my own words: — ‘Friday, June 27. I preached on, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” ‘It has been diligently taught among us, that none but those who are converted, who “have received the Holy Ghost,” who are believers in the full sense, ought to communicate. ‘But experience shows the gross falsehood of that assertion, that the Lord’s supper is not a converting ordinance. Ye are witnesses: For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to God (perhaps in some the first deep conviction) was wrought at the Lord’s supper. Now, one single instance of this kind overthrows that whole assertion. ‘The falsehood of the other assertion appears both from Scripture precept and example. Our Lord commanded those very men who were then unconverted, who had not yet “received the Holy Ghost,” who, in the full sense of the word, were not believers, to do this in remembrance of him. Here the precept is clear. And to these he delivered the elements with his own hands. Here is example equally indisputable. ‘Sat. 28. — I showed at large, (1.) That the Lord’s supper was ordained by God to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. (2.) That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to show their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. (3.) That, inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him anything, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And, (4.) That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his appointment’ (Journal, ii. 360-2.) 4. ‘A stoical insensibility,’ you add, ‘is the next error I have to charge you with. You say, “The servants of God suffer nothing;” and suppose that we ought to be here so free as, in the strongest pain, not once to desire to have a moment’s ease. ‘At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say, — “Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains, And drive me from thy face.”’ [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 236.] (Remarks, p. 59.) ‘A stoical insensibility is the next error I have to charge you with.’ And how do you support the charge Why thus: ‘You say, “The servants of God suffer nothing”’ (Journal, ii. 393). And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you read those that immediately follow — ‘His body was well-nigh torn asunder with pain: But God made all his bed in his sickness; so that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his praise.’ ‘You suppose we ought to be so free, as in the strongest pain not once to desire to have a moment’s ease.’ O Sir, with what eyes did you read those words — ‘I dined with one [He dined with Mr. Standex, when a woman told him this.] who told me, in all simplicity, “Sir, I thought last week, there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world, wherein we should be so free as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better; for on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease, but only that the will of God might be done.”’ (ii. 373-4.) Do I say here, that ‘we ought not in the strongest pain once to desire to have a moment’s ease’ What a frightful distortion of my words is this! What I say is, ‘A serious person affirmed to me, that God kept her for two days in such a state.’ And why not Where is the absurdity ‘At the end of one of your hymns, you seem to carry this notion to the very height of extravagancy and presumption. You say, “Doom, if thou canst, to endless pains, And drive me from thy face.”’ ‘If thou canst’ -- that is, if Thou canst deny thyself, if Thou canst forget to be gracious, if Thou canst cease to be truth and love. So the lines both preceding and following fix the sense. I see nothing of stoical insensibility, neither of extravagancy or presumption, in this. 5. Your last charge is, that I am guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree. ‘Enthusiasm,’ you say, ‘is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance. An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken. His intentions are good, but his actions most abominable. Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only that secret impulse which is owing to a warm imagination. Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c. He is very liable to err, as not considering things coolly and carefully. He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the directions of God’s Spirit. Whoever opposes him is charged with resisting the Spirit. His own dreams must be regarded as oracles. Whatever he does is to be accounted the work of God. Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons; and applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances.’ (Remarks, pp. 60-1.) You have drawn, Sir, (in the main,) a true picture of an enthusiast. But it is no more like me, than I am like a centaur. Yet you say, ‘They are these very things which have been charged upon you, and which you could never yet disprove.’ I will try for once; and, to that end, will go over these articles one by one. ‘Enthusiasm is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men on to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.’ Before this touches me, you are to prove, (which, I conceive, you have not done yet,) that my conduct is such as is only to be justified by the supposition of an extraordinary divine assistance. ‘An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken.’ That I am mistaken, remains also to be proved. ‘His intentions are good; but his actions most abominable.’ Sometimes they are; yet not always. For there may be innocent madmen. But, what actions of mine are most abominable I wait to learn. ‘Instead of making the word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.’ In the whole compass of language, there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God the rule of all my actions; and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof, than I follow Mahomet or Confucius. Not even a word or look Do I approve or own, But by the model of thy book, Thy sacred book alone. [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 70. Adapted from George Herbert’s The Temple, "Discipline": Not a word or look I affect to own, But by book, And Thy Book alone.] ‘Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies.’ Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. Nor did I ever experience any. I do judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly. ‘He is very liable to err.’ So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find, that this is owing to my want of ‘considering things coolly and carefully.’ Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants! ‘He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it, the direction of God’s Spirit.’ I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names, (both of which I have not wanted,) but not by reason and argument. At least that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention; for I claim no other direction of God’s Spirit, than is common to all believers. ‘Whoever opposes him is charged with resisting or rejecting the Spirit.’ What! whoever opposes me, John Wesley Do I charge every such person with rejecting the Spirit No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway. I cite you yourself, to confute your own words. For, do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit ‘His own dreams must be regarded as oracles.’ Whose I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the oracles of God. ‘Whatever he does, is to be accounted the work of God.’ You strike quite wide of me still. I never said so of what I do. I never thought so. Yet I trust what I do is pleasing to God. ‘Hence he talks in the style of inspired persons.’ No otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God. ‘And applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning, or once considering the difference of times and circumstances.’ I am not conscious of any thing like this. I apply no Scripture phrase either to myself or any other, without carefully considering both the original meaning, and the secondary sense, wherein (allowing for different times and circumstances) it may be applied to ordinary Christians. 6. So much for the bulk of your charge. But it concerns me, likewise, to gather up the fragments of it. You say, ‘We desire no more than to try your sentiments and proceedings by the written word.’ (Page 63.) Agreed. Begin when and where you please. ‘We find there good works as strongly insisted on as faith.’ I do as strongly insist on them as on faith. But each in its own order. ‘We find all railing, &c., condemned therein.’ True; and so you may in all I write or preach. ‘We are assured, that the doing what God commands is the sure way of knowing that we have received his Spirit.’ We have doubtless received it, if we love God (as he commands) with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. ‘And not by any sensible impulses or feelings whatsoever.’ Any sensible impulses whatsoever! Do you then exclude all sensible impulses Do you reject inward feelings toto genere Then you reject both the love of God and of our neighbor. For, if these cannot be inwardly felt, nothing can. You reject all joy in the Holy Ghost; for if we cannot be sensible of this, it is no joy at all. You reject the peace of God, which, if it be not felt in the inmost soul, is a dream, a notion, an empty name. You therefore reject the whole inward kingdom of God; that is, in effect, the whole gospel of Jesus Christ. You have therefore yourself abundantly shown (what I do not insinuate, but proclaim on the house top) that I am charged with enthusiasm for asserting the power as well as the form of godliness. 7. You go on: ‘The character of the enthusiast above drawn will fit, I believe, all such of the Methodists as can be thought sincere.’ (page 63.) I believe not. I have tried it on one, and it fitted him just as Saul’s armor did David. However, a few instances of enthusiasm you undertake to show in this very Journal. And first, ‘You give us one’ (these are your words) ‘of a private revelation, which you seem to pay great credit to.’ You partly relate this, and then remark, ‘What enthusiasm is here! To represent the conjectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy!’ Descant, Sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman as owing to the miraculous power of the Spirit of God: And when you have done, I will desire you to read that passage once more, where you will find my express words are, introducing this account: ‘Sunday, 11. I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.’ (Journal, ii. 415). Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil and at length restoring peace to her soul. 8. As a second instance of enthusiasm, you cite those words: ‘I expounded out of the fullness which was given me’ (ii. 412). The whole sentence is, ‘Out of the fulness that was given me, I expounded those words of St. Paul, (indeed of every true believer,) “To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”’ I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense of that great truth, than I ordinarily have. And I still think it right to ascribe this, not to myself, but to the ‘Giver of every good and perfect gift.’ You relate what follows as a third ‘very extraordinary instance of enthusiasm:’ (Remarks, p. 65): ‘Tuesday, Feb. 17. I left London. In the afternoon, I reached Oxford; and leaving my horse there, (for he was tired, and the horse-road exceeding bad, and my business admitted of no delay,) set out on foot for Stanton-Harcourt. The night overtook me in about an hour, accompanied with heavy rain. Being wet and weary, and not well knowing my way, I could not help saying in my heart, (though ashamed of my want of resignation to God’s will,) “O that thou wouldest stay the bottles of heaven! or at least give me light, or an honest guide, or some help in the manner thou knowest.” Presently the rain ceased, the moon broke out, and a friendly man overtook me, who set me on his own horse, and walked by my side, till we came to Mr. Gambold’s door.’ (Journal, ii. 425-6.) Here you remark, ‘If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related.’ It may be so; let it pass then as a trifle not worth relating: But still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look on it as miraculous. I do not myself look upon it as such; but as a signal instance of God’s particular providence over all those who call upon him. 9. ‘In the same spirit of enthusiasm,’ (you go on, citing this as a fourth instance,) ‘you describe Heaven as executing judgments, immediate punishments, on those who oppose you. You say, “Mr. Molther was taken ill this day. I believe it was the hand of God that was upon him.”’ (Remarks, p. 66.) I do; but I do not say, as a judgment from God for opposing me: That you say for me. ‘Again you tell us of “one who was exceeding angry at those who pretended to be in fits; and was just going to kick one of them out of the way, when she dropped down herself, and was in violent agonies for an hour.” And you say you “left her under a deep sense of the just judgment of God.”’ So she termed it; and so I believe it was. But observe, not for opposing me. ‘Again, you mention, “as an awful providence, the case of a poor wretch, who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many that he would come again on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then.”’ His mouth was stopped before, in the midst of the most horrid blasphemies, by asking him, if he was stronger than God. ‘‘But on Friday, God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.”’ I do look on this as a manifest judgment of God on a hardened sinner, for his complicated wickedness. ‘Again, “one being just going to beat his wife, (which he frequently did,) God smote him in a moment; so that his hand dropped and he fell down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.”’ (page 67.) And can you, Sir, consider this as one of the common dispensations of Providence Have you known a parallel one in your life But it was never cited by me, as it is by you, as an immediate punishment on a man for opposing me. You have no authority, from any sentence or word of mine, for putting such a construction upon it; no more than you have for that strange intimation, (how remote both from justice and charity!) that ‘I parallel these cases with those of Ananias and Sapphira, or of Elymas the sorcerer!’ 10. You proceed to what you account a fifth instance of enthusiasm: ‘With regard to people’s falling in fits, it is plain, you look upon both the disorders and removals of them to be supernatural.’ (ibid.). It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases as wholly natural; on the rest as mixed, both the disorder and the removal being partly natural and partly not. Six of these you pick out from, it may be, two hundred; and add, ‘From all which, you leave no room to doubt, that you would have these cases considered as those of the demoniacs in the New Testament; in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples.’ I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition; but I now wonder at nothing of this kind. Only be pleased to remember, till this supposition is made good, it is no confirmation at all of my enthusiasm. You then attempt to account for those fits by ‘obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits, hysterical disorder, watchings, fastings, closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat.’ And, lastly, by ‘terrors, perplexities, and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men;’ which, you think, in many of the cases before us, have ‘quite overset their understandings.’ As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders. Why, ‘The instances," you say, "of religious madness have much increased since you began to disturb the world.’ (Remarks, pp. 68, 69.) I doubt the fact. Although, if these instances had increased lately, it is easy to account for them another way. ‘Most have heard of, or known, several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.’ You may have heard of five hundred; but how many have you known Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child. I find some indeed, whom you told, they would be distracted if they ‘continued to follow these men,’ and whom, at that time, you threw into much doubt, and terror, and perplexity. But though they did continue to hear them ever since, they are not distracted yet. As for the ‘abilities, learning, and experience’ of Dr. Monro [John Monro (1715-91, Physician of Bethlehem Hospital 1751.] (page 70,) if you are personally acquainted with him, you do well to testify them. But if not, permit me to remind you of the old advice: — Qualem commendes, etiam atque etiam aspice, ne mox Incutiant aliena tibi peccata pudorem. [Horace’s Epistles, I. xviii.76: ‘Beware whom you commend, lest you should be blamed for the faults of another man.’] In endeavoring to account for the people’s recovery from those disorders, you say, ‘I shall not dispute how far prayer may have naturally a good effect.’ Nay, I am persuaded you will not dispute but it may have supernatural good effects also. ‘However, there is no need of supposing these recoveries miraculous.’ (page 71.) Who affirms there is I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself; (consequently, here is no foundation for the charge of enthusiasm;) and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases. 11. The next passage you quote as a proof of my enthusiasm, taking the whole together, runs thus: ‘After communicating at St. James’s, our parish church, I visited several of the sick. Most of them were ill of the spotted fever, which, they informed me, had been extremely mortal, few persons recovering from it. But God had said, “Hitherto shalt thou come.” I believe there was not one with whom we were, but recovered.’ (Journal, ii. 401-2.) On which you comment thus: ‘Here is indeed no intimation of any thing miraculous.’ No! not so much as an intimation! Then why is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm Why, ‘You seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers; whereas, I believe they would not have failed of an equal blessing and success, had they had the prayers of their own parish Ministers.’ I believe this argument will have extraordinary success, if it convince any one that I am an enthusiast. 12. You add, ‘I shall give but one account more, and this is what you give of yourself.’ (Remarks, p. 72.) The sum whereof is, ‘At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.’ I did so. I assert the fact still. ‘Now, if these,’ you say, ‘are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm.’ I will put your argument in form: — He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so is a rank enthusiast: But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not so: Therefore, you are a rank enthusiast. Before I answer, I must know what you mean by miraculous. If you term everything so, which is not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth. You conclude this head with, ‘Can you work miracles All your present pretences to the Spirit, till they are proved by miracles, cannot be excused, or acquitted from enthusiasm.’ (Page 73.) My short answer is this: I pretend to the Spirit just so far as is essential to a state of salvation. And cannot I be acquitted from enthusiasm till I prove by miracles that I am in a state of salvation 13. We now draw to a period: ‘The consequences of Methodism,’ you say, that is, of our preaching this doctrine, ‘which have hitherto appeared, are bad enough to induce you to leave it. It has, in fact, introduced many disorders; enthusiasm, Antinomianism, Calvinism, a neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances, and almost all other duties.’ (Page 75.) That, whenever God revives his work upon earth, many tares will spring up with the wheat, both the word of God gives us ground to expect, and the experience of all ages. But where, Sir, have you been, that you have heard of the tares only; and that you rank among the consequences of my preaching, ‘a neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances, and almost of all duties’ Does not the very reverse appear at London, at Bristol, at Kingswood, at Newcastle In every one of which places, multitudes of those (I am able to name the persons) who before lived in a thorough neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances and all duties, do now zealously discharge their duties to God and man, and walk in all his ordinances blameless. And as to those drunkards, whoremongers, and other servants of the devil, as they were before, who heard us a while and then fell to the Calvinists or Moravians, are they not even now in a far better state than they were before they heard us Admit they are in error, yea, and die therein, yet, who dares affirm they will perish everlastingly But had they died in those sins, we are sure they had fallen into ‘the fire that never shall be quenched.’ I hope, sir, you will rejoice in considering, this, how much their gain still outweighs their loss; as well as in finding the sentiments you could not reconcile together clearly and consistently explained I am very willing to consider whatever farther you have to offer. May God give us both a right judgment in all things! I am persuaded you will readily join in this prayer with, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake, To Robert Dodsley, the Publisher LONDON, February 8, 1745. Having inadvertently printed in a collection of poems, 3 vols. 12 mo, the Night Thoughts of Dr. Young, together with some pieces of Mrs. Rowe’s, the property of Mr. Robert Dodsley, and having made satisfaction for the same by payment of a 20 pounds Bank Note, and a check for 30 pounds, payable in three months, I hereby promise not to print the same again in any form whatever. Charles Wesley to Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London The Foundry, February 8, 1745. MY LORD, -- Some time ago I was informed that your Lordship had received some allegation against me by one--[Name left blank in letter.] charging me with committing or offering to commit lewdness with her. I have also been lately informed that your Lordship had been pleased to say, if I solemnly declared my innocence, you would be satisfied. I therefore take this liberty, and do hereby solemnly declare that neither did I ever commit lewdness with that person, neither did I ever solicit her thereunto, but am innocent in deed and word as touching this thing. As there are other such slanders cast on me, and no less than all manner of evil spoken of me, I must beg leave first to declare mine innocence as to all other women likewise. It is now near twenty years since I began working out my salvation; in all which time God, in whose presence I speak, has kept me from either committing any act of adultery or fornication or soliciting any person whatsoever thereto. I never did the action; I never spoke a word inducing any one to such evil; I never harbored any such design in my heart. If your Lordship requires any farther purgation, I am ready to repeat this declaration viva voce, and to take the oaths in proof of it. -- I am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s dutiful son and servant, Ch. W. To Robert Young March 4, 1745. ROBERT YOUNG, -- I expect to see you, between this and Friday, and to hear from you that you are sensible of your fault. Otherwise, in pity to your soul, I shall be obliged to inform the Magistrates of your assaulting me yesterday in the street. -- I am Your real friend. To a Clerical Friend NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, March 11, I 745. I have been drawing up this morning a short state of the case between the clergy and us: I leave you to make any such use of it as you believe will be to the glory of God. 1. About seven years since, we began preaching inward, present salvation as attainable by faith alone. 2. For preaching this doctrine we were forbidden to preach in the churches. 3. We then preached in private houses as occasion offered; and, when the houses could not contain the people, in the open air. 4. For this many of the clergy preached or printed against us as both heretics and schismatics. 5. Persons who were convinced of sin begged us to advise them more particularly how to flee from the wrath to come. We replied, if they would all come at one time (for they were numerous), we would endeavor it. 6. For this we were represented, both from the pulpit and the press (we have heard it with our ears, and seen it with our eyes), as introducing Popery, raising sedition, practicing both against Church and State; and all manner of evil was publicly said both of us and those who were accustomed to meet with us. 7. Finding some truth herein, viz. that some of those who so met together walked disorderly, we immediately desired them not to come to us any more. 8. And the more steady were desired to overlook the rest, that we might know if they walked according to the gospel. 9. But now several of the bishops began to speak against us, either in conversation or in public. 10. On this encouragement, several of the clergy stirred up the people to treat us as outlaws or mad dogs. 11. The people did so, both in Staffordshire, Cornwall, and many other places. 12. And they do so still, wherever they are not restrained by their fear of the secular magistrate. Thus the case stands at present. Now, what can we do, or what can you our brethren do, towards healing this breach which is highly desirable, that we may withstand with joint force the still increasing flood of Popery, Deism, and immorality. Desire of us anything we can do with a safe conscience, and we will do it immediately. Will you meet us here Will you do what we desire of you, so far as you can with safe conscience Let us come to particulars: -- Do you desire us (1) to preach another, or to desist from preaching this, doctrine We think you do not desire it, as knowing we cannot do this with a safe conscience. Do you desire us (2) to desist from preaching in private houses or in the open air As things are now circumstanced, this would be the same as desiring us not to preach at all. Do you desire us (3) to desist from advising those who now meet together for that purpose or, in other words, to dissolve our Societies We cannot do this with a safe conscience; for we apprehend many souls would be lost thereby, and that God would require their blood at our hands. Do you desire us (4) to advise them only one by one This is impossible because of their number. Do you desire us (5) to suffer those who walk disorderly still to mix with the rest Neither can we do this with a safe conscience, because ’evil communications corrupt good manners.’ Do you desire us (6) to discharge those leaders of bands or classes (as we term them) who overlook the rest This is in effect to suffer the disorderly walkers still to mix with the rest, which we dare not do. Do you desire us (lastly) to behave with reverence toward those who are overseers of the Church of God and with tenderness both to the character and persons of our brethren the inferior clergy By the grace of God we can and will do this; yea, our conscience beareth us witness that we have already labored so to do, and that at all times and in all places. If you ask what we desire of you to do, we answer: -- 1. We do not desire any one of you to let us preach in your church, either if you believe us to preach false doctrine or if you have upon any other ground the least scruple of conscience concerning it. But we desire any who believes us to preach true doctrine, and has no scruple at all in this matter, may not be either publicly or privately discouraged from inviting us to preach in his church. 2. We do not desire that any one who thinks that we are heretics or schismatics, and that it is his duty to preach or print against us as such, should refrain therefrom, so long as he thinks it is his duty (although in this case the breach can never be healed). But we desire that none will pass such a sentence till he has calmly considered both sides of the question; that he would not condemn us unheard; but first read what we have written, and pray earnestly that God may direct him in the right way. 3. We do not desire any favor if either Popery, sedition, or immorality be proved against us. But we desire you will not credit without proof any of those senseless tales that pass current with the vulgar; that, if you do not credit them yourselves, you will not relate them to others (which we have known done); yea, that you will confute them, so far as ye have opportunity, and discountenance those who still retail them abroad. 4. We do not desire any preferment, favor, or recommendation from those that are in authority, either in Church or State. But we desire (1) that if anything material be laid to our charge, we may be permitted to answer for ourselves; (2) that you would hinder your dependents from stirring up the rabble against us, who are certainly not the proper judges of these matters; and (3) that you would effectually suppress and throughly discountenance all riots and popular insurrections, which evidently strike at the foundation of all government, whether of Church or State. Now, these things you certainly can do, and that with a safe conscience. Therefore, till these things are done, the continuance of the breach is chargeable on you, and you only.[See Stamp’s Orphan House, pp. 65-6. Wesley’s letter had little effect.] To Lord Grange (James Erskine) NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, March 16, 1745. DEAR SIR,--I sincerely thank you for the transcript you send me from Mr. Robe’s letter. It shows a truly Christian spirit. I should be glad to have also the note you mention touching the proposal for prayer and praise. Might it not be practicable to have the concurrence of Mr. Edwards [Jonathan Edwards (1703-58) was now pastor at Northampton (Mass.). There were remarkable awakenings there in 1734 and 1735, and in 1740, when he became the bosom friend of Whitefield. In 1744 he offended many by stringent measures in regard to immoralities, and in 1750 was dismissed from his pastorate. He was elected President of Princeton in 1757, and died the following year.] in New England, if not of Mr. Tennent [Gilbert Tennent, born in Armagh 1703. His father emigrated to America in 1718, where he became a Presbyterian minister, and established Los College, the first Presbyterian literary and theological college in America, the parent of Princeton. Gilbert was ordained in 1726, and went with Whitefield on a preaching-tour in Boston. He had few equals as a preacher; Dr. H. B. Smith calls him ‘that soul of fire.’ He died in 1764.] also, herein It is evidently one work with what we have seen here. Why should we not all praise God with one heart Whoever agrees with us in that account of practical religion given in The Character of a Methodist, [Published in 1742. See Works, viii. 339-47.] I regard not what his other opinions are, the same is my brother and sister and mother. I am more assured that love is of God than that any opinion whatsoever is so. Herein may we increase more and more.--I am, dear sir, Your most affectionate servant. To John Stephenson NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, April 5, 1745. SIR,--I am surprised. You give it under your hand that you will put me in possession of a piece of ground, specified in an article between us, in fifteen days’ time. Three months are passed, and that article is not fulfilled. And now you say you can’t conceive what I mean by troubling you. I mean to have that article fulfilled. I think my meaning is very plain. -- I am, sir, Your humble servant. To his Brother Charles LEEDS, April 23, 1745. DEAR BROTHER, [Charles Wesley was in London from April 9 to June 17.]--It was time for me to give them the ground at Newcastle [See previous letter.] and to fly for my life. I grew more and more honorable every day; the rich and great flocking to us together, so that many times the room would not hold them. Iniquity for the present hath stopped her mouth; and it is almost fashionable to speak well of us. In all appearance, if I had stayed a month longer, the Mayor and Aldermen would have been with us too. On Easter Monday we met at half-hour after four; and the room was full from end to end with high and low, rich and poor, plain and fine people. At nine I preached to almost as large a congregation in the street at Chesterle-Street. All were quiet and still; for the hand of our Lord was in the midst of them. About six I preached at Northallerton in the house: but it should have been (I afterwards found) at the Cross; for the people there are (most of them) a noble people, and receive the word with all readiness of mind. A gentleman of Osmotherley [Mr. Adams. See Journal, iii. 169; W.H.S. vii. 28-31.] (east from Northallerton) telling me he wished I could have come and preached there, I took him at his word, set out immediately, and about ten at night preached at Osmotherley, in a large chapel which belonged a few years since to a convent of Franciscan Friars. I found I was got into the very center of all the Papists in the North of England. Commessatorem haud satis commodum! [‘Terence’s Adelphi, v. ii. 8: ‘A by no means fitting boon companion.’] This also hath God wrought. The classes call me away. I must (for several reasons) see London before Bristol. One is, I shall go from Bristol to Cornwall; so that, if I come to Bristol now, I shall not be at London these three months. What I propose, therefore, is to go from Birmingham, through Oxford (as I wrote before), straight to London. [He reached London on May 11.] You can send me word where you will meet me. All here salute you much. If you could come hither soon (think of it), Leeds would vie with Newcastle. I wish you could. O let us watch! Adieu. To A. W. LONDON, May 28, 1745. DEAR SISTER, -- So long as you are afraid of your own weakness and foolishness it will not prevail over you; and if God is on your side, it will be a little thing to be slighted by them that know not God. But, whatever they do, your way is plain, -- follow on to know the Lord; that whereunto you have attained hold fast; and watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation, but daily grow in grace and in knowledge of Him that bought us with His blood. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To M. W. LONDON, May 28, 1745. MY DEAR SISTER, -- If you find the beginning of the peace of God and the dawning of His love in your heart, what have you to do but quietly wait and pray for the fulfilling of all His promises Fear is good for nothing, unless it be a filial fear, such a fear of offending as springs from love. You are called to peace, and the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace. Only walk circumspectly, redeeming the time, doing the will of God from the heart, and He will supply all your wants at the time and in the manner that pleaseth Him. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jones, of Fonmon Castle ST. GENNYS, June 18, 1745. On Thursday, July 18 (if God permit), Mr. Thompson [George Thompson, Vicar of St. Gennys.] will come with me to Minehead. From whence, if your brother’s sloop was ready, we could cross over to Fonmon. I sent word before, both that you may have time to let me know if the sloop cannot come, and that Mr. Hodges (with whom I hope to spend Sunday, July 21) may order his affairs so as to be able to go with me to Garth on Monday, and from thence to our yearly Conference at Bristol. I have been much disappointed since I left London last, expecting to meet with nothing but difficulties, and finding none at all, or such as did but just appear and then vanish into nothing. So it shall always be, if our whole care be cast on Him who careth for us. The rough places shall in due time be all made smooth, and the mountain become a plain. What have we, then, to do but to stand still and see the salvation of God I commend you and yours to His ever-waking love; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. We are to set out toward St. Ives to-morrow. To Mrs. Jones, At Fonmon Castle, Near Cardiff, South Wales. Free-James Erskine. [See Journal, iii. 181; and letter of March 16, 1745.] To the Author of the ‘Craftsman’ [July] 1745. SIR, -- In your late paper of June 22 I find (among many to the same effect) these words: -- ‘Methodists place all merit in faith and grace, and none in good works. This unwarrantable strange sect of a religion, founded on madness and folly, hold that there is no justification by good works, but by faith and grace only. They hereby banish that divine part of our constitution, reason; and cut off the most essential recommendation to heaven, virtue. ‘Men who are far gone in their mad principles of religion suspend the hand of industry, become inactive, and leave all to Providence, without exercising either their heads or hands. ‘The doctrine of Regeneration is essential with political Methodists; who are now regenerated, place all merit in faith, and have thrown good works aside.’ I am pressed by those to whose judgment I pay great regard to take some notice of these assertions; and the rather because you sometimes seem as if you thought the Christian institution was of God. Now, if you really think so, or if you desire that any man should believe you do, you must not talk so ludicrously of Regeneration; for it is an essential doctrine of Christianity. And you may probably have heard, or even read in former years, that it was the Author of this institution who said, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ This He represents as the only possible entrance into the experimental knowledge of that religion, which is not founded (whatever you may suppose) on either madness or folly, but on the inmost nature of things, the nature of God and man, and the immutable relations between them. By this religion we do not banish reason, but exalt it to its utmost perfection; this being in every point consistent therewith, and in every step guided thereby. But you say, ‘They hereby cut off the most essential recommendation to heaven, virtue.’ What virtue That of self-murder; that of casting their own infants to be devoured by beasts or wolves; that of dragging at their chariot-wheels those whose only crimes were the love of their parents, or children, or country These Roman virtues our religion does cut off; it leaves no place for them. And a reasonable Deist will allow that these are not ‘the most essential recommendation to heaven.’ But it is far from cutting off any sort, degree, or instance of genuine virtue; all which is contained in the love of God and man, producing every divine and amiable temper. And this love we suppose (according to the Christian scheme) to flow from a sense of God’s love to us; which sense and persuasion of God’s love to man in Christ Jesus, particularly applied, we term faith -- a thing you seem to be totally unacquainted with. For it is not the faith whereof we speak, unless it be a ‘faith working by love,’ a faith ‘zealous of good works,’ careful to maintain, nay, to excel in them. Nor do we acknowledge him to have one grain of faith who is not continually doing good, who is not willing ‘to spend and be spent in doing all good, as he has opportunity, to all men.’ Whoever, therefore, they are that ‘throw aside good works, that suspend’ (as you prettily phrase it) ‘the hand of industry, become inactive, and leave all to Providence, without exercising either their heads or hands,’ they are no more led into this by any doctrine of ours than by the writings of Paul of Tarsus. And yet ‘this unaccountable strange sect’ (so I believe we appear to you) ‘place no merit at all in good works.’ Most true. No, nor in faith neither (which you may think more unaccountable still); but only in ‘the blood of the everlasting covenant.’ We do assuredly hold (which I beg to leave with you, and to recommend to your deepest consideration) that there is no justification in your sense either by faith or works, or both together -- that is, that we are not pardoned and accepted with God for the merit of either or both, but only by the grace or free love of God, for the alone merits of His Son Jesus Christ. -- I am, sir, Your friend, though not admirer. To Count Zinzendorf and the Moravian Brethren LONDON, September 6, 1745. TO THAT PART OF THE PEOPLE CALLED METHODISTS WHO ARE COMMONLY STYLED THE MORAVIAN BRETHREN. You declare, in the Daily Advertiser of August 2 (by your humble servant James Hutton), that Mr. John and Charles Wesley are both in the plain way of false teaching and deceiving souls; that you cannot but be suspicious, at the same time they preach perfection, they are willful servants of sin; and that you fear you shall see them running with their heads against the wall for a punishment of their high spirits. You declare at the same time, if a controversy should arise from this declaration, you will not meddle with it in any way. That is, you strike a man on the head as hard as you can, and then declare you will not fight. You are safe! No controversy will arise on my part from any declaration of this kind. Your unusual conduct does not hinder me from still embracing you with candor and love, and commending you to Him who is able to make you perfect in every good work; for whose sake I am, and trust ever to remain, Your brother and servant. To the Mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne NEWCASTLE, September 21, 1745. TO THE WORSHIPFUL THE MAYOR OF NEWCASTLE. SIR, -- My not waiting upon you at the Town Hall was not owing to any want of respect. I reverence you for your office’ sake, and much more for your zeal in the execution of it. I would to God every magistrate in the land would copy after such an example! Much less was it owing to any disaffection to His Majesty King George. But I knew not how far it might be either necessary or proper for me to appear on such an occasion. I have no fortune at Newcastle: I have only the bread I eat, and the use of a little room for a few weeks in the year. All I can do for His Majesty, whom I honor and love (I think not less than I did my own father) is this: I cry unto God day by day, in public and in private, to put all his enemies to confusion; and I exhort all that hear me to do the same, and in their several stations to exert themselves as loyal subjects, who, so long as they fear God, cannot but honor the King. Permit me, sir, to add a few words more, out of the fullness of my heart. I am persuaded you fear God and have a deep sense that His kingdom ruleth over all. Unto whom, then (I may ask you), should we flee for succor but unto Him, whom by our sins we have justly displeased O sir, is it not possible to give any check to these overflowings of ungodliness to the open, flagrant wickedness, the drunkenness and profaneness, which so abound, even in our streets [See letters of July 12, 1743, and Oct. 26, 1745.] I just take leave to suggest this. May the God whom you serve direct you in this and all things! This is the daily prayer of, sir, Your obedient servant for Christ’s sake. To his Brother Charles NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, September 22, 1745. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have only just time to inform you that, since the account is confirmed by an express to the Mayor that General Cope is fled and his forces defeated (all that did not run away), the consternation of the poor people is redoubled. The townsmen are put under arms, the walls planted with cannon, and those who live without the gates are removing their goods with all speed. We stand our ground as yet, glory be to God, to the no small astonishment of our neighbors. Brethren, pray for us, that, if need be, we may True in the fiery trial prove, And pay Him back His dying love. Adieu. To ‘John Smith’ NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, September 28, 1745. SIR, -- 1. I was determined, from the time I received yours, [Dated May 1745. Wesley had spent much of the interval in Cornwall and elsewhere, and it was not till the middle of August that he had leisure to look over the letters he had received that summer (Journal, iii.197). ‘John Smith’ writes as ‘a candid adversary,’ making objections to matter of doctrine, phraseology, and fact.] to answer it as soon as I should have opportunity. But it was the longer delayed because I could not persuade myself to write at all till I had leisure to write fully. And this I hope to do now, though I know you not--no, not so much as your name. But I take for granted you are a person that fears God and that speaks the real sentiments of his heart. And on this supposition I shall speak without any suspicion or reserve. 2. I am exceedingly obliged by the pains you have taken to point out to me what you think to be mistakes. It is a truly Christian attempt, an act of brotherly love, which I pray God to repay sevenfold into your bosom. Methinks I can scarce look upon such a person, on one who is ‘a contender for truth and not for victory,’ whatever opinion he may entertain of me, as any adversary at all. For what is friendship, if I am to account him my enemy who endeavors to open my eyes or to amend my heart I. 3. You will give me leave (writing as a friend rather than a disputant) to invert the order of your objections, and to begin with the third, because I conceive it may be answered in fewest words. The substance of it is this: ‘If in fact you can work such signs and wonders as were wrought by the Apostles, then you are entitled (notwithstanding what I might otherwise object) to the implicit faith due to one of that order.’ A few lines after, you cite a case related in the Third Journal, p. 88, [See Journal ii. 290-1, Oct. 12, 1739.] and add: ‘If you prove this to be the fact, to the satisfaction of wise and good men, then I believe no wise and good men will oppose you any longer. Let me therefore rest it upon your conscience, either to prove this matter of fact or to retract it. If upon mature examination it shall appear that designing people imposed upon you, or that hysterical women were imposed upon themselves, acknowledge your zeal outran your wisdom.’ 4. Surely I would. But what if, on such examination, it shall appear that there was no imposition of either kind, to be satisfied of which I waited three years before I told the story What if it appear, by the only method which I can conceive, the deposition of three or four eye-and earwitnesses, that the matter of fact was just as it is there related, so far as men can judge from their eyes and ears Will it follow that I am entitled to demand the implicit faith which was due to an apostle By no means. Nay, I know not that implicit faith was due to any or all of the Apostles put together. They were to prove their assertions by the written Word. You and I are to do the same. Without such proof I ought no more to have believed St. Peter himself than St. Peter’s (pretended) successor. 5. I conceive, therefore, this whole demand, common as it is, of proving our doctrine by miracles, proceeds from a double mistake: (1) A supposition that what we preach is not provable from Scripture; for if it be, what need we farther witnesses ‘To the law and to the testimony!’ (2) An imagination that a doctrine not provable by Scripture might nevertheless be proved by miracles. I believe not. I receive the written Word as the whole and sole rule of my faith. II. 6. Perhaps what you object to my phraseology may be likewise answered in few words. I thoroughly agree that it is best to ‘use the most common words, and that in the most obvious sense’; and have been diligently laboring after this very thing for little less than twenty years. I am not conscious of using any uncommon word or any word in an uncommon sense; but I cannot call those uncommon words which are the constant language of Holy Writ. These I purposely use, desiring always to express Scripture sense in Scripture phrase. And this I apprehend myself to do when I speak of salvation as a present thing. How often does our Lord Himself do thus! how often His Apostles, St. Paul particularly! Insomuch that I doubt whether we can find six texts in the New Testament, perhaps not three, where it is otherwise taken. 7. The term ‘faith’ I likewise use in the scriptural sense, meaning thereby ‘the evidence of things not seen.’ And that it is scriptural appears to me a sufficient defense of any way of speaking whatever. For, however the propriety of those expressions may vary which occur in the writings of men, I cannot but think those which are found in the Book of God will be equally proper in all ages. But let us look back, as you desire, to the age of the Apostles. And if it appear that the state of religion now is, according to your own representation of it, the same in substance as it was then, it will follow that the same expressions are just as proper now as they were in the apostolic age. 8. ‘At the time of the first preaching of the gospel’ (as you justly observe) ‘both Jews and Gentiles were very negligent of internal holiness, but laid great stress on external rites and certain actions, which, if they performed according to the due forms of their respective religions, they doubted not but those works would render them acceptable to God. The Apostles therefore thought they could not express themselves too warmly against so wicked a persuasion, and often declare that we cannot be made righteous by works (that is, not by such outward works as were intended to commute for inward holiness), but “by faith in Christ” (that is, by becoming Christians both in principle and practice).’ 9. I have often thought the same thing; namely, that the Apostles used the expression ‘salvation by faith’ (importing inward holiness by the knowledge of God) in direct opposition to the then common persuasion of salvation by works -- that is, going to heaven by outward works, without any inward holiness at all. 10. And is not this persuasion as common now as it was in the time of the Apostles We must needs go out of the world, or we cannot doubt it. Does not every one of our Churches (to speak a sad truth) afford us abundant instances of those who are as negligent of internal holiness as either the Jews or ancient Gentiles were And do not these at this day lay so great a stress on certain external rites, that, if they perform them according to the due forms of their respective communities, they doubt not but those works will render them acceptable to God You and I therefore cannot express ourselves too warmly against so wicked a persuasion; nor can we express ourselves against it in more proper terms than those the Apostles used to that very end. It cannot be denied that this apostolical language is also the language of our own Church. But I waive this. What is scriptural in any Church, I hold fast; for the rest, I let it go. III. 11. But the main point remains: you think the doctrines I hold are not founded on Holy Writ. Before we inquire into this, I would just touch on some parts of that abstract of them which you have given. ‘Faith (instead of being a rational assent and moral virtue, for the attainment of which men ought to yield the utmost attention and industry) is altogether supernatural and the immediate gift of God.’ I believe (1) that a rational assent to the truth of the Bible is one ingredient of Christian faith; (2) that Christian faith is a moral virtue in that sense wherein hope and charity are; (3) that men ought to yield the utmost attention and industry for the attainment of it; and yet (4) that this, as every Christian grace, is properly supernatural, is an immediate gift of God, which He commonly gives in the use of such means as He hath ordained. I believe it is generally given in an instant: but not arbitrarily, in your sense of the word; not without any regard to the fitness (I should say the previous qualifications) of the recipient. 12. ‘When a man is pardoned, it is immediately notified to him by the Holy Ghost, and that, not by His imperceptibly working a godly assurance, but by such attestation as is easily discernible from reason or fancy.’ I do not deny that God imperceptibly works in some a gradually increasing assurance of His love; but I am equally certain He works in others a full assurance thereof in one moment. And I suppose, however this godly assurance be wrought, it is easily discernible from bare reason or fancy. ‘Upon this infallible notification he is saved, is become perfect, so that he cannot commit sin.’ I do not say this notification is infallible in that sense, that none believe they have it who indeed have it not; neither do I say that a man is perfect in love the moment he is born of God by faith. But even then I believe, if he keepeth himself, he cloth not commit (outward) sin. 13. ‘This first sowing of the first seed of faith you cannot conceive to be other than instantaneous (ordinarily), whether you consider experience, or the Word of God, or the very nature of the thing. Whereas all these appear to me to be against you. To begin with experience: I believe myself to have as steady a faith in a pardoning God as you can have; and yet I do not remember the exact day when it was first given.’ Perhaps not. Yours may be another of those exempt cases which were allowed before. But ‘the experience,’ you say, ‘of all the pious persons’ you ‘are acquainted with is the very same with’ yours. You will not be displeased with my speaking freely. How many truly pious persons are you so intimately acquainted with as to be able to interrogate them on the subject with twenty with ten If so, you are far happier than I was for many years at Oxford. You will naturally ask, with how many truly pious persons am I acquainted, on the other hand. I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not: I am acquainted with more than twelve or thirteen hundred persons, whom I believe to be truly pious, and not on slight grounds, and who have severally testified to me with their own mouths that they do know the day when the love of God was first shed abroad in their hearts and when His Spirit first witnessed with their spirits that they were the children of God. Now, if you are determined to think all these liars or fools, this is no evidence to you; but to me it is strong evidence, who have for some years known the men and their communication. 14. As to the Word of God, you well observe, ‘We are not to frame doctrines by the sound of particular texts, but the general tenor of Scripture, soberly studied and consistently interpreted.’ Touching the instances you give, I would just remark: (1) To have sin is one thing; to commit sin is another. (2) In one particular text it is said, ‘Ye are saved by hope’; perhaps in one more (though I remember it not), ‘Ye are saved by repentance or holiness.’ But the general tenor of Scripture, consistently interpreted, declares, ‘We are saved by faith.’ (3) Will either the general tenor of Scripture or your own conscience allow you to say that faith is the gift of God in no other or higher sense than riches are (4) I entirely agree with you that the children of light walk by the joint light of reason, Scripture, and the Holy Ghost. 15. ‘But the Word of God appears to’ you ’to be manifestly against such an instantaneous giving of faith, because it speaks of growth in grace and faith as owing to the slow methods of instruction.’ So do I. But this is not the question. We are speaking, not of the progress, but of the first rise of faith. ‘It directs the gentle instilling of faith by long labor and pious industry.’ Not the first instilling; and we speak not now of the continuance or increase of it. ‘It compares even God’s part of the work to the slow produce of vegetables, that, while one plants and another waters, it is God all the while who goes on giving the increase.’ Very true. But the seed must first be sown before it can increase at all. Therefore all the texts which relate to the subsequent increase are quite wide of the present question. Perhaps your thinking the nature of the thing to be so clearly against me may arise from your not clearly apprehending it. That you do not, I gather from your own words: ‘It is the nature of faith to be a full and practical assent to truth.’ Surely no. This definition does in no wise express the nature of Christian faith. Christian, saving faith is a divine conviction of invisible things; a supernatural conviction of the things of God, with a filial confidence in His love. Now, a man may have a full assent to the truth of the Bible (probably attained by the slow steps you mention), yea, an assent which has some influence on his practice, and yet not have one grain of this faith. 16. I should be glad to know to which writings in particular of the last age you would refer me for a thorough discussion of the Calvinistical points. I want to have those points fully settled, having seen so little yet wrote on the most important of them with such clearness and strength as one would desire. 17. I think your following objections do not properly come under any of the preceding heads: ‘Your doctrine of Momentaneous Illapse, &c., is represented by your adversaries as singular and unscriptural; and that these singularities are your most beloved opinions and favorite tenets, more insisted upon by you than the general and uncontroverted truths of Christianity: this is their charge.’ And so, I doubt, it will be to the end of the world; for, in spite of all I can say, they will represent one circumstance of my doctrine (so called) as the main substance of it. It nothing avails that I declare again and again, ‘Love is the fulfilling of the law.’ I believe this love is given in a moment. But about this I contend not. Have this love, and it is enough. For this I will contend till my spirit returns to God. Whether I am singular or no in thinking this love is instantaneously given, this is not my ‘most beloved opinion.’ You greatly wrong me when you advance that charge. Nay, I love, strictly speaking, no opinion at all. I trample upon opinion, be it right or wrong. I want, I value, I preach the love of God and man. These are my ‘favorite tenets’ (if you will have the word), ’more insisted on’ by me ten times over, both in preaching and writing, than any or all other subjects that ever were in the world. 18. You will observe, I do not say (and who is there that can) that I have no singular opinion at all; but this I say -- that, in my general tenor of preaching, I teach nothing as the substance of religion more singular than the love of God and man; and it was for preaching this very doctrine (before I preached or knew salvation by faith) that several of the clergy forbade me their pulpits. ‘But if it be notorious that you are frequently insisting on controverted opinions.’ If it be, even this will not prove the charge--namely, ‘that those are my most beloved opinions, and more insisted upon by me than the uncontroverted truths of Christianity.’ ‘No singularities’ is not my answer: but that no singularities are my most beloved opinions; that no singularities are more, or near so much, insisted on by me as the general, uncontroverted truths of Christianity. 19. ‘Another objection,’ you say, ‘I have to make to your manner of treating your antagonists. You seem to think you sufficiently answer your adversary if you put together a number of naked scriptures that sound in your favor. But remember, the question between you and them is, not whether such words are Scripture, but whether they are to be so interpreted.’ You surprise me! I take your word, else I should never have imagined you had read over the latter Appeal; so great a part of which is employed in this very thing, in fighting my ground inch by inch, in proving, not that such words are Scripture, but that they must be interpreted in the manner there set down. 20. One point more remains, which you express in these words: ‘When your adversaries tax you with differing from the Church, they cannot be supposed to charge you with differing from the Church as it was a little after the Reformation, but as it is at this day. And when you profess great deference and veneration for the Church of England, you cannot be supposed to profess it for the Church and its pastors in the year 1545, and not rather in the year 1745. If, then, by “the Church of England” be meant (as ought to be meant) the present Church, it will be no hard matter to show that your doctrines differ widely from the doctrines of the Church.’ Well, how blind was I! I always supposed, till the very hour I read these words, that when I was charged with differing from the Church I was charged with differing from the Articles or Homilies. And for the compilers of these I can sincerely profess great deference and veneration. But I cannot honestly profess any veneration at all for those pastors of the present age who solemnly subscribe to those Articles and Homilies which they do not believe in their hearts. Nay, I think, unless I differ from these men (be they bishops, priests, or deacons) just as widely as they do from those Articles and Homilies, I am no true Church of England man. Agreeably to those ancient records, by ‘Christian’ or ‘justifying faith’ I always meant faith preceded by repentance and accompanied or followed by obedience. So I always preached; so I spoke and wrote. But my warm adversaries from the very beginning stopped their ears, cried out, ‘An heretic! An heretic!’ and so ran upon me at once. 21. But I let them alone: you are the person I want, and whom I have been seeking for many years. You have understanding to discern and mildness to repeat (what would otherwise be) unpleasing truths. Smite me friendly and reprove me: it shall be a precious balm; it shall not break my head. I am deeply convinced that I know nothing yet as I ought to know. Fourteen years ago I said (with Mr. Norris [Wesley read Norris on Faith and Practice in 1729 (Journal, i. 89n), and his Christian Prudence on the way to Georgia (ibid. i. 125, 126d). In the last paragraph of Reflections upon the Conduct of Human Life with reference to Learning and Knowledge. Extracted from Mr. Norris (1734), he speaks of reading books that ‘are rather persuasive than instructive; such as warm, kindle, and enlarge the affections, and awaken the divine sense in the soul; as being convinced, by every day’s experience, that I have more need of heat than of light.’ See letter of March 14, 1756.]), ‘I want heat more than light’; but now I know not which I want most. Perhaps God will enlighten me by your words. O speak and spare not! At least, you will have the thanks and prayers of Your obliged and affectionate servant. To General Husk NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, October 8, 1745. A surly man came to me this evening, as he said, from you. He would not deign to come upstairs to me, nor so much as into the house; but stood still in the yard till I came, and then obliged me to go with him into the street, where he said, ‘You must pull down the battlements of your house, or to-morrow the General will pull them down for you.’ Sir, to me this is nothing. But I humbly conceive it would not be proper for this man, whoever he is, to behave in such a manner to any other of His Majesty’s subjects at so critical a time as this. I am ready, if it may be for His Majesty’s service, to pull not only the battlements but the house down; or to give up any part of it or the whole into your Excellency’s hands. To the Mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne NEWCASTLE, October 26, 1745. SIR, -- The fear of God, the love of my country, and the regard I have for His Majesty King George constrain me to write a few plain words to one who is no stranger to these principles of action.[See letter of Sept. 21.] My soul has been pained day by day, even in walking the streets of Newcastle, at the senseless, shameless wickedness, the ignorant profaneness, of the poor men to whom our lives are entrusted. [Fifteen thousand troops were encamped on Newcastle Moor] The continual cursing and swearing, the wanton blasphemy of the soldiers in general, must needs be a torture to the sober ear, whether of a Christian or an honest infidel. Can any that either fear God or love their neighbor hear this without concern especially if they consider the interest of our country, as well as of these unhappy men themselves. For can it be expected that God should be on their side who are daily affronting Him to His face And if God be not on their side, how little will either their number or courage or strength avail! Is there no man that careth for these souls Doubtless there are some who ought so to do. But many of these, if I am rightly informed, receive large pay and do just nothing. I would to God it were in my power in any degree to supply their lack of service. I am ready to do what in me lies to call these poor sinners to repentance, once or twice a day (while I remain in these parts), at any hour or at any place. And I desire no pay at all for doing this, unless what my Lord shall give at His appearing. If it be objected (from our heathenish poet), ‘This conscience will make cowards of us all,’ [Hamlet, III. i. 83] I answer, Let us judge by matter of fact. Let either friends or enemies speak. Did those who feared God behave as cowards at Fontenoy Did John Haime the dragoon betray any cowardice before or after his horse sunk under him [See Wesley’s Veterans, i. 34.] Or did William Clements when he received the first ball in his left and the second in his right arm Or John Evans, when the cannonball took off both his legs Did he not call all about him, as long as he could speak, to praise and fear God and honor the King as one who feared nothing but lest his last breath should be spent in vain.[When William Clements had his arm broken by a musket-ball on May 11, 1745 (see Journal,iii. 226), they would have carried him out of the battle; but he said, ‘No; I have an arm left to hold my sword: I will not go yet.’ When a second shot broke his other arm, he said, ‘I am as happy as I can be out of Paradise.’ John Evans had both his legs taken off by a cannonball. He ‘was laid across a cannon to die; where, as long as he could speak, he was praising God with joyful lips.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, i. 33.] If it were objected that I should only fill their heads with peculiar whims and notions, that might easily be known. Only let the officers hear with their own ears; and they may judge whether I do not preach the plain principles of manly, rational religion. Having myself no knowledge of the General, I took the liberty to make this offer to you. I have no interest herein; but I should rejoice to serve as I am able my King and country. If it be judged that this will be of no real service, let the proposal die and be forgotten. But I beg you, sir, to believe that I have the same glorious cause, for which you have shown so becoming a zeal, earnestly at heart [The Mayor sent a message the following day saying that he would ’communicate my proposal to the General, and return me his answer as soon as possible.’ Wesley preached near the camp several times. See Journal, iii. 218-19.]; and that therefore I am, with warm respect, sir, Your most obedient servant. To the Moravian Synod LONDON, December 8, 1745. TO THE SYNOD OF THE MORAVIAN BRETHREN AT MARIENBORN. MY BRETHREN, -- Is it not the will of our great Shepherd to gather together in one all His sheep that are scattered abroad Our earnest desire is that this His will may be done. And we are ready to do anything in our power that may in any degree contribute thereto. If you are willing any of your brethren should confer with us, we are ready, and should rejoice therein.Might we not, in a free and brotherly conference,-- 1. See in what points we do already agree together; 2. Consider what points (wherein we do not yet agree) we might suffer to sleep on either side; and 3. Settle how far we might unite, what kind or degree of fellowship we might preserve with each other, even if there should be some points wherein we cannot avoid speaking contrary to each other We desire your answer to this proposal, which is made in simplicity of heart by Your affectionate brethren, JOHN WESLEY, CHARLES WESLEY. To Westley Hall LONDON, December, 30, 1745. DEAR BROTHER, -- Now you act the part of a friend. It has been long our desire that you would speak freely. And we will do the same. What we know not yet, may God reveal to us! You think, first, that we undertake to defend some things which are not defensible by the Word of God. You instance in three; on each of which we will explain ourselves as clearly as we can. 1. ‘That the validity of our ministry depends on a succession supposed to be from the Apostles, and a commission derived from the Pope of Rome and his successors or dependants.’ We believe it would not be right for us to administer either baptism or the Lord’s supper unless we had a commission so to do from those bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles. And yet we allow these bishops are the successors of those who were dependent on the Bishop of Rome. But we would be glad to know on what reasons you believe this to be inconsistent with the Word of God. 2. ‘That there is an outward priesthood, and consequently an outward sacrifice, ordained and offered by the Bishop of Rome, and his successors or dependents, in the Church of England, as vicars and viceregents of Christ.’ We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church (whether dependent on the Bishop of Rome or not), an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein, by men authorized to act as ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. On what grounds do you believe that Christ has abolished that priesthood or sacrifice 3. ‘That this Papal hierarchy and prelacy, which still continues in the Church of England, is of apostolical institution, and authorized thereby, though not by the written Word.’ We believe that the threefold order of ministers (which you seem to mean by Papal hierarchy and prelacy) is not only authorized by its apostolical institution, but also by the written Word. Yet we are willing to hear and weigh whatever reasons induce you to believe to the contrary. You think, secondly, ‘that we ourselves give up some things as indefensible, which are defended by the same law and authority that establishes the things above mentioned; such as are many of the laws, customs, and practices of the Ecclesiastical Courts.’ We allow (1) that those laws, customs, and practices are really indefensible; (2) that there are Acts of Parliament in defense of them, and also of the threefold order. But will you show us how it follows, either (1) that those things and these stand or fall together or (2) that we cannot sincerely plead for the one, though we give up the other Do you not here quite overlook one circumstance, which might be a key to our whole behavior -- namely, that we no more look upon these filthy abuses which adhere to our Church as part of the building than we look upon any filth which may adhere to the walls of Westminster Abbey as a part of that structure You think, thirdly, ‘that there are other things which we defend and practice, in open contradiction to the orders of the Church of England.’ And this you judge to be a just exception against the sincerity of our professions to adhere to it. Compare what we profess with what we practice, and you will possibly be of another judgment. We profess (1) that we will obey all the laws of that Church (such we allow the Rubrics to be, but not the customs of the Ecclesiastical Courts) so far as we can with a safe conscience: (2) that we will obey, with the same restriction, the bishops as executors of those laws; but their bare will, distinct from those laws, we do not profess to obey at all. Now point out what is there in our practice which is an open contradiction to these professions Is field-preaching Not at all. It is contrary to no law which we profess to obey. The allowing lay preachers We are not clear that this is contrary to any such law. But if it is, this is one of the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe conscience. Therefore, be it right or wrong on other accounts, it is, however, no just exception against our sincerity. The rules and directions given to our Societies which, you say, is a discipline utterly forbidden by the bishops. When and where did any bishop forbid this And if any did, by what law We know not either the man who ever did forbid or the law by which he could forbid it. The ‘allowing persons (for we require none) to communicate at the chapel, in contradiction (you think) to all those Rubrics which require all to attend always on their own parish church and pastor, and to receive only at his table’ Which Rubrics are those We cannot find them, and, till these are produced, all that is so frequently said of parochial unity, &c., is merely gratis dictum Consequently neither is this any just exception against the sincerity of any of our professions. To ‘John Smith’ LONDON, December 30, 1745. SIR, -- I am obliged to you for your speedy and friendly answer [Wesley wrote on Sept. 28, and ‘John Smith’s’ reply was dated Nov. 27 (see Moore’s Wesley, ii. 494-505). A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion was published early in 1745.]; to which I will reply as clearly as I can. 1. If you have leisure to read the last Appeal, you will easily judge how much I insist on any opinions. 2. In writing practically, I seldom argue concerning the meaning of texts; in writing controversially, I do. 3. In saying, ‘I teach the doctrines of the Church of England,’ I do, and always did, mean (without concerning myself whether others taught them or no, either this year or before the Reformation) I teach the doctrines which are comprised in those Articles and Homilies to which all the clergy of the Church of England solemnly profess to assent, and that in their plain, unforced, grammatical meaning. As to the Seventeenth Article, Mr. Whitefield really believes that it asserts absolute predestination; therefore I can also subscribe to it with sincerity. But the case is quite different with regard to those who subscribe to the Eleventh and following Articles; which are not ambiguously worded, as the Seventeenth (I suppose on purpose) was. 4. When I say, ‘The Apostles themselves were to prove their assertions by the written Word,’ I mean the word written before their time, the Law and the Prophets; and so they did. I do not believe the case of Averel Spenser [See for this paragraph the letter of Sept. 28, sect. 4, where Wesley says the Apostles ‘were to prove their assertions by the written Word. You and I are to do the same.’ ‘John Smith’ refers to a teacher who ‘gives out that the Spirit of God gives visible attestations to his ministry by miraculous works (for surely the casting out of devils may be called so, if anything can)’ (see Journal, ii. 291). Charles Wesley says on Oct. 6, 1739 (Journal, i. 186), Averel Spenser of Bristol, ‘one that received faith last night, came to day and declared it.’] was natural; yet, when I kneeled down by her bedside, I had no thought at all of God’s then giving any ‘attestation to my ministry.’ But I asked of God to deliver an afflicted soul; and He did deliver her. Nevertheless, I desire none to receive my words, unless they are confirmed by Scripture and reason. And if they are, they ought to be received, though Averel Spenser had never been born. 5. That we ought not to relate a purely natural case in the Scripture terms that express our Lord’s miracles, that low and common things are generally improper to be told in Scripture phrase, that scriptural words which are obsolete or which have changed their signification are not to be used familiarly, as neither those technical terms which were peculiar to the controversies of those days, I can easily apprehend. But I cannot apprehend that ’salvation’ or ‘justification’ is a term of this sort; and much less that ‘faith’ and ‘works,’ or ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh,’ are synonymous terms with ‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism.’ I know this has frequently been affirmed; but I do not know that it has been proved. 6. However, you think there is no occasion now for the expressions used in ancient times, since the persuasions which were common then are now scarcely to be found. For ‘does any Church of England man,’ you ask, ‘maintain anything like this -- that men may commute external works instead of internal holiness’ Most surely: I doubt whether every Church of England man in the nation, yea, every Protestant (as well as Papist) in Europe, who is not deeply sensible that he did so once, does not do so to this day. I am one who for twenty years used outward works, not only as ‘acts of goodness,’ but as commutations (though I did not indeed profess this), instead of inward holiness. I knew I was not holy. But I quieted my conscience by doing such-and-such outward works; and therefore I hoped I should go to heaven, even without inward holiness. Nor did I ever speak close to one who had the form of godliness without the power but I found he had split on the same rock. Abundance of people I have likewise known, and many I do know at this day, who ‘are so grossly superstitious as to think devotion may be put upon God instead of honesty’; as to fancy, going to church and sacrament will bring them to heaven, though they practice neither justice nor mercy. These are the men who make Christianity vile, who, above all others, ‘contribute to the growth of infidelity.’ On the contrary, the speaking of faith working by love, of uniform outward religion springing from inward, has already been the means of converting several Deists and one Atheist (if not more) into real Christians. 7. ‘Infallible testimony’ was your word, not mine: I never use it; I do not like it. But I did not object to your using that phrase, because I would not fight about words. If, then, the question be repeated, ‘In what sense is that attestation of the Spirit infallible’ any one has my free leave to answer, In no sense at all. And yet, though I allow that some may fancy they have it when in truth they have it not, I cannot allow that any fancy they have it not at the time when they really have. I know no instance of this. When they have this faith, they cannot possibly doubt of their having it; although it is very possible, when they have it not, they may doubt whether ever they had it or no. This [See A Short Account of the Death of Mrs. Hannah Richardson, by Charles Wesley, 1741; or Jackson’s Charles Wesley, i. 275-6.] was Hannah Richardson’s case; and it is more or less the case with many of the children of God. 8. That logical evidence that we are the children of God I do not either exclude or despise. But it is far different from the direct witness of the Spirit: of which, I believe, St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Romans; and which, I doubt not, is given to many thousand souls who never saw my face. But I spoke only of those I personally knew, concerning whom, indeed, I find my transcriber has made a violent mistake, writing 13,000 instead of 1,300: I might add, those whom I also have known by their writings. But I cannot lay so much stress on their evidence. I cannot have so full and certain a knowledge of a writer as of one I talk with face to face; and therefore I think the experiences of this kind are not to be compared with those of the other. One, indeed, of this kind I was reading yesterday, which is exceeding clear and strong. You will easily pardon my transcribing part of his words. They are in St. Austin’s Confessions: ‘Intravi in intima mea, duce Te: et potui, quoniam factus es adjutor meus. Intravi et vidi qualicunque oculo animae meae, supra eundem oculum animae meae, supra mentem meam, lucem Domini incommutabilem: non hanc vulgarem, conspicuam omni carni; nec quasi ex eodem genere grandior erat, -- non hoc illa erat, sed aliud; aliud valde ab istis omnibus. Nec ita erat supra mentem meam, sicut -- coelum super terrain. Sed superior, quia ipsa fecit me. Qui novit veritatem, novit eam. Et qui novit eam, novit aeternitatem. Charitas novit eam. ‘O aeterna Veritas! Tu es Deus meus! Tibi suspiro die ac nocte. Et cum Te primum cognovi, Tu assumpsisti me, ut viderem esse, quod viderem. Et reverberasti infirmitatem aspectus mei, radians in me vehementer; et contremui amore et horrore: et inveni me longe esse a Te. Et dixi, Nunquid nihil est veritas Et clamasti de longinquo: Immo vero; Ego sum, qui sum. Et audivi, sicut auditur in corde, et non erat prorsus uncle dubitarem. Faciliusque dubitarem vivere me, quam non esse veritatem. (Lib. VII. cap. x.) [Under Thy guidance I entered into my inward self: and this I could do, because Thou wast my Helper. I entered, and saw with the eye of my soul (such as it is) the unchangeable light of the Lord above this very eye of my soul, and above my mind. The light was not of this common kind, which is obvious to all flesh: neither was it as if it was a larger light of the same kind. It was not a light of this kind, but of another; a light that differed exceedingly from all these. Nor was it above my mind, as the heavens are above the earth: but it was superior, because it made me. He who knows the truth knows this light; and he who knows it knows eternity. Love knows it. ‘O eternal Truth! Thou art my God! Day and night I sigh after Thee. And when I first knew Thee, Thou didst take hold of me that I might see that there was something to be seen. Thou didst likewise beat back the weakness of my own sight, and didst Thyself powerfully shine into me. I trembled with love and with horror; and I found myself far from Thee. I said, “Is truth therefore nothing” And Thou didst reply from afar, “No, indeed! I AM THAT I AM I” I heard this, as we are accustomed to hear in the heart; and there was no ground whatever for doubting. Nay, I could more easily doubt of my existence itself than that it was not the Truth.’ See letter of June 25, 1746, sect. 6.] 9. From many such passages as these, which I have occasionally read, as well as from what I have myself seen and known, I am induced to believe that God’s ordinary way of converting sinners to Himself is by ‘suddenly inspiring them with an immediate testimony of His love, easily distinguishable from fancy.’ I am assured thus He hath wrought in all I have known (except, perhaps, three or four persons), of whom I have reasonable ground to believe that they are really turned from the power of Satan to God. 10. With regard to the definition of faith, if you allow that it is such ’an inward conviction of things invisible as is the gift of God in the same sense wherein hope and charity are,’ I have little to object; or, that it is ‘such an assent to all Christian truths as is productive of all Christian practice.’ In terming either faith or hope or love supernatural, I only mean that they are not the effect of any or all of our natural faculties, but are wrought in us (be it swiftly or slowly) by the Spirit of God. But I would rather say, Faith is ‘productive of all Christian holiness’ than ‘of all Christian practice’: because men are so exceeding apt to rest in practice, so called -- I mean, in outside religion; whereas true religion is eminently seated in the heart, renewed in the image of Him that created us. 11. I have not found, in any of the writers you mention, a solution of many difficulties that occur on the head of Predestination. And, to speak without reserve, when I compare the writings of their most celebrated successors with those of Dr. Barrow [Isaac Barrow (1630-77), eminent both as divine and mathematician. His Theological Works, 1683, were Arminian in tone.] and his contemporaries, I am amazed: the latter seem to be mere children compared with the former writers; and to throw out such frothy, unconcocted trifles, such indigested crudities, as a man of learning fourscore or an hundred years ago would have been ashamed to set his name to. 12. Concerning the instantaneous and the gradual work, what I still affirm is this: that I know hundreds of persons whose hearts were one moment filled with fear and sorrow and pain, and the next with peace and joy in believing, yea joy unspeakable, full of glory; that the same moment they experienced such a love of God and so fervent a goodwill to all mankind (attended with power over all sin), as till then they were wholly unacquainted with; that, nevertheless, the peace and love thus sown in their hearts received afterward a gradual increase; and that to this subsequent increase the scriptures you mention do manifestly refer. Now, I cannot see that there is any quibbling at all in this. No; it is a plain, fair answer to the objection. 13. Neither can I apprehend that I have given an evasive answer to any adversary whatever. I am sure I do not desire to do it; for I want us to understand each other. The sooner the better: therefore let us, as you propose, return to the main point. ‘The charge is,’ your words are, ‘that the Methodists preach sundry singular and erroneous doctrines; in particular three -- Unconditional Predestination, Perceptible Inspiration, and Sinless Perfection. “They set up,” say their adversaries, “their own schemes and notions as the great standard of Christianity, so as to perplex, unhinge, terrify, and distract the minds of multitudes, by persuading them that they cannot be true Christians but by adhering to their doctrines.” This is the charge. Now you ask, “What do you mean by their own schemes, their own notions, their own doctrines” It is plain, we mean their unconditional predestination, their perceptible inspiration, and their sinless perfection.’ The charge, then, is that the Methodists preach unconditional predestination, perceptible inspiration, and sinless perfection. But what a charge! Shall John Wesley be indicted for murder because George Whitefield killed a man Or shall George Whitefield be charged with felony because John Wesley broke an house How monstrous is this! How dissonant from all the rules of common sense and common honesty! Let every man bear his own burthen. If George Whitefield killed a man or taught predestination, John Wesley did not: what has this charge to do with him And if John Wesley broke an house or preached sinless perfection, let him answer for himself. George Whitefield did neither: why, then, is his name put into this indictment Hence appears the inexcusable injustice of what might otherwise appear a trifle. When I urge a man in this manner, he could have no plea at all, were he not to reply, ‘Why, they are both Methodists.’ So when he has linked them together by one nickname, he may hang either instead of the other. But sure this will not be allowed by reasonable men. And if not, what have I to do with predestination Absolutely nothing: therefore set that aside. Yea, and sinless perfection too. ‘How so Do not you believe it’ Yes, I do; and in what sense I have shown in the sermon on Christian Perfection. [Published in 1741. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 29.] And if any man calls it an error, till he has answered that, I must say, ‘Sir, you beg the question.’ But I preach, perhaps, twenty times, and say no more of this than even a Calvinist would allow. Neither will I enter into any dispute about it any more than about the millennium. Therefore the distinguishing doctrines on which I do insist in all my writings and in all my preaching will lie in a very narrow compass. You sum them all up in Perceptible Inspiration. For this I earnestly contend; and so do all who are called Methodist preachers. But be pleased to observe what we mean thereby. We mean that inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit whereby He fills us with righteousness, peace, and joy, with love to Him and to all mankind. And we believe it cannot be, in the nature of things, that a man should be filled with this peace and joy and love by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit without perceiving it as clearly as he does the light of the sun. This is (so far as I understand them) the main doctrine of the Methodists. This is the substance of what we all preach. And I will still believe none is a true Christian till he experiences it; and, consequently, ‘that people at all hazards must be convinced of this -- yea, though that conviction at first unhinge them ever so much, though it should in a manner distract them for a season. For it is better that they should be perplexed and terrified now than that they should sleep on and awake in hell.’ I do not, therefore, I will not, shift the question; though I know many who desire I should. I know the proposition I have to prove, and I will not move an hair’s breadth from it. It is this: ‘No man can be a true Christian without such an inspiration of the Holy Ghost as fills his heart with peace and joy and love, which he who perceives not has it not.’ This is the point for which alone I contend; and this I take to be the very foundation of Christianity. 14. The answer, therefore, which you think we ought to give, is that we do give to the charge of our adversaries: ‘Our singularities (if you will style them so) are fundamental and of the essence of Christianity’; therefore we must ‘preach them with such diligence and zeal as if the whole of Christianity depended upon them.’ 15. It would doubtless be wrong to insist thus on these things if they were ‘not necessary to final salvation’; but we believe they are, unless in the case of invincible ignorance. In this case, undoubtedly many thousands are saved who never heard of these doctrines; and I am inclined to think this was our own case, both at Oxford and for some time after. Yet I doubt not but, had we been called hence, God would first, by this inspiration of His Spirit, have wrought in our hearts that holy love without which none can enter into glory. 16. I was aware of the seeming contradiction you mention at the very time when I wrote the sentence. But it is only a seeming one: for it is true that, from May 24, 1738, ‘wherever I was desired to preach, salvation by faith was my only theme’ -- that is, such a love of God and man as produces all inward and outward holiness, and springs from a conviction, wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, of the pardoning love of God; and that, when I was told, ‘You must preach no more in this church,’ it was commonly added, ‘because you preach such doctrine!’ And it is equally true that ‘it was for preaching the love of God and man that several of the clergy forbade me their pulpits’ before that time, before May 24, before I either preached or knew salvation by faith. 17. We are at length come to the real state of the question between the Methodists (so called) and their opponents. ‘Is there perceptible inspiration, or is there not Is there such a thing (if we divide the question into its parts) as faith producing peace, and joy, and love, and inward (as well as outward) holiness Is that faith which is productive of these fruits wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, or not And is he in whom they are wrought necessarily conscious of them, or is he not’ These are the points on which I am ready to join issue with any serious and candid man. Such I believe you to be. If, therefore, I knew on which of those you desired my thoughts, I would give you them freely, such as they are; or (if you desire it) on any collateral question. The best light I have I am ready to impart; and am ready to receive farther light from you. My time, indeed, is so short that I cannot answer your letters so particularly or so correctly as I would. But I am persuaded you will excuse many defects where you believe the design is good. I want to know what, as yet, I know not. May God teach it me by you, or by whom He pleaseth! ‘Search me, O Lord, and prove me! Try out my reins and my heart! Look well if there be error or wickedness in me; and lead me in the way everlasting!’ Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] The Rev. Thomas Church, M.A., Vicar of Battersea and Prebendary of St. Paul’s, published in 1744 Remarks on the Reverend Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal, &c., 76 pages. Wesley describes Church as ‘a gentleman, a scholar, and a Christian; and as such he both spoke and wrote’ (Works, x. 450). ‘Upon men of an ingenuous temper,’ he says on page 376, ‘I have been able to fix an obligation. Bishop Gibson, Dr. Church, and even Dr. Taylor were obliged to me for not pushing my advantage.’ The following is Wesley’s Answer. [2]Robert Dodsley (1703-64) published for Pope, Young, and Akenside. By an oversight Wesley infringed his copyright in A Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems which he issued in 1744. The volumes were never reprinted. See Journal, iii. 157, 162n; and letter in August to the Countess of Huntingdon. [3]The Wesleys had to run a gauntlet of slander for many years, and this shows how Charles defended his character to Dr. Gibson, to whom he was no stranger, and who was perfectly prepared to accept his own denial of the charge. See page 33; and, for Wesley’s Answer to Dr. Gibson’s Visitation Charge of 1747, the letter of June II of that year. The initials to the shorthand copy are Ch. W. [4]As Wesley was walking up Pilgrim Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on Sunday, March 3, a man called after him. Wesley stood still. The man came up, used much abusive language, and pushed Wesley twice or thrice. Wesley found that he had long been in the habit of abusing and throwing stones at any of the Orphan House ‘family who went that way.’ Within two or three hours after receiving this letter, he came to see Wesley, and promised a quite different behavior. ‘So did this gentle reproof, if not save a soul from death, yet prevent a multitude of sins.’ See Journal, iii. 166. [5]Lord Grange was brother of the Earl of Mar, who headed the Jacobite rising of 1715. He took his title when raised to the Bench in October 1706, and in 1710 became Lord Justice-Clerk. He entered Parliament in 1734 as M.P. for Clackmannanshire and later for Stirling Burghs. He died in London on January 24, 1754, in his seventy fifth year. See Methodist Magazine, 1927, pp. 435-8. James Erskine (as he was called by the Wesleys) lived in Westminster, and from there he replied to Wesley on April 3, 1745. His letter is condensed in the Journal iii. 178-80); but a complete copy is given in the Arminian Magazine for 1797 (Supplement, p. 37), and also another letter on page 40. He had a great zeal for union and Christian fellowship, and was in communication with the Rev. James Robe 1688-1753 who was minister at Kilsyth from 1713 to 1753, and author of various works, including A Narrative of the Revival of Religion and A Faithful Narrative of the Extraordinary Work of the Spirit of God at Kilsyth. Robe wrote to his friend (see Moore’s Wesley, ii. 92-3): ‘I was much pleased with what you wrote to me of the Messrs. Wesley.... I beg you to salute the two brothers for me, much in the Lord. I wrote to my correspondents formerly, upon yours to me from Newcastle, that there were hopes of their joining in our concert for prayer and praise, for the revival of real Christianity. Now I can write that they have acceded; and I hope we shall expressly remember one another before the throne of grace.’ In forwarding this extract to Wesley, Erskine refers to various points of difference between Christians, and makes some suggestions as to the way by which Wesley might conciliate religious opinion in Scotland. Charles Wesley says in his Journal that when he preached in London on April 29, 1744, ‘the whole congregation was in tears under the word. Old Mr. Erskine, in particular, was quite broken down.’ On June 6 he notes that Erskine was called out of West Street Chapel to receive a soldier brought to redeem John Nelson. He took this man to Lord Stair, Commander-in-Chief in South Britain, and got a discharge for Nelson (see letter of May 1744). On November 28 Charles Wesley says, ‘Mr. Erskine called on me’; and two days later he writes, ‘Mr. Erskine left me, but not before he had much strengthened my hands in the Lord.’ On January 26, 1745, Erskine went to him at Short’s Gardens with a message which Dr. Gibson, the Bishop of London, had sent to Lady Huntingdon ‘that, if I would come to him, and declare my innocency touching the scandals, and take the sacrament upon it, he would desire no farther satisfaction, but himself clear me.’ Charles Wesley adds, ‘I immediately consented, and sent my brother advice of it’ (see letter of February 8). Erskine was present at the London Conference on June 5, 1748 (see Bennet’s Minutes, p. 54). On June 22, 1750, Charles Wesley writes in his Journal: ‘I met a daughter of my worthy old friend Mr. Erskine at the Foundry. She was deeply wounded by the sword of the Spirit, confessed she had turned many to Deism, and feared there could be no mercy for her.’ On July 18 he says: ’I had the satisfaction of bringing back to Mr. Erskine his formerly disobedient daughter. She fell at his feet. It was a moving interview. All wept. Our heavenly Father heard our prayers. A letter from Wesley to Mrs. Jones of Fonmon Castle, June 18, 1745, is marked ‘Free-James Erskine’; and also the one to Howell Harris on March 3, 1747. [6] John Stephenson, a merchant of Newcastle, hesitated about signing the deeds for the purchase of the land on which the Orphan House had been built in 1743. Wesley wrote him this letter, and the next day he executed it, after two years of delay. His descendants have long been among the most influential and honored Methodists of Newcastle. Stamp’s Orphan House gives the history of this famous building. Here Methodism had its first preaching-place in the city, and here the preachers had their rooms. This was the chief Methodist center, until Brunswick Chapel was opened as its successor on February 23, 1821. See letter of October 8. [7]This and the next letter were copied into a book of Scripture Phrases with eighty-three letters from various ministers. [8] Mrs. Jones was the fifth daughter of Richard Forrest, of Minehead, Somersetshire, and widow of Robert Jones, of Fonmon Castle. Mr. Forrest’s sloop took them over to Fonmon on July 19. John Hodges was Rector of Wenvoe, five miles from Fonmon Castle. On Sunday the 21st Wesley preached at Cardiff at five, at Wenvoe morning and afternoon, and again at Cardiff in the evening. The Second Conference met at Bristol on August 1, and Hodges was present. See Journal, ii. 504n, iii. 195-6; W.H.S. iv. 44-6; Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1900, p. 26-33. [9]The Craftsman of June 22, 1745, had some strictures on ‘Ministerial Methodism, or Methodists in Politics.’ This was copied into the London Magazine and other periodicals. At the urgent request of friends, Wesley answered it in ‘A Letter to the Author of the Craftsman concerning Real Christianity, Disparaged under the name of Methodism.’ [10]Wesley was in London when an advertisement appeared in the Daily Advertiser that Count Zinzendorf and his people had no connection with John and Charles Wesley. James Hutton had inserted it by order of the Count; to whose prophecy ‘that we should soon run our heads against the wall,’ Wesley says, ‘We will not, if we can help it’ (Journal, iii. 206). The following is the Count’s Declaration, and Wesley’s reply, given in the paper on September 7. I find myself at this time under an obligation of withholding no longer my Declaration, that in my opinion the Rev. Mr. John Wesley and Mr. Charles his brother, though very learned and gifted men, are both in the plain way of false teaching and deceiving souls. As I have no other view by this my Declaration but to preserve the little flock of sinners who love their Savior from being confounded with pretenders to such perfection, of whom I cannot but be suspicious that, in the same time that they preach perfection, they are willful servants of sin, and who, I fear, I shall see sooner or later running with their heads against the wall for a punishment of their high spirits, which (for want of public and seasonable disavowing them) would involve all the servants of Christ in the same scandal: So I declare at the same time that, if a controversy should arise from this Declaration, I will not meddle with it in any way. If those gentlemen or any of their people become humbled in the principal point, the rest of their unusual conduct shall not hinder me from embracing them with candor and love. [11] Prince Charles Stuart entered Edinburgh on September 17. Wesley heard of it the next morning, when he arrived at Newcastle. Mr. Ridley, the Mayor, summoned all the householders to meet him at the Town Hall on the 19th. On the day Wesley’s letter was written Cope’s army sustained a crushing defeat at Prestonpans, of which news reached Newcastle the same day; and the town was in a ferment. See Journal, iii. 210-14; and letter of October 8. [12] At Bristol, on September 25, Charles heard the news confirmed of Edinburgh being taken by the rebels, and next day ‘tidings came that General Cope was cut off with all his army.’ See previous letter. [13]This important series of replies to six letters from ‘John Smith’ began in September 1745 and closed in March 1748. The correspondence is given in Moore’s Wesley, ii. 475-576. An error occurs in the numbers: ‘VII’ is used twice. The first letter has a ‘PS. -- As I live at a considerable distance from London, I have no convenience of a personal conference with you; but a letter will find me directed to “John Smith, at Mr. Richard Mead’s, at the Golden Cross, in Cheapside.”’ Dr. Richard Mead (1673-1754), physician to George I, George II, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Burnet, and Sir Robert Walpole, financially assisted various literary projects, He had a sumptuous mansion in Great Ormond Street. The writer says in his third letter, ‘I was confirmed about the age of fourteen,’ and, ‘for about forty years since, I have ever believed that “without holiness no one shall see the Lord.”’ It is believed that ‘John Smith’ was the nom de plume of Thomas Secker, who was born in 1693, was consecrated Bishop of Bristol in 1735, and in 1737 became Bishop of Oxford. He held the Rectory of St. James’s, Piccadilly, from 1733 to 1750. He was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1758, and died in 1768. The weak point of this identification is that Secker was brought up as a Dissenter, and only entered Exeter College, Oxford, in 1721. Still, he may have been confirmed while at school in Chesterfield. When at the Presbyterian Academy at Tewkesbury, Joseph Butler (afterwards Bishop of Bristol, and author of the Analogy) was his fellow pupil. Secker helped Butler in his anonymous correspondence with Dr. Samuel Clarke (Butler’s Works, edited by S. Halifax, ii. p. xlvi). It is remarkable to find Wesley engaged in such a correspondence amid the panic caused by the reported approach of the Young Pretender. Secker ‘thoroughly appreciated the work’ the Methodists ‘were doing, and in his charges frequently brought them before the clergy for example and instruction.’ See Simon’s John Wesley and the Methodist Societies, pp. 272-80; McKilliam’s A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Canterbury, pp. 381-5; and letter of December 30 to ‘John Smith.’ [14]The Orphan House was outside the walls, and it was thought the Pretender would attack Newcastle after the victory at Prestonpans on September 21. The army, however, went through Carlisle, which surrendered to the Prince on November 15. Wesley had very impressive services in the Orphan House on September 29, where ‘we cried mightily to God to send His Majesty King George help from His holy place.’ John Husk, or Huske (1692-1761), had been made Major General for service at Dettingen in 1743, was second in command at Falkirk in January 1746, and in the following April led the second line at Culloden. See letters of April 5 and September 21. [15]Wesley’s Journal, iii. 228, shows that on this day he bade farewell to Cennick, who was going to Germany. He ‘is at length fallen among those who will make him as passive a tool as ever moved upon wire.’ Benham’s Hutton pp.185-6, refers to Brethren from Marienborn who came to England on October 12. It was a time of much activity, and Whitefield had written expressing his great love to the Brethren. [16]Wesley gives this letter in his Journal, iii. 229-31, with the note: ‘Having received a long letter from Mr. Hall, earnestly pressing my brother and me to renounce the Church of England (for not complying with which advice he soon renounced us), I wrote to him as follows.’ He had joined the Moravians. Charles Wesley on June 19, 1745, went to Salisbury. ‘I found my sister as a rock in the midst of the waves. Mr. Hall’s Society had all left the Church, and mocked and persecuted her for not leaving it.’ Two years earlier (August 11, 1743) he makes a similar entry in his Journal Wesley still held his High Church views as to the Succession and the ‘outward sacrifice’ offered. Three weeks later Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church led him to change his view Journal iii. 232). See letters of August 18, 1743, and December 22, 1747. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: 30. 1746 ======================================================================== 1746 January 3, 1746. To Mrs. Hutton LONDON, January 18, 1746. MADAM,--I believe I may undertake for Mr. Piers [The Rev. Henry Piers.] that he will stand reproved when I speak to him, which I will as soon as I can. Joseph Pimm (the husband of Katharine Pimm) told me yesterday that he had given the printer an answer to the paper published by his wife. I am obliged to you for not being ready to believe it. [Evidently some slander against Wesley.] I pray God to repay sevenfold into yours and Mr. Hutton’s bosom all the kindness you have so often shown to one who must always acknowledge himself Your much obliged servant. To Thomas Church June 17, 1746. REVEREND SIR, — I. At the time that I was reading your former letter I expected to hear from you again. And I was not displeased with the expectation; believing it would give me a fresh opportunity of weighing the sentiments I might have too lightly espoused and the actions which perhaps I had not enough considered. Viewing things in this light, I cannot but esteem you, not an enemy, but a friend; and one in some respects better qualified to do me real service than those whom the world accounts so, who may be hindered by their prejudice in my favor, either from observing what is reprovable, or from using that freedom and plainness of speech which are requisite to convince me of it. 2. It is, at least, as much with a view to learn myself, as to show others (what I think) the truth, that I intend to set down a few reflections on some parts of the tract you have lately published. I say some parts; for it is not my design to answer every sentence in this any more than in the former. Many things I pass over, because I think them true; many more, because I think them not material; and some, because I am determined not to engage in an useless if not hurtful controversy. 3. Fear, indeed, is one cause of my declining this; fear, as I said elsewhere, [In the Preface to The Principles of a Methodist; an Answer to Josiah Tucker, Vicar of All Saints, Bristol. See Works, viii. 359; Green’s Bibliography, No. 35; and letter of June 8, 1750.] not of my adversary, but of myself. I fear my own spirit, lest ‘I fall where many mightier have been slain.’ I never knew one (or but one) man write controversy with what I thought a right spirit. Every disputant seems to think, as every soldier, that he may hurt his opponent as much as he can: nay, that he ought to do his worst to him, or he cannot make the best of his own cause; that, so he do not belie or willfully misrepresent him, he must expose him as much as he is able. It is enough, we suppose, if we do not show heat or passion against our adversary. But not to despise him, or endeavor to make others do so, is quite a work of supererogation. 4. But ought these things to be so (I speak on the Christian scheme.) Ought we not to love our neighbor as ourselves And does a man cease to be our neighbor because he is of a different opinion nay, and declares himself so to be Ought we not, for all this, to do to him as we would he should do to us But do we ourselves love to be exposed or set in the worst light Would we willingly be treated with contempt If not, why do we treat others thus And yet, who scruples it Who does not hit every blot he can, however foreign to the merits of the cause Who in controversy casts the mantle of love over the nakedness of his brother Who keeps steadily and uniformly to the question, without ever striking at the person Who shows in every sentence that he loves his brother only less than the truth 5. I fear neither you nor I have attained to this. I believe brotherly love might have found a better construction than that of unfairness, art, or disingenuity, to have put either on my not answering every part of your book (a thing which never once entered my thoughts), or on my not reciting all the words of those parts which I did answer. I cannot yet perceive any blame herein. I still account it fair and ingenuous to pass over both what I believe is right and what I believe is not dangerously wrong. Neither can I see any disingenuity at all in quoting only that part of any sentence against which I conceive the objection lies; nor in abridging any part of any treatise to which I reply, whether in the author’s or in my own words. 6. If, indeed, it were so abridged as to alter the sense, this would be unfair. And if this were designedly done, it would be artful and disingenuous. But I am not conscious of having done this at all; although you speak as if I had done it a thousand times. And yet I cannot undertake now either to transcribe your whole book or every page or paragraph which I answer. But I must generally abridge before I reply; and that not only to save time (of which I have none to spare), but often to make the argument clearer, which is best understood when couched in few words. 7. You complain also of my mentioning all at once sentences which you placed at a distance from each other. I do so; and I think it quite fair and ingenuous to lay together what was before scattered abroad. For instance: you now speak of the conditions of Justification in the eighteenth and following pages; again, from the eighty-ninth to the hundred and second; and yet again, in the hundred and twenty-seventh page. Now, I have not leisure to follow you to and fro. Therefore what I say on one head I set in one place. I. 1. This premised, I come to the letter itself. I begin, as before, with the case of the Moravians; of whom you say: ‘I collected together the character which you had given of these men, the errors and vices which you had charged upon them, and the mischiefs . . . they had done among your followers. And I proved that in several respects you had been the occasion of this mischief, and are therefore in some measure accountable for it. Let us see what answer you give to all this. ‘With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned“that the Moravian Church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the Moravians Do you not say that you “could not agree with Mr. Spangenberg that none has any faith so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear” Do you not represent Mr. Molther and other Moravians in England as teaching the same In short, I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything, but only repeat after you. And if you have accused them when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame. ‘“They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear.” You have charged Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther with teaching that we ought to abstain from them. And the same you say in general of the Moravian Brethren in your letter to them. “But Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled into Germany.” This might be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings. Nor, indeed, can you consistently with your next words: “The great fault of the Moravian Church seems to lie in not openly disclaiming all he had said; which in all probability they would have done had they not leaned to the same opinion.” ‘You “never knew but one of the Moravian Church affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness.” But who was this No less a person than Count Zinzendorf, their great Bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay too much regard.’ (Second Letter, p. 79) 2. This is the whole of your reply to this part of my answer. I will now consider it part by part. First. ‘With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned“that the Moravian Church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the Moravians’ No; not of the Moravians in general. ‘Do you not say that you “could not agree with Mr. Spangenberg that none has any faith so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear”’ I do say so still. But Spangenberg is not the Moravian Church. ‘Do you not represent Mr. Molther and other Moravians in England as teaching the same’ I do; three or four in all. But neither are these the Moravian Church. ‘In short, I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything, but only repeat after you.’ Indeed you have, in the very case before us. You charge them with denying degrees in faith. I do not charge them herewith. I openly cleared them from any such charge near six years ago. ‘If, therefore, you have accused them when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame.’ In this case I must entreat you to bear it in my stead; for I have not accused them — the Moravian Church. It is you that have accused them. I have again and again declared they are not guilty. Secondly. ‘“They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear.” You have charged Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther with teaching that we ought to abstain from them.’ ‘That we’ No. That unbelievers ought. The assertion relates to them only. ‘And the same you say in general of the Moravian Brethren in your letter.’ I say they hold that unbelievers ought to abstain from them. But yet I know and bear witness they use them themselves, and that ‘with reverence and godly fear.’ ‘“Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled to Germany.” This might be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings.’ I do not say so, because I am not sure; but I believe it was out of a dislike to some of his proceedings, if not of his doctrines too. ‘Nor, indeed, can you consistently with your next words: “The great fault of the Moravian Church seems to lie in not openly disclaiming all he had said”’ relating to this head. They did privately disclaim what he had said of degrees in faith. But I think that was not enough. And I still believe they would have done more ‘had they not leaned themselves to the same opinion’ touching the ordinances. Thirdly. ‘You “never knew but one of the Moravian Church affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness.” But who was this No less a person than Count Zinzendorf, their great Bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay “too much regard.”’ Do you apprehend where the stress of the argument lies I never heard one Moravian affirm this but the Count alone; and him only once, and that once was in the heat of dispute. And hence I inferred it is not a doctrine of the Moravian Church; nay, I doubt whether it be the Count’s own settled judgment. 3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner wherein you cite my words. For instance, your citation runs thus: you ‘never knew but one of the Moravian Church affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness.’ Whereas my words are these: ‘I never knew one of the Moravian Church but that single person affirm that a believer does not grow in holiness; and perhaps he would not affirm it on reflection.’ Now, why was the former part of the sentence changed and the latter quite left out Had the whole stood in your tract just as it does in mine, it must have appeared I do not here charge the Moravian Church. I complain also of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer to which you profess to reply. My words are, ‘You ought not to charge the Moravian Church with the first of these’ errors; ‘since, in the very page from which you quote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there ever is any doubt,” that note occurs (namely, Journal, ii. 492): “In the Preface to the Second Journal the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.”’ If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, ‘I have not charged the Moravian Church with anything, but only repeat after you’ 4. I have now considered one page of your reply in the manner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus step by step through an hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed, but who would read I return, therefore, to what I proposed at first — namely, to touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies. 5. You say, ‘With regard to subtlety, evasion, and disguise, you now would have it thought that you only found this “in many of them; not in all, nor in most”’ (Second Letter, p. 80). ‘You now would have it thought’! Yes; and always, as well as now. For my original charge was, ‘I have found this in many of you — that is, much subtlety, much evasion and disguise’ (Journal, ii. 492). But you add, ‘Let the reader judge from the following passages whether you did not charge the Moravians in general with these crimes: “I had a long conference with those whom I esteem very highly in love; but I could not yet understand them in one point, Christian openness and plainness of speech. They pleaded for such a reservedness and closeness of conversation. Yet I scarce know what to think, considering they had the practice of the whole Moravian Church on their side.”’ True, in pleading for such a reservedness of conversation as I could not in any wise approve of; but not in using much subtlety, much evasion and disguise: this I dare not charge on the whole Moravian Church. Those words also, ‘There is darkness and closeness in all their behavior, and guile in almost all their words,’ I spoke, not of all the Moravians, nor of most, but of those who were then in England. I could not speak it of them all; for I never found any guile in Christian David, Michael Linner, and many others. 6. ‘We are next to see how you get over the objection I made good, in three several particulars, that you have prepared the way for spreading of these tenets. The first you say nothing to here; the second you quote very partially thus — “By countenancing and commending them.” And why would you not add,“And being the occasion of so many of them coming over among us”’ Because I was not the occasion. I was, indeed, the first Englishman that ever was at Herrnhut. But before I was at Herrnhut (I find on later inquiry) the Count himself had been in England. ‘You“still think that, next to some thousands in our own Church, the body of the Moravian Church, however mistaken some of them are, are in the main the best Christians in the world”’ (Second Letter, p. 81). I do, ‘of all whom I have seen’ — you should not omit these words. ‘Those dreadful errors and crimes are here softened into mistakes.’ I term them ‘errors of judgment and practice.’ ‘I have proved that you have charged the body with such.’ At present the proof does not amount to demonstration. There needs a little farther proof that I charge any ’dreadful crimes’ on the body of the Moravians. I see no manner of inconsistency still, in those accounts of my intercourse with the Moravians, which you suppose irreconcilable with each other. Let any one read them in the Journal, and judge. 7. ‘You had said, your “objections then were nearly the same as now.” You now add, “only with this difference: I was not then assured that the facts were as I supposed; I did not dare to determine anything.” No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things As, indeed, the facts are of such a nature that you could not but be assured of them if they were true. Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth; but are so many appeals to their consciences, and equivalent to strong assertions. And if you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine anything concerning what you saw, your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a manner was inexcusable. This excuse, therefore, will not serve you.’ (Page 83.) I apprehend it will. ‘I was not then,’ in September 1738, ‘assured that the facts were as I supposed.’ Therefore ‘I did not’ then ‘dare to determine anything.’ Be pleased to add the immediately following words: ‘But from November 1,’ 1739, ‘I saw more and more things which I could not reconcile with the gospel.’ If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no color to remark, on my saying, ‘I did not dare to determine anything’: ‘No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things’ No, I did not ‘dare to determine’ in September 1738 from what I saw in November 1739. ‘But the facts are of such a nature that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true.’ I cannot think so. ‘Is not the Count all in all among you Do not you magnify your own Church too much Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases’ These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the Moravians cannot but be assured of them. ‘Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth.’ No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions — ‘Of some other things I stand in doubt. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would plainly answer whether the fact be as I suppose.’ ‘But’ these questions ‘are so many appeals to their consciences.’ True. ‘And equivalent to strong assertions.’ Utterly false. ‘If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine anything concerning what you saw’ (fifteen months after), ‘your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a manner was inexcusable.’ They were strong presumptions then; which yet I did not write to a body of men whom I so highly esteemed — no, not even in the tenderest manner — till I was assured they were not groundless. 8. ‘In a note at the bottom of page 8 you observe, “The band society in London began May 1, some time before I set out for Germany.” Would you insinuate here that you did not set it up in imitation of the Moravians’ Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked thus: ‘You took the trouble of a journey to Germany to them; and were so much in love with their methods that, at your return hither, you set up their bands among your disciples’ (page 17). This was an entire mistake; for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to insinuate this to you without telling your mistake to all the world. ‘I imagined that, supposing your account of the Moravians true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people.’ I know many serious Christians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are in the main good men. ‘A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men.’ Let us try: ‘Here is a body of men who have not one spark of either justice, mercy, or truth among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor chastity; who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.’ I cannot but think that this is a much worse character than that of the Moravians, take it how you will. ’Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them.’ Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil. 9. ‘“The Moravians excel in sweetness of behaviour.” What! though they use guile and dissimulation’ Yes. ‘“Where is their multitude of errors” In your own Journal. I have taken the pains to place them in one view in my Remarks; the justness of which, with all your art, you cannot disprove.’ You have taken the pains to transcribe many words, all of which together amount to this--that they, generally, hold Universal Salvation, and are partly Antinomians (in opinion), partly Quietists, The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, has been pretty fully disproved. As to what you speak of my art, subtlety, and so on, in this and many other places, I look upon it as neither better nor worse than a civil way of calling names. ‘“To this multitude of crimes I am also an utter stranger.” Then you have charged them wrongfully. What do you account guile, &c.’ (Second Letter, p. 84.) I account guile, despising self-denial even in the smallest points, and teaching that those who have not the assurance of faith may not use the ordinances of God, the Lord’s Supper in particular (this is the real, unaggravated charge), to be faults which cannot be excused. But I do not account them all together ‘a multitude of crimes.’ I conceive this is a vehement hyperbole. ‘The honor of religion,’ said you, ‘and virtue trampled upon.’ I answered, ‘By whom Not by the Moravians.’ You reply, ‘And yet you have accused some of these as decrying all the means of grace.’ No. What I accused them of was teaching that an unbeliever (in their sense) ought to abstain from them. ‘“Neither did I know, or think, or say they were desperately wicked people.” Your Journal is before the world; to whom I appeal whether this has not so represented them.’ But how do you here represent your remark and my answer My paragraph runs thus: ‘You go on: “How could you so long and so intimately converse with . . . such desperately wicked people, as the Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be” O sir, what another assertion is this!“The Moravians, according to your own account, were known by you to be desperately wicked people while you intimately conversed with them!” Utterly false and injurious! I never gave any such account. I conversed intimately with them both at Savannah and Herrnhut. But neither then nor at any other time did I know or think or say they were “desperately wicked people.” I think and say just the reverse — viz. that though I soon “found among them a few things which I could not approve,” yet I believe they are “in the main some of the best Christians in the world.”’ After this, are you the person who complains of me for imperfect and partial quotations I added, ‘You surprise me yet more in going on thus: “In God’s name, sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance, to be so very gently touched” Sir, this is not the case. This charge no more belongs to the Moravians than that of murder.’ You reply, ‘Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther are accused by name. If falsely, I am sorry both for them and you.’ ‘Accused’ True. But of what of the contempt of every Christian ordinance, of almost the whole of our duty By no means. The plain case is, I accuse them of one thing--namely, teaching that an unbeliever should abstain from the ordinances. You accuse them of another --contemning every Christian ordinance and almost the whole of our duty. And this you would father upon me. I desire to be excused. 10. As to what I said in my letter to the Moravian Church,—‘You can hinder this if you will; therefore, if you do not prevent their speaking thus, you do in effect speak thus yourselves,’ — it may be observed: (1) that this letter is dated August 8, 1740; (2) that from that time the Moravian Church did in great measure prevent any of their members speaking thus. You proceed: ‘You distinguish between the English brethren and the Moravians. These English brethren, I presume, were your followers. Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the Moravians. “Before they had spoke these wicked things,” you say, “they had joined these men and acted under their direction.” If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them Not, sure, from yourself or any other Methodists. You cannot, therefore, bring off the Moravians without condemning your own people. Here, therefore, you have certainly overshot yourself.’ (Page 85.) Perhaps not. ‘These English brethren were, I presume, your followers.’ No; this is your first mistake. I was but a single, private member of that Society. ‘Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the Moravians.’ I do; but not yet connected with them. ‘Before they spoke these wicked things, they had joined these men and acted under their direction.’ This is another mistake. They did not join these men nor act by their direction till long after. ‘If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them You cannot bring off the Moravians without condemning your own people.’ They learned them from Mr. Molther chiefly, whom I am not at all concerned to bring off. Now let all men judge which of us two has overshot himself. 11. ‘In answer to my objections against the inconsistent accounts you have given of the Moravians, you say, “They are, I believe, the most self-inconsistent people under the sun.” Would not one imagine that you here speak of the same persons, or of the whole body of them in general’ I do, thus far: I ascribe the good to the body of them in general; the evil to part only of that body, to some of those same persons. ‘Your method of getting over the contradictions I had charged upon you is much the same, — to distinguish either between the Moravians and the English brethren, though these had been their disciples’ (this has been abundantly answered), ‘or between some of the Moravians and others’ (page 86). I think a very good method; for propositions are not contradictory unless they both speak of the same persons. However, since you persist to affirm that I am guilty of the contradictions you charged upon me (page 87), I think there cannot be a sufficient reply without reciting the several instances. 12. (1) ‘You commend them (the Moravians) for loving one another; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another.’ I answered, ‘Them! Whom Not the Moravians, but the English brethren of Fetter Lane before their union with the Moravians. Herein, then, is no shadow of contradiction; for the two sentences do not relate to the same persons.’ You reply, ’Would you, then, have us to think that so much anger and contradiction reigned among your Methodists’ I ’would have you think’ this is nothing to the purpose. Prove the contradiction, and you speak to the point. ’It is plain they had before this been perverted by the Moravians, and that they were unwilling to be taught by any others.’ They--that is, nearly half of the Society. But here is no proof of the contradiction still. (2) ‘You say, “They had wellnigh destroyed brotherly love from among us, partly by cautions against natural love, partly by occasioning almost continual disputes.”’ So they had; but we had then no connection with them. Neither, therefore, does this contradict their loving one another. You reply, ‘As if they can truly love each other who teach you not to do it and stir up divisions and disturbances among you.’ You should say, if you would repeat after me, ‘Who caution you against natural love and occasion many disputes among you.’ Well; allowing they do this (which is utterly wrong), yet where is the contradiction Yet they may love one another. (3) ‘You praise them for using no diversions but such as become saints; and yet say’ (I recite the whole sentence), ’"I have heard some of you affirm that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good."’ And both these are true. The Moravians in general ’use no diversions but such as become saints’; and yet I have heard some of them affirm, in contradiction to their own practice, that ’one then mentioned did well when he joined in playing at tennis in order to do good.’ To this you make no reply. Silence, then, consents that there is no contradiction here. (4) ‘You praise them for not “regarding outward adorning.”’ So I do, the bulk of the congregation. ‘And yet you say’ (I again recite the whole sentence), ‘“I have heard some of you affirm that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of gold and costly apparel.”’ I have so. And I blame them the more, because ‘they are condemned by the general practice of their own Church.’ To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved. (5) ‘You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.” I could wish you had more fully explained yourself.’ I have in the Second Journal (Journal, ii. 19-56). ‘It is no sign of good discipline to permit such abominations’ — that is, error in opinion and guile in practice. True, it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it: for there may be good discipline even in a College of Jesuits. Another fault is too great a deference to the Count. And yet ‘in most respects their discipline is truly excellent.’ You reply, ‘Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have’ (that is, as the Jesuits); ‘but I cannot agree that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age.’ It may be, for anything you advance to the contrary. ‘Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination (page 88), which you prudently take no notice of.’ Yes; I had just before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But the contradiction! Where is the contradiction (6) ‘You mention it as a good effect of their discipline that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide nor prudence enough to let it alone.”’ I answered, ‘Pardon me, sir. I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the Moravian Brethren; the latter, of the English brethren of Fetter Lane, not then united with the Moravians, neither acting by their direction.’ To this likewise you do not reply. Here is, then, a sixth contradiction alleged against me, but not proved. 13. However, you add, ‘Had you shown me mistaken in any point you have attempted to reply to, still you confess errors and wickedness enough among the Moravians to render your account of them very inconsistent. But you have not succeeded in any one answer. You have not shown that I have in any one instance misquoted you, or misunderstood the character you had given of them, or argued falsely from what you had said of them. And truly, sir, all you have done has been caviling at a few particulars. But the argument I was urging all this while you quite forgot.’ Sir, if it be so, you do me too much honor in setting pen to paper again. But is it so Have I all this while quite forgot the argument you was urging I hope not. I seem to remember you was urging some argument to prove that I ‘fall not only into inconsistencies, but direct contradictions’ (Remarks, p. 21); and that I showed you mistaken, not only in one, but in every point which you advanced as such; that I did not confess any such errors or wickedness of the Moravians as rendered my account of them self-inconsistent; that I ‘succeeded’ in more than ‘one answer’ to the objections you had urged against it; and that I showed you had ‘misquoted or misunderstood the character I had given of them,’ or ‘argued falsely from it,’ not properly ‘in one instance,’ but from the beginning to the end. Yet this I think it incumbent upon me to say, that whereinsoever I have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the spreading of anything evil, which is or has been among the Moravians, I am sorry for it, and hereby ask pardon both of God and all the world. II. 1. I think it appears, by what you have yourself observed, that on the second head, Justification by Faith, I allow in the beginning of the Farther Appeal almost as much as you contend for. I desire leave to cite part of that passage again, that we may come as near each other as possible. I would just subjoin a few words on each head, which I hope may remove more difficulties out of the way: ‘That justification, whereof our Articles and Homilies speak, means present pardon and acceptance with God; who therein “declares His righteousness,” or mercy, “by” or “for the remission of sins that are past.”’ I say, past; for I cannot find anything in the Bible of the remission of sins past, present, and to come. ‘I believe the condition of this is faith; I mean, not only that without faith we cannot be justified, but also that, as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.’ You take the word ‘condition’ in the former sense only, as that without which we cannot be justified. In this sense of the word, I think we may allow that there are several conditions of justification. ‘Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works springing from holiness of heart.’ Yet such a course is without doubt absolutely necessary to our continuance in a state of justification. ‘It is allowed that repentance and "fruits meet for repentance" go before faith. Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment; and by “fruits meet for repentance,” forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and in general obeying Him according to the measure of grace which we have received. But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.’ Although the same works are then good, when they are performed by ‘those who have believed.’ ‘Faith in general is a divine, supernatural ’e (evidence or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine ’e that God “was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself,” but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my sins, that He loved me and gave Himself for me. And, the moment a penitent sinner thus believes, God pardons and absolves him.’ I say a penitent sinner, because justifying faith cannot exist without previous repentance. ‘Yet, although both repentance and the fruits thereof are in some sense necessary before justification, neither the one nor the other is necessary in the same sense or in the same degree with faith. Not in the same degree. For in whatever moment a man believes (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified. But it is not so at whatever moment he repents or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Consequently none of these are necessary to justification in the same degree with faith. ‘Nor in the same sense. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessary thereto; repentance remotely, as it is necessary to faith.’ (So the error of the press is to be corrected.) ‘And the fruits of repentance still more remotely, as they are necessary to the increase or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense they are only necessary on supposition--if there be time and opportunity for them: for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance.’ 2. Thus far I believe we are nearly agreed. But on those words, — ‘Far other qualifications are required in order to our standing before God in glory than were required in order to His giving us faith and pardon. In order to this, nothing is indispensably required but repentance or conviction of sin. But in order to the other it is indispensably required that we be fully cleansed from all sin,’ – you remark, ‘Here, I apprehend, are two great mistakes: (1) you make too little necessary before pardon; (2) too much afterward. You confine repentance within too narrow limits, and extend holiness beyond its just bounds. ‘(1) By repentance you mean only conviction of sin. But this is a very partial account of it. Every child that has learned his Catechism can tell, that forsaking of sin is included in it; living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity; and, even when there is not, a sincere desire and purpose to do so, and a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus.’ (Second Letter, p. 92.) I had said, ‘In order to God’s giving us faith and pardon, nothing is indispensably required but repentance’—that is, ‘conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment.’ But you ‘apprehend that I am here in a great mistake’; that I give ‘a very partial account of repentance’; that I ought to ’include therein a sincere desire and purpose’ to obey God. I do: I have said so expressly. And ‘living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity.’ Very well; but I here speak of what is indispensably required--that is, whether there is opportunity of actual obedience or no. ‘And a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus.’ A very great mistake indeed! — my not including faith in that repentance which I say is indispensably required in order to faith! ‘(2) You make sinless perfection necessary after justification, in order to make us meet for glory.’ And who does not Indeed, men do not agree in the time. Some believe it is attained before death; some in the article of death; some in an after-state, in the Mystic or the Popish purgatory. But all writers whom I have ever seen till now (the Romish themselves not excepted) agree that we must be ’fully cleansed from all sin’ before we can enter into glory. 3. After what has already been allowed, I cannot think it needful to dispute farther on the head of Justification. Rather suffer me to close this part of our debate by transcribing what I assent to from that clear recapitulation of your sentiments which you have given in pages 45 and 46: — ‘(1) Justification is the act of God, pardoning our sins and receiving us again to His favor. This was free in Him, because undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had transgressed His law, and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfill it. ‘(2) We cannot, therefore, be justified by our works; because this would be to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be justified by an external show of religion or by any superstitious observances. ‘(3) The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in Him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through Him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them. ‘(4) True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known. ‘(5) Works really good are such as are commanded by God (springing from faith), done by the aid of His Holy Spirit, with good designs and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external. ‘(6) The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbor — which may be more properly termed “good dispositions” and (are branches of) sanctification — must always be joined with faith, and consequently be conditions present in justification, though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it. ‘(7) The outward’ (which are more properly termed good works), ’though there be no immediate opportunity of practicing them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them be sufficient for the present, yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification. ‘(8) There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism; or, properly, this state is then begun. But, should we fall into sins, we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins and amendment of our whole life.’ I have only one circumstance farther to add — namely, that I am not newly convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past; only I abstained from the word ‘condition’ perhaps more scrupulously than was needful. 4. With regard to the consequences of my teaching this doctrine, I desire any who will not account it lost labor to consult with his own eyes, seriously and in the fear of God, the Third and Fourth Journals. [Journal, ii. 65-500; and letter of Feb. 2. 1745, sect. II. 18.] And if he pleases, he may farther read over and compare, from the 379th to the 381st page of my answer; with your reply, from the one hundred and first inclusive, to the one hundred and fourth page. Among the consequences you reckoned (in your Remarks), besides ’introducing predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which’ (your words are) ‘you give us among your followers’ (pages 52, 55). I answered, ‘You should have specified a few of those instances, at least the pages where they occur. (Suppose, only three of each sort, out of any or all the four Journals.) Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no other than a flourish of your pen.’ Upon this you exclaim (Second Letter, p. 111): ‘I must beg the reader to observe your method of citing my words. Many instances of omissions he has had already. But here is such an one as I believe few controversies can parallel. Would not any one imagine from the view of these words (predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair) that they occurred all together in page fifty-two of my Remarks, and that I observed nothing farther concerning this point Could it be thought that anything intervened between the page referred to and the last sentence And yet so it is, that near three pages intervene!’ Ha! do ‘near three pages intervene’ Prodigious indeed! ‘And this is called an answer!’ So it is, for want of a better. ‘Your business was to show that the Calvinistical notions have not prevailed among the Methodists, or that they were no consequences of unconditional justification.’ No, sir, it was not my business to show this. It was not my business to prove the negative, but yours to prove the affirmative. Mr. Whitefield is himself a Calvinist. Such therefore, doubtless, are many of his followers. But Calvinism has not prevailed at all among any other of the Methodists (so called), nor is it to this day any consequence of unconditional justification in the manner wherein I preach it. 5. You next ‘take the pains to lay before the reader an instance or two of confusion, &c.’ The first I read thus: — ‘While we were at the room, Mrs. Jones, sitting at home, took the Bible to read; but on a sudden threw it away, saying, “I am good enough; I will never read or pray more.” She was in the same mind when I came, often repeating, “I used to think I was full of sin and that I sinned in everything I did; but now I know better: I am a good Christian; I never did any harm in my life; I don’t desire to be any better than I am.” She spoke many things to the same effect, plainly showing that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her. I asked, “Do you desire to be healed” She said, “I am whole.”“But do you desire to be saved” She replied, “I am saved; I ail nothing; I am happy.” ‘This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection taught by you among the weak and ignorant.’ (Page 11.) I should wonder if the scarecrow of Sinless Perfection was not brought in some way or other. But to the point: You here repeat a relation as from me, and that ‘in confirmation,’ you say, ‘of your own veracity,’ and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it. I begin thus: ‘Sun. 11. — I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil’ (Journal, ii. 415). These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words ‘I am happy,’ I add, ‘Yet it was easy to discern she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind; sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severe frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment,’ — a plain proof that this was no instance of presumption, nor a natural fruit of any teaching whatever. It ends thus: ‘About a quarter before six the next morning, after lying quiet awhile, she broke out, “Peace be unto thee” (her husband); “peace be unto this house! The peace of God is come to my soul. I know that my Redeemer liveth.” And for several days her mouth was filled with His praise and her “talk was wholly of His wondrous works.”’ Had not these words been left out, neither could this have passed for an instance of despair. Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an instance of confusion, &c. I must not forget that this was cited at first as a proof of my enthusiasm; as an instance of a private revelation, ‘which,’ you say, ‘I seem to pay great credit to--representing the conjectures of a woman, whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophecy!’ (Remarks, p. 64). I answered: ‘Descant, sir, as you please on this enthusiasm; on the credit I paid to this private revelation; and my representing the conjectures of this brain-sick woman as owing to a miraculous power of the Spirit of prophecy: and when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are, introducing this account: “Sun. 11. — I met with a surprising instance of the power of the devil.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the power of the devil and at length restoring peace to her soul.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 7.] I was in hopes you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed; for in your second letter I read thus: — ‘The instances of enthusiasm and presumption which your last Journal had furnished me with remain now to be reviewed. The first was of a private revelation, which you appeared to pay great credit to. You had represented everything the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to pass.’ (Second Letter, p. 130.) But I had not represented anything she spoke then, whether it came to pass or no, as coming from the Spirit of God, but from the devil. You say, ‘When I read this first, I was amazed, and impatient to look again into your Journal. But I had no sooner done this, but I was still more astonished. For you have very grievously misrepresented the case.’ If I have, then I will bear the blame; but if not, it will light on your head. ‘It is not this account which you had thus introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before. Sunday, you mention her as being guilty of gross presumption, which you attribute to the power of the devil. But on Monday and Tuesday the opposite revelations happened, which you relate without the least mark of diffidence or blame.’ (Page 131.) I am grieved that you constrain me to say any more. In the sixty-sixth and sixty-seventh pages of the last Journal, [Journal, ii. 415-16.] I gave account of Mrs. Jones, which I term ‘a surprising instance of the power of the devil.’ It includes the occurrences of three days. This you brought as a proof of my enthusiasm. I answer: ‘The very words that introduce this account’ prove it is no instance of enthusiasm; meaning by ‘this account’ (as I suppose is plain to every reader) the following account of Mrs. Jones. You reply: ‘It is not this account which you had thus introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before.’ Sir, it is the whole account of Mrs. Jones which I thus introduce; and not another, not a very different one. And I attribute the agony which she (Mrs. Jones) was in, and most of the words which she spoke, both on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, not to the Spirit of God, but to the power of the devil. 6. The next instance which you relate as an instance of despair is that of a young woman of Kingswood; which you break off with, ‘Take me away, &c.’ (page 112). But why did you not decipher that &c. Why did you not add the rest of the paragraph Because it would have spoiled your whole argument. It would have shown what the end of the Lord was in permitting that severe visitation. The words are: ‘We interrupted her by calling again upon God; on which she sunk down as before (as one asleep), and another young woman began to roar as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o’clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven; when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praise to Him who had “stilled the enemy and the avenger.”’ (Journal, ii. 298-9.) 7. I am sorry to find you still affirm that, with regard to the Lord’s Supper also, I ‘advance many injudicious, false, and dangerous things. Such as: (1) That “a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in God’s mercy through Christ.”’ (Second Letter, p. 117.) You mark these as my words; but I know them not. (2) ‘That there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary but a desire to receive whatsoever God pleases to give.’ But I include abundantly more in that desire than you seem to apprehend, even a willingness to know and do the whole will of God. (3) ‘That no fitness is required at the time of communicating’ (I recite the whole sentence) ‘but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ in this as well as in all other ways of His appointment.’ But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist without earnest desires of universal holiness. ‘There was another passage,’ you say, ‘which you chose to omit’ (page 118). Which this was I do not understand. Nor do I perceive any one of these dreadful positions (as you style them) to be contrary to the Word of God. 8. You will likewise, at all hazards, stand your ground as to the charge of stoical insensibility. I answered before, ‘How do you support the charge Why, thus: “You say, The servants of God suffer nothing.” And can you possibly misunderstand these words if you read those that immediately follow — “His body was wellnigh torn asunder with pain: but God made all his bed in his sickness; so that he was continually giving thanks to God and making his boast of His praise.”’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III, 4.] You reply, ‘If you meant no more than that a man under the sharpest pains may be thankful to God, why did you call this a strange truth’ (page 118). Because I think it is so. I think it exceeding strange that one in such a degree of pain should be continually giving thanks to God. Not that I suppose him ‘insensible of his torments.’ ‘His body,’ I say, ‘was wellnigh torn asunder with pain.’ But the love of God so abundantly overbalanced all pain, that it was as nothing to him. ‘The next instance is as follows: One told you, “Sir, I thought last week there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world wherein we should be so free as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better; for on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease.”’ Add, ‘but only that the will of God might be done.’ Neither has this any resemblance of ‘stoical insensibility.’ I never supposed that this person did not feel pain (nor, indeed, that there is any state on earth wherein we shall not feel it), but that her soul was filled with the love of God and thankfully resigned to His will. ‘Another instance is taken from one of your hymns, where are these lines (page 119): Doom, if Thou canst, to endless pains, And drive me from Thy face.’ Add: But if Thy stronger love constrains, Let me be saved by grace. [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 236.] ‘This I thought the height of insensibility, extravagance, and presumption. You see nothing of these in it. And yet you explain yourself thus: “If Thou canst deny Thyself, if Thou canst forget to be gracious, if Thou canst cease to be truth and love,” — all which, in my opinion, is fixing the charge most strongly upon you. For the supposition that Christ can do these things.’ Are you in earnest, sir Are you really ignorant that expressions of this kind do not suppose He can, but quite the reverse that they are one of the strongest forms of obtestation, of adjuring God to show mercy, by all His grace and truth and love So far is this also from proving the charge of ‘stoical insensibility.’ III. 1. I come now to consider the point of Church communion, of which you have spoke in the beginning of your treatise. In the entrance you say: ‘We teach no other doctrine than has always been taught in our Church. Our sentiments concerning Justification are reconcilable to our Articles, Homilies, and Service. This I apprehend several of the Methodists have been convinced of, and have therefore left our communion entirely. You give us more instances than one of this in your last Journal.’ (Second Letter, p. 2.) No, not one. Nor did I ever yet know one man who ‘therefore left the communion of the Church’ because he was convinced that either her Articles, Homilies, or Liturgy opposed his sentiments concerning Justification. Poor Mr. Stonehouse and Mr. Simpson were induced to leave it by reasons of quite another kind. You add: ‘We cannot wonder that some Methodists have withdrawn from her, while they have been used to hear doctrines which they must have been sensible have no place in her Articles and Service.’ So far from it, that all I know of them are deeply sensible the ‘doctrines they have been used to hear’ daily are no other than the genuine doctrines of the Church as expressed both in her Articles and Service. 2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but discipline. ‘My first business,’ you say, ‘is to consider some very lax notions of Church communion which I find in your last Journal. Vol. ii. p. 335, you say, “Our Twentieth Article defines a true Church, a congregation of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered”’ (page 3). The use I would willingly make of this definition (which, observe, is not mine, be it good or bad) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men by cutting off their presence to call themselves of the Church. But you think they may call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not contend about it. But you cannot infer from hence that my notions of Church communion are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite shows nothing of my sentiments on that head. And, for anything which occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong. You add: ‘It will be requisite, in order to approve yourself a minister of our Church, that you follow her rules and orders; that you constantly conform to the method of worship she has prescribed and study to promote her peace’ (page 5). All this is good and fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question: ‘What led you into such very loose notions of Church communion, I imagine, might be your being conscious to yourself that, according to the strict, just account of the Church of England, you could not with any grace maintain your pretensions to belong still to her.’ Sir, I have never told you yet what my notions of Church communion are. They may be wrong or they may be right for all you know. Therefore, when you are first supposing that I have told you my notions, and then assigning the reasons of them, what can be said but that you imagine the whole matter 3. How far I have acted agreeably to the rules and orders of our Church is a farther question. You think I have acted contrary thereto, first, by using extemporary prayer in public. ‘The Church,’ you say, ‘has strongly declared her mind on this point by appointing her excellent Liturgy, which you have solemnly promised to use, and no other.’ I know not when or where. ‘And whoever does not worship God in the manner she prescribes must be supposed to slight and contemn her offices and rules; and therefore can be no more worthy to be called her minister.’ (Page 7.) I do not ‘slight or contemn the offices’ of the Church: I esteem them very highly. And yet I do not at all times worship God even in public in the very terms of those offices. Nor yet do I knowingly ‘slight or contemn her rules’; for it is not clear to my apprehension that she has any rule which forbids using extemporary prayer, suppose, between the Morning and Evening Service. And if I am ‘not worthy to be called her minister’ (which I dare by no means affirm myself to be), yet her minister I am, and must always be, unless I should be judicially deposed from my ministry. Your second argument is this: ‘If you suppose the Scripture enjoins you to use extemporary prayer, then you must suppose our Liturgy to be inconsistent with Scripture, and consequently unlawful to be used.’ That does not follow, unless I supposed the Scripture to enjoin to use extemporary prayer and no other. Then it would follow that a form of prayer was inconsistent with Scripture. But this I never did suppose. Your third argument is to this effect: ‘You act contrary to the rule of the Church. Allow she is in the wrong; yet, while you break her rule, how do you act as her minister’ It ought to be expressed, ‘How are you her minister’ for the conclusion to be proved is that I am not her minister. I answer: (1) I am not convinced, as I observed before, that I do hereby break her rule; (2) if I did, yet should I not cease to be her minister, unless I were formally deprived; (3) I now actually do continue in her communion, and hope that I always shall. 4. You object, farther, that I ‘disobey the governors of the Church.’ I answer, I both do and will obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some particular law of God to the contrary. ‘Here,’ you say, ‘you confess that in some things you do not and cannot obey your governors’ (page 8). Did I confess this Then I spoke rashly and foolishly; for I granted more than I can make good. I do certainly apprehend that the law of God requires me both to preach and sometimes to pray extempore. Yet I do not know that I disobey the governors of the Church herein; for I do not know that they have forbidden me to do either. But your ‘behavior and method of teaching is irregular. Have you any warrant from Scripture for preaching’ up and down thus I think I have; I think God hath called me to this work ‘by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery,’ which directs me how to obey that general command, ‘While we have time, let us do good unto all men.’ ‘But we ought to do this agreeably to our respective situations, and not break in upon each other’s provinces. Every private man may take upon himself the office of a magistrate, and quote this text as justly as you have done.’ (Page 9.) No; the private man is not called to the office of a magistrate, but I am to the office of a preacher. ‘You was, indeed, authorized to preach the gospel; but it was in the congregation to which you should be lawfully appointed. Whereas you have many years preached in places whereunto you was not lawfully appointed; nay, which were entrusted to others, who neither wanted nor desired your assistance.’ Many of them wanted it enough, whether they desired it or no. But I shall not now debate that point. I rather follow you to the First Part of the Farther Appeal, where this objection is considered.[Works, viii. 117.] 5. ‘Our Church,’ it was said, ‘has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him to the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto.’ I answered: (1) ‘Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves that no priest has authority either to preach or administer the sacrament in any other than his own congregation.’ You reply, ‘Is there no difference between a thing’s being done occasionally and its being done for years together’ Yes, a great one; and more inconveniences may arise from the latter than from the former. But this is all wide; it does not touch the point. ‘Still, if our Church does expressly limit the exercise of the sacerdotal powers to that congregation whereunto each priest shall be appointed, this precludes him from exercising those powers at all in any other than that congregation.’ I answered: (2) ‘Had the powers conferred been so limited when I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not appointed to any congregation at all, but was ordained as a member of that “College of Divines” (so our Statutes express it) “founded to overturn all heresies and defend the catholic faith.”’[Bishop Fleming’s object in founding Lincoln College.] You reply, ‘I presume it was expected you should either continue at your college or enter upon some regular cure.’ Perhaps so; but I must still insist that, if my sacerdotal powers had been then expressly limited to that congregation whereunto I should be appointed, my ordination would have signified nothing. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all; seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation--at least, not till I went to Georgia. I answered: (3) ‘For many years after I was ordained priest this limitation was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection to my preaching up and down in Oxford or London, or the parts adjacent, in Gloucestershire or Worcestershire, in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Lincolnshire. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.’ You reply, ‘There is great difference between preaching occasionally with the leave of the incumbents, and doing it constantly without their leave.’ I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence — ‘If every priest, when ordained, is expressly limited, touching the exercise of the power then received, to that congregation to which he shall be appointed, then is he precluded by this express limitation from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in any other congregation whatever.’ I answered: (4) ‘Is it not, in fact, universally allowed that every priest as such has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach in any congregation where the curate desires his assistance’ You reply to this by what you judge a parallel case. But it does not touch the restriction in question. Either this does or does not expressly limit the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination to that congregation whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this, however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the congregation to which he is appointed. Your parallel case is this: ‘Because a man does not offend against the law of the land when I prevail upon him to teach my children,’ therefore ‘he is empowered to seize’ (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) ‘an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein and to direct and dictate to my family!’ (page II). An exact parallel indeed! When, therefore, I came to live in St. Luke’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had seized an apartment in Dr. Buckley’s house [This is Dr. Benjamin Bulkeley, whose name was pronounced ‘Buckley.’ He took his degree at Oxford in 1709, and became D.D. in 1731; Assistant Preacher at St. Luke’s, Old Street, 1733; Rector of Chingford 1741; Canon of St. Paul’s 1742-57. William Nichols, Vicar of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate (1732-74), and President of Magdalene College, Cambridge, was also Rector of St. Luke’s, where he evidently had Dr. Bulkeley as his resident helper. See Foster’s Alumni Oxonienses; and letters of March 25, sect. 12, and June 11, sect. 20, 1747.] And was the continuing therein against his will and approbation (supposing it were so) precisely the same as if I had continued in his house, whether he would or no Is the one exactly the same offence against the law of the land as the other Once more. Is the warning sinners in Moorfields to flee from the wrath to come the very same with directing the doctor’s family under his own roof I should not have answered this; but that I was afraid you would conclude it was unanswerable. I answered the former objector: (5) ‘Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint, were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.”’ You reply, ‘The question is not whether you are in Orders or not’ (page 12). I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was. ‘But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the Church of England.’ Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated. I would only add: If I am in Orders, if I am a minister still, and yet not a minister of the Church of England, of what Church am I a minister Whoever is a minister at all is a minister of some particular Church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that Church till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till, therefore, I am so cast out (which I trust will never be), I must style myself a minister of the Church of England. 6. Your next objection is: ‘You not only erect bands, which, after the Moravians, you call the United Society, but also give out tickets to those that continue therein.’ These bands, you think, ‘have had very bad consequences, as was to be expected when weak people are made leaders of their brethren and are set upon expounding Scripture.’ (Ibid.) You are in some mistakes here. For: (1) The bands are not called the United Society. (2) The United Society was originally so called, not after the Moravians, but because it consisted of several smaller Societies united together. (3) Neither the bands nor the leaders of them as such are ‘set upon expounding Scripture.’ (4) The good consequences of their meeting together in bands I know; but the ‘very bad consequences’ I know not. When any members of these or of the United Society are proved to live in known sin, we then mark and avoid them; we separate ourselves from every one that walks disorderly. Sometimes, if the case be judged infectious (though rarely), this is openly declared. And this you style ‘excommunication’; and say, ‘Does not every one see a separate ecclesiastical society or communion’ (page 13). No. This Society does not separate from the communion of the rest of the Church of England. They continue steadfastly with them, both ‘in the apostolical doctrine, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.’ (Which neither Mr. Stonehouse nor Mr. Simpson does, nor the gentleman who writes to you in favor of the Moravians, who also writes pressingly to me to separate myself from the Church.) A Society ‘over which you had appointed yourself a governor.’ No: so far as I governed them, it was at their own entreaty. ‘And took upon you all the spiritual authority which the very highest Church governor could claim.’ What! at Kingswood, in February 1740-1 Not so. I took upon me no other authority (then and there at least) than any steward of a Society exerts by the consent of the other members. I did neither more nor less than declare that they who had broken our rules were no longer of our Society. ‘Can you pretend that you received this authority from our Church’ Not by ordination; for I did not exert it as a priest, but as one whom that Society had voluntarily chosen to be at the head of them. ’Or that you exercised it in subjection or subordination to her lawful governors’ I think so; I am sure I did not exercise it in any designed opposition to them. ’Did you ever think proper to consult or advise with them about fixing the terms of your communion’ If you mean about fixing the rules of admitting or excluding from our Society, I never did think it either needful or proper. Nor do I at this day. ‘How, then, will you vindicate all these powers’ All these are ‘declaring those are no longer of our Society.’ ‘Here is a manifest congregation. Either it belonged to the Church of England or not. If it did not, you set up a separate communion against her. And how then are you injured, in being thought to have withdrawn from her’ I have nothing to do with this. The antecedent is false: therefore the consequent falls of course. ‘If it did belong to the Church, show where the Church gave you such authority of controlling and regulating it’ Authority of putting disorderly members out of that Society The Society itself gave me that authority. ‘What private clergyman can plead her commission to be thus a judge and ordinary even in his own parish’ Any clergyman or layman, without pleading her commission, may be thus a judge and ordinary. ‘Are not these powers inherent in her governors and committed to the higher order of her clergy’ No; not the power of excluding members from a private society, unless on supposition of some such rule as ours is — namely, ‘That if any man separate from the Church, he is no longer a member of our Society.’ 7. But you have more proof yet: ‘The Grand Jury in Georgia found that you had called yourself Ordinary of Savannah. Nor was this fact contradicted even by those of the jury who, you say, wrote in your favor: so that it appears you have long had an inclination to be independent and uncontrolled.’ This argument ought to be good; for it is far-fetched. The plain case was this: that Grand Jury did assert that, in Mr. Causton’s hearing, I had called myself Ordinary of Savannah. The minority of the jury in their letter to the Trustees refuted the other allegations particularly; but thought this so idle an one that they did not deign to give it any farther reply than— ‘As to the eighth bill we are in doubt, as not well knowing the meaning of the word “Ordinary.” [See Journal, i. 395; and letters of Aug. 3 and 17, 1742.] You add, ‘I appeal to any reasonable man whether you have not acted as an ordinary, nay a bishop, in Kingswood.’ If you mean in ‘declaring those disorderly members were no longer of that Society,’ I admit your appeal whether I therein acted as a bishop or as any steward of a Society may. ‘Nay, you have gone far beyond the generality of the Dissenters themselves, who do not commit the power of excommunication and appointing to preach’ (that is another question) ‘to the hands of any private minister.’ ‘The power of excommunication.’ True; but this was not excommunication, but a quite different thing. How far, in what circumstances, and in what sense I have ‘appointed men to preach’ I have explained at large in the Third Part of the Farther Appeal. But I wait for farther light, and am ready to consider as I am able whatever shall be replied to what is there advanced. 8. Your general conclusion is: ‘Whatever your pretences or professions may be, you can be looked upon by serious and impartial persons, not as a member, much less a minister, of the Church of England, but as no other than an enemy to her constitution, worship, and doctrine, raising divisions and disturbances in her communion’ (Second Letter, p. 76). ‘And yet you say, “I cannot have greater regard to her rules,” “I dare not renounce communion with her”’ (page 15). I do say so still. I cannot have a greater regard to any human rules than to follow them in all things, unless where I apprehend there is a divine rule to the contrary. I dare not renounce communion with the Church of England. As a minister, I teach her doctrines; I use her offices; I conform to her rubrics; I suffer reproach for my attachment to her. As a private member, I hold her doctrines; I join in her offices, in prayer, in hearing, in communicating. I expect every reasonable man, touching these facts, to believe his own eyes and ears. But if these facts are so, how dare any man of common sense charge me with renouncing the Church of England 9. Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of this matter is: (1) I often use extemporary prayer; (2) wherever I can, I preach the gospel; (3) those who desire to live the gospel, I advise how to watch over each other and to put from them such as walk disorderly. Now, whether these things are, on other considerations, right or wrong, this single point I must still insist on: ‘All this does not prove either that I am no member or that I am no minister of the Church of England.’ Nay, nothing can prove I am no member of the Church, till I either am excommunicated or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine and in the breaking of bread and in prayer. Nor can anything prove I am no minister of the Church, till I either am deposed from my ministry or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubrics for conscience’ sake. However, I grant that whatsoever is ‘urged on this head deserves my most serious consideration.’ And whensoever I am convinced that, by taking any methods, more or less different from those I now take, I may better ‘consult the honor of religion, and be able to do more good in the world,’ by the grace of God I shall not persist in these one hour, but instantly choose the more excellent way. IV. 1. What you urge on the head of enthusiasm also, I think, ‘deserves my most serious consideration.’ You may add, ‘and presumption.’ I let it drop once more; because I do not love tautology; and because I look upon presumption to be essential to enthusiasm, and consequently contained therein. I will therefore weigh what you advance concerning it, and explain myself something more at large. ‘I am to examine,’ you say, ‘how far you have cleared yourself of enthusiasm. My account of this you set down, making as many alterations and omissions as there are lines.’ (Page 120.) Perhaps more; for I never designed to recite the whole, but only the material part of it. ‘If you did not wholly approve of it, why would you not let me know what you disliked in it’ Because I do not love many words. Therefore, when the argument stood thus, ‘He that does this is an enthusiast; but you do this,’ I was generally content with answering the second proposition, and leaving the first as I found it. ‘I laid this charge against you and the Methodists in general; between you every part of the character has been verified.’ I answer for one; let the rest answer for themselves, if they have not better employment. That the question between us may be the more fully understood, I shall briefly compare together (1) your remarks; (2) my answer; (3) your reply, though still I cannot promise to repeat your words at length. 2. You remark: ‘Though you would be thought an enemy to enthusiasm and presumption, yet in both you are far from being inferior to the Moravians, or indeed to any others’ (page 60). Strong assertions! ‘Not inferior to any others’ not to the French prophets or John of Leyden! (1) ‘Enthusiasm is a false persuasion of an extraordinary divine assistance, which leads men to such conduct as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.’ I answer, ‘Before this touches me, you are to prove (which I conceive you have not done yet) that my conduct is such as is only to be justified by the supposition of such assistance.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 5.] You reply, ‘This, I think, is proved in the preceding tract’ (page 120). I think not. Let men of candor judge. Yet I am persuaded there was such an assistance at some times. You have also to prove that this was a false persuasion. You remark: (2) ‘An enthusiast is, then, sincere, but mistaken’ (page 61). I answered, ‘That I am mistaken remains to be proved.’ You reply, ‘The world must judge.’ Agreed, if by ‘the world’ you mean men of reason and religion. You remark: (3) ‘His intentions must be good; but his actions will be most abominable.’ I answered, ‘What actions of mine are most abominable’ You reply, ‘The world must be judge whether your public actions have not been in many respects abominable.’ I am glad the charge softens. I hope by-and-by you will think they are only abominable in some respects. You remark: (4) ‘Instead of making the Word of God the rule of his actions he follows only secret persuasion or impulse.’ I answered: ‘I have declared again and again that I make the Word of God the rule of all my actions, and that I no more follow any secret impulse instead thereof than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.’ You reply: ‘You fall again into your strain of boasting, as if declarations could have any weight against facts; assert that “you make the Word of God the rule of all your actions,” and that I “perhaps do not know many persons – ”’ (page 121). Stop, sir: you are stepping over one or two points which I have not done with. You remark: (5) ‘Instead of judging of his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart, he rests only on ecstasies, &c.’ I answered: ‘Neither is this my case. I rest not on them at all. I judge of my spiritual estate by the improvement of my heart and the tenor of my life conjointly.’ To this I do not perceive you reply one word. Herein, then, I am not an enthusiast. You remark: (6) ‘He is very liable to err, not considering things coolly and carefully.’ I answered: ‘So indeed I am. I find it every day more and more. But I do not yet find that this is owing to my want of “considering things coolly and carefully.” Perhaps you do not know many persons (excuse my simplicity in speaking it) who more carefully consider every step they take. Yet I know I am not cool or careful enough. May God supply this and all my wants!’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, acct. III 5.] You reply, ‘Your private life I have nothing to do with’; and then enlarge on my ‘method of consulting Scripture’ and of using lots, of both which by-and-by. But meantime observe this does not affect the question; for I neither cast lots, nor use that method at all, till I have considered things with all the care I can. So that, be this right or wrong, it is no manner of proof that I do not ‘carefully consider every step I take.’ But how little did I profit by begging your excuse, suppose I had spoken a word unguardedly! O sir, you put me in mind of him who said, ‘I know not how to show mercy!’ You have need never to fight but when you are sure to conquer, seeing you are resolved neither to give nor take quarter. You remark: (7) ‘He is very difficult to be convinced by reason and argument, as he acts upon a supposed principle superior to it--the direction of God’s Spirit.’ I answered: ‘I am very difficult to be convinced by dry blows or hard names, but not by reason or argument. At least, that difficulty cannot spring from the cause you mention; for I claim no other direction of God’s Spirit than is common to all believers.’ You reply: (1) ‘I fear this will not be easily reconcilable to your past presences and behavior’ (page 124). I believe it will; in particular to what I speak of the light I received from God in that important affair (Journal, i. 327). But as to the directions in general of the Spirit of God, we very probably differ in this: you apprehend those directions to be extraordinary which I suppose to be common to all believers. You remark: (8) ‘Whoever opposes him will be charged with resisting or rejecting the Spirit.’ I answered: ‘What! whoever opposes me, John Wesley Do I charge every such person with rejecting the Spirit No more than I charge him with robbing on the highway. Do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit’ You reply: ‘You deny that you charge the opposers with rejecting the Spirit, and affirm that you never said or thought that what you do is to be accounted the work of God.’ Here you blend different sentences together, which I must consider apart, as they were written. And, first, where do I charge you with rejecting the Spirit If I charge whoever opposes me with this, undoubtedly I charge you. If I do not charge you, that proposition is false; I do not so charge whoever opposes me. Your next words are: ‘You affirm that you never said or thought that what you do is to be accounted the work of God. If it be the work of God, you need not deny the other point.’ Yes, sir; whether it be or no, I must still deny that I ever charged you with rejecting the Spirit in opposing me. You remark: (9) ‘His own dreams must be regarded as oracles.’ I answered: ‘Whose I desire neither my dreams nor my waking thoughts may be regarded at all, unless just so far as they agree with the oracles of God.’ To this also you make no reply. You remark: (10) ‘However wild his behavior may be, whatever he does is to be accounted the work of God.’ It was to this I answered, ‘I never said so of what I do: I never thought so.’ This answer was ill expressed. And I might have foreseen you would hardly fail to make your advantage of it. I must therefore explain myself upon it a little farther. You said, ‘An enthusiast accounts whatever he does to be the work of God.’ I should have said, ‘But I do not account whatever I do to be the work of God.’ What that is which I do account His work will be considered by-and-by. You remark: (11) ‘He talks in the style of inspired persons.’ I answered, ‘No otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God.’ You reply, ‘The point was not whether you are actually inspired, but whether you have talked in the style of those who were so’ (Second Letter, p. 126). That was so much the point that, if it were allowed, it would overturn your whole argument. For if I was inspired (in your sense), you could not term that inspiration enthusiasm without blasphemy; but you again mistake my words. The plain meaning of them is, that I talk in the style of those persons who are ‘no otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God.’ You remark: (12) ‘He applies Scripture phrases to himself, without attending to their original meaning or once considering the difference of times and circumstances’ (page 62). I answered: ‘I am not conscious of anything like this. I apply no Scripture phrase either to myself or any other without carefully considering, both the original meaning and the secondary sense, wherein (allowing for different times and circumstances) it may be applied to ordinary Christians.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect.111, 5.] You reply: ‘This also you deny to have done; holding, however, some secondary sense (what it is you have not told us) in which Scripture phrases may be applied to ordinary Christians.’ I have largely told you what I mean by a secondary sense, in the First Part of the Farther Appeal. You add: ‘Many things which were truly written of the preaching of Christianity at first, you have vainly applied to yourselves.’ Sir, I am to answer only for myself; as I will for that expression, ‘Behold, the day of the Lord is come; He is again visiting and redeeming His people!’ 3. I come now to what you expatiate upon at large as the two grand instances of my enthusiasm. The first is plainly this: At some rare times, when I have been in great distress of soul, or in utter uncertainty how to act in an important case which required a speedy determination, after using all other means that occurred, I have cast lots or opened the Bible. And by this means I have been relieved from that distress or directed in that uncertainty. Instances of this kind occur in pages 12, 14, 15, 28, and 88 of the Third Journal; as also in pages 27, 28, and 80 of the last Journal. [Journal, ii. 91, 106, 157, 290-1, 336, 447.] I desire any who would understand the matter thoroughly to read those passages as they stand at length. As to the particular instances, I would observe: (1) That, with regard to my first journey to Bristol, you should in any wise have set down those words that preface the scriptures there recited: ‘I was entreated in the most pressing manner to come to Bristol without delay. This I was not at all forward to do; and perhaps a little the less inclined to it, because of the remarkable scriptures which offered as often as we inquired touching the consequence of this removal: though, whether this was permitted only for the trial of our faith, God knoweth, and the event will show.’ From the scriptures afterwards recited, some inferred that the event they apprehended was yet afar off. I infer nothing at all. I still know not how to judge, but leave the whole to God. This only I know, that the continual expectation of death was then an unspeakable blessing to me; that I did not dare knowingly to waste a moment, neither to throw away one desire on earthly things; those words being ever uppermost in my thoughts, and indeed frequently on my tongue: Ere long, when Sovereign Wisdom wills, My soul an unknown path shall tread, Shall strangely leave, who strangely fills This frame, and waft me to the dead. Oh what is Death ’Tis life’s last shore, Where vanities are vain no more; Where all pursuits their goal obtain, And life is all retouched again. [By John Gambold, in Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 9.] I observe: (2) That in two other of those instances (Journal, ii. 97, 103) it is particularly mentioned that ‘I was troubled’; and that, by the seasonable application of those scriptures, that trouble was entirely removed. The same blessing I received (so I must term it still) from the words set down in pages 290-1; and in a yet higher degree from that exceeding apposite scripture mentioned in vol. ii. p. 446. I observe: (3) That at the times to which your other citations refer, I was utterly uncertain how to act in points of great importance, and such as required a speedy determination; and that by this means my uncertainty was removed, and I went on my way rejoicing (ii. 97, 106, 336). My own experience, therefore, which you think should discourage me for the future from anything of this kind, does, on the contrary, greatly encourage me herein; since I have found much benefit, and no inconvenience — unless, perhaps, this be one, that you ‘cannot acquit me of enthusiasm’; add, if you please, ‘and presumption.’ But you ask, ‘Has God ever commanded us to do thus’ I believe He has neither commanded nor forbidden it in Scripture. But, then, remember ‘that Scripture’ (to use the words which you cite from ‘our learned and judicious Hooker’) ‘is not the only rule of all things which in this life may be done by men.’ All I affirm concerning this is that it may be done, and that I have, in fact, received assistance and direction thereby. 4. I give the same answer to your assertion that we are not ordered in Scripture to decide any points in question by lots (Second Letter, p. 123). You allow, indeed, there are instances of this in Scripture; but affirm, ‘These were miraculous; nor can we without presumption’ (a species of enthusiasm) ‘apply this method.’ I want proof of this: bring one plain text of Scripture, and I am satisfied. ‘This, I apprehend, you learned from the Moravians.’ I did; though, it is true, Mr. Whitefield thought I went too far therein. ‘Instances of the same occur in your Journals. I will mention only one. It being debated when you should go to Bristol, you say, “We at length all agreed to decide it by lot. And by this it was determined I should go.” (Journal, ii. 158.) Is this your way of carefully considering every step you take Can there be greater rashness and extravagance Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless, prudence is set aside, and affairs of moment left to be determined by chance!’ (Second Letter, p. 124.) So this you give as a genuine instance of my proceedings; and, I suppose, of your own fairness and candor! ‘We agreed at length to decide it by lot.’ True, at length: after a debate of some hours; after carefully hearing and weighing coolly all the reasons which could be alleged on either side; our brethren still continuing the dispute, without any probability of their coming to one conclusion, — we at length (the night being now far spent) all agreed to this. ‘Can there be greater rashness and extravagance’ I cannot but think there can. ‘Reason is thus in a manner rendered useless.’ No; we had used it as far as it could go, from Saturday, March 17 (when I received the first letter), to Wednesday, 28, when the case was laid before the Society. ‘Prudence is set aside.’ Not so; but the arguments here were so equal that she saw not how to determine. ‘And affairs of moment left to be determined by chance!’ ‘By chance!’ What a blunder, then, is that, ‘The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposal thereof is of the Lord’! This I firmly believe is truth and reason, and will be to the end of the world. And I therefore still subscribe to that declaration of the Moravian Church, laid before the whole body of Divines in the University of Wirtemberg, and not by them accounted enthusiasm: ‘We have a peculiar esteem for lots, and accordingly use them both in public and private to decide points of importance when the reasons brought on each side appear to be of equal weight. And we believe this to be then the only way of wholly setting aside our own will, of acquitting ourselves of all blame, and clearly knowing what is the will of God.’ (Journal, ii. 55-6.) 5. You next remarked several instances of my enthusiasm. The first was that of Mrs. Jones. The next ran thus: ‘Again, you say, “I expounded out of the fullness that was given me”’ (Remarks, p. 64). I answered, ‘I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense of what I spoke than I ordinarily have.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 8.] But if you still think ‘it would have been more decent to have said, “According to the best of my power and ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded,”’ I will say so another time. With regard to the third instance of enthusiasm you remarked, ‘If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related’ (Remarks, pp. 65-6). I answered: ‘It may be so; let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating: but still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous, but as a signal instance of God’s particular providence.’ [Ibid.] How friendly and generous is your reply! — ‘You seem ashamed of it. I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future you will treat your readers better.’ (Second Letter, p. 131.) Sir, I am not ashamed of it; nor shall I ever give this fooling up till I give up the Bible. I still look upon this ‘as a signal instance of God’s particular providence.’ But ‘how is this consistent with yielding it to be a trifle’ (page 132). My words do not imply that I yield it so to be. Being urged with the dilemma, ‘Either this is related as miraculous’ (and then it is enthusiasm), ‘or it is not worth relating,’ I answered (to avoid drawing the saw of controversy), ‘Let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating; but still’ (if it be a trifle, which I suppose, not grant), ‘it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous.’ And yet I believe I yielded too much, and what might too much favor your assertion that ‘there is a great difference between particular providences and such extraordinary interpositions.’ Pray, sir, show me what this difference is. It is a subject that deserves your coolest thoughts. ‘I know no ground to hope or pray for such immediate reliefs. These things must be represented either as common accidents or as miracles.’ I do not thoroughly understand your terms. What is a common accident that a sparrow falls to the ground, or something more inconsiderable than the hairs of your head Is there no medium between accident and miracle If there be, what is that medium When we are agreed with regard to these few points, I shall be glad to resume the subject. 6. The fourth instance of my enthusiasm was this, that I ‘related judgments inflicted on my opposers.’ As to Mr. Molther, I must observe once more that I do believe there was a particular providence in his sickness. But I do not believe (nor did I design to insinuate) that it was a judgment for opposing me. You go on: ‘Again you mention, “as an awful providence, the case of a poor wretch who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many that he would come again on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then. But on Friday God laid His hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.”’ (Remarks, pp. 66-7.) I answered, ‘I look on this as a manifest judgment of God on an hardened sinner for his complicated wickedness.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 9.] You reply, ‘Add, if you please, “His laboring with all his might to hinder the word of God.” Here, therefore, is a confessed judgment for his opposition to you.’ (Second Letter, p. 133.) There is for his thus opposing with curses and blasphemy. This was part of his complicated wickedness. Here, then, you ‘think I plead guilty.’ Not of enthusiasm, till you prove this was not ‘an awful providence.’ ‘Again: “One was just going to beat his wife (which he frequently did), when God smote him in a moment; so that his hand dropped, and he fell down upon the ground, having no more strength than a new-born child.” Have we any warrant, either from Scripture or the common dispensations of Providence, to interpret misfortunes of this nature as judgments’ (Remarks, p. 67.) I answered, ‘Can you, sir, consider this as one of the common dispensations of Providence Have you known a parallel one in your life But it was never cited by me (as it is by you) as an immediate punishment on a man for opposing me.’ [Ibid.] You reply, ‘As if what is not common, or what I have not known, must be a miraculous judgement.’ I believe it was, whether miraculous or no, a judgment mixed with mercy. You now add to the rest the following instance: ‘One John Haydon, a man of a regular life and conversation, being informed that people fell into strange fits at the Societies, came to see and judge for himself. But he was still less satisfied than before; insomuch that he went about to his acquaintance one after another, and labored above measure to convince them it was a delusion of the devil. We were going home, when one met us in the street and informed us that John Haydon was fallen raving mad. It seems he had sat down to dinner, but had a mind first to end the sermon on Salvation by Faith. In reading the last page, he changed color, fell off his chair and began screaming terribly and beating himself against the ground. The neighbors were alarmed, and flocked into the house. I came in and found him upon the floor, the room being full of people, whom his wife would have kept without; but he cried aloud, “No: let them all come; let all the world see the just judgment of God.” Two or three men were holding him as well as they could. He immediately fixed his eyes upon me and cried, “Aye, this is he who I said was a deceiver of the people; but God has overtaken me. I said it was all a delusion; but this is no delusion.” He then roared out, “O thou devil! thou cursed devil! yea, thou legion of devils! thou canst not stay! Christ will cast thee out. I know His work is begun. Tear me to pieces if thou wilt, but thou canst not hurt me.” He then beat himself against the ground again, his breast heaving at the same time as in the pangs of death, and great drops of sweat trickling down his face. We all betook ourselves to prayer. His pangs ceased, and both his body and soul were set at liberty.’ (Journal, ii. 189-91.) If you had pleased, you might have added from the next paragraph, ‘Returning to John Haydon, we found his voice was lost and his body weak as that of an infant; but his soul was in peace, full of love, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.’ You subjoin, ’This you may desire, for aught I know, to pass as a trifle too’ (Second Letter, p. 134). No; it is so terrible an instance of the judgment of God (though at length ‘mercy rejoiced over judgment’), as ought never to be forgotten by those who fear God so long as the sun or moon endureth. 7. The account of people falling down in fits you cite as a fifth instance of my enthusiasm; it being ‘plain,’ you say, that I ’look upon both the disorders and the removals of them to be super natural’ (Remarks, p. 67). I answered: ‘It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases as wholly natural; on the rest as mixed, both the disorders and the removals being partly natural and partly not.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III.10.] You reply, ‘It would have been kind to have let us know your rule by which you distinguish these.’ I will. I distinguish them by the circumstances that precede, accompany, and follow. ‘However, some of these you here allow to be in part supernatural. Miracles, therefore, are not wholly ceased.’ Can you prove they are by Scripture or reason You then refer to two or three cases (related in Journal, ii. 186-7). I believe there was a supernatural power on the minds of the persons there mentioned, which occasioned their bodies to be so affected by the natural laws of the vital union. This point, therefore, you have to prove, or here is no enthusiasm — that there was no supernatural power in the case. Hereon you remarked: ‘You leave no room to doubt that you would have these cases considered as those of the demoniacs in the New Testament; in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them with those highest miracles of Christ and His disciples, the casting out devils’ (Remarks, p. 68). I answered: ‘I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition; but I now wonder at nothing of the kind.’ You reply, ‘Why so What have I done lately to take off your surprise Have I forfeited my character for ingenuous and fair dealing with you’ (Second Letter, p. 135.) Since you ask me the question, I will answer it; I hope, in love and in the spirit of meekness. I scarce know, of all who have wrote against me, a less ingenuous dealer, or one who has shown a more steady, invariable disposition to put an ill construction on whatever I say. ‘But why would you not particularly explain these cases’ I will explain myself upon them once for all. For more than three hundred years after Christ, you know demoniacs were common in the Church; and I suppose you are not unapprised that during this period (if not much longer) they were continually relieved by the prayers of the faithful. Nor can I doubt but demoniacs will remain so long as Satan is the ‘god of this world.’ I doubt not but there are such at this day. And I believe John Haydon was one. But, of whatever sort his disorder was, that it was removed by prayer is undeniable. Now, sir, you have only two points to prove, and then your argument will be conclusive: (1) That to think or say, ‘There are demoniacs now, and they are now relieved by prayer,’ is enthusiasm; (2) that to say, ‘Demoniacs were or are relieved on prayer made by Cyprian or their parish minister,’ is to parallel the actions of Cyprian or that minister with the highest miracles of Christ and His disciples. 8. You remarked, ‘It will be difficult to persuade any sober person that there is anything supernatural in these disorders’ (Remarks, pp. 68-9). The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus: You attempt to account for those fits, by ‘obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings, closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat’; and lastly by ‘terrors, perplexities, and doubts in weak and well meaning men; which’ you think, ‘in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings’ (page 69). I answered, ‘As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go.’ (Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; perhaps fully to account for one in a thousand.) ‘But I require proof of the last way whereby you would account for these disorders.’ Why, ‘the instances,’ you say, ‘of religious madness have much increased since you began to disturb the world.’ I doubt the fact. You reply, ‘This no way disproves it’ (Second Letter, p. 137). Yes, it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, ‘If these instances had increased daily, it is easy to account for them another way,’ as is done in the First Part of the Farther Appeal. [See Works, viii. 130-4.] You say, ‘Most have heard of or known several of the Methodists thus driven to distraction.’ I answered, ‘You may have heard of five hundred; but how many have you known Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them — no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 10.] You reply, ‘This’ (the naming them) ‘would be very improper and unnecessary’ (Second Letter, p. 138). However, sir, it is extremely necessary that you should name them to me in private. I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do. The person I mentioned, whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, Westminster. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself. 9. You go on: ‘It is the most charitable supposition we can make, that many of the cases you have mentioned in your Journals, and some of which have been represented above, are of this kind’ — that is, instances of madness (ibid.). Oh tender charity! But cannot your charity reach one hair’s breadth farther than this No: for ‘otherwise’ (that is, if those persons were not mad) ‘the presumption and despair are terrible indeed.’ But what if you were to suppose John Haydon (to instance in one) was not mad, but under a temporary possession, and that others were deeply convinced of sin and of the wrath of God abiding on them I should think this supposition (be it true or false) was full as charitable as the other. I said, ‘I cannot find one such instance to this day.’ You reply, ‘Yet once you could not but be under some concern with regard to one or two persons, who seemed to be indeed lunatic as well as sore vexed.’ So they seemed; but it soon appeared they were not. The very next paragraph mentions that one of these within a few hours was ‘filled with the spirit of love and of a sound mind.’ (Journal, ii. 291.) But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point; and so add, ‘Toward the end of your Farther Appeal, [Part I. See Works, viii. 131-2.] you say you have seen one instance of real, lasting madness. This was one whom you took with you to Bristol, who was afterwards prejudiced against you, and began a vehement invective both against your person and doctrines. In the midst of this he was struck raving mad.’ Add, ‘And so he continued till his friends put him into Bedlam; and probably laid his madness to my charge.’ If they did not, it is now done to their hands. 10. ‘As to the cure of these fits, I observed’ (so you, Second Letter, p. 139, proceed) ‘that you had frequently represented them as miraculous, as the instantaneous consequences of your prayers.’ My former answer to this was, ‘I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself, and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.’ I am glad you give me an occasion of reviewing this answer; for, upon reflection, I do not like it at all. It grants you more than I can in conscience do. As it can be proved by abundance of witnesses that these cures were frequently (indeed almost always) the instantaneous consequences of prayer, your inference is just. I cannot, dare not affirm that they were purely natural. I believe they were not. I believe many of them were wrought by the supernatural power of God; that of John Haydon in particular (I fix on this, and will join issue with you upon it when you please): and yet this is not barefaced enthusiasm. Nor can you prove it any enthusiasm at all, unless you can prove that this is falsely ascribed to a supernatural power. ‘The next case,’ you say, ‘relates to the spotted fever, which you represent as being extremely mortal; but you believe there was not one with whom you were but recovered. I allowed that here is no intimation of anything miraculous.’ (Remarks, pp. 71-2.) ‘You ask, “Why, then, is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm” [See letter of Feb. 2. 1745, sect. III, II.] You sure cannot think that false presences to miracles are the whole of enthusiasm.’ No; but I think they are that part of enthusiasm which you here undertook to prove upon me. You are here to prove that I ‘boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer without the use of other means’ (page 71). ‘But if there is no intimation in my account of anything miraculous or that proper remedies had not been applied, how is this a proof that I boast of curing bodily distempers without applying any remedies at all ‘But you seem to desire to have it believed that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers. Whereas, if the circumstances could be particularly inquired into, most probably it would appear that either the fury of the distemper was abated, or the persons you visited were seized with it in a more favorable degree, or were, by reason of a good constitution, more capable of going through it. Neither do I believe that they would have failed of an equal blessing and success had they had the assistance and prayers of their own parish ministers.’ There, sir, now I have done as you require; I have quoted your whole remark. But does all this prove that I ‘boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer without the use of any other means’ If you say, Although it does not prove this, it proves that ‘you seem to desire to have it believed that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers,’ and this is another sort of enthusiasm, it is very well: so it does not prove the conclusion you designed; but it proves another, which is as good! 11. The last two instances of my enthusiasm which you bring (pages 72-3) I had summed up in two lines, thus: ‘At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.’ [Ibid., sect. III. 12.] But since you say I ‘must not hope to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me particularly’ (Second Letter, p. 140), I must yield to necessity and set them down from the beginning to the end: — ‘Saturday, March 21. I explained in the evening the 33rd chapter of Ezekiel, in applying which I was seized with such a pain in my side I could not speak. I knew my remedy, and immediately kneeled down. In a moment the pain was gone.’ (Journal, ii. 437.) ‘Friday, May 8. I found myself much out of order. However, I made shift to preach in the evening; but on Saturday my bodily strength failed, so that for several hours I could scarce lift up my head. Sunday, 10. I was obliged to lie down most part of the day, being easy only in that posture. In the evening, beside the pain in my back and head, and the fever which still continued upon me, just as I began to pray I was seized with such a cough that I could hardly speak. At the same time came strongly into my mind, “These signs shall follow them that believe.” I called on Jesus aloud to “increase my faith” and to “confirm the word of His grace.” While I was speaking, my pain vanished away, the fever left me, my bodily strength returned, and for many weeks I felt neither weakness nor pain. “Unto Thee, O Lord, do I give thanks.”’ (ii. 454-5.) When you first cited these as proofs of enthusiasm, I answered, ’I will put your argument into form, — ‘He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so is a rank enthusiast. ’But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not so: ‘Therefore you are a rank enthusiast. ‘What do you mean by miraculous If you term everything so which is “not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes,” then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are “strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes,” your argument is nothing worth.’ You reply: ‘Your answer to the objection is very evasive, though you pretend to put my argument in form. You mistake the major proposition, which should have been, — ‘He that represents those cures as the immediate effects of his own prayers and as miraculous which are not so is a rank enthusiast, if sincere: ‘“But, This you have done: ergo, &c.”’ To this clumsy syllogism I rejoin: (1) That the words ‘if sincere’ are utterly impertinent; for if insincerity be supposed, enthusiasm will be out of the question. (2) That those words ‘as the effects of his own prayers’ may likewise be pared off; for they are unnecessary and cumbersome, the argument being complete without them. (3) That, with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it coincides with that you reject. For it is the believing those to be miracles which are not that constitutes an enthusiast; not the representing them one way or the other, unless so far as it implies such a belief. 12. Upon my answer to the syllogism first proposed, you observe, ‘Thus’ (by denying the latter part of the minor) ‘you clear yourself from the charge of enthusiasm by acknowledging the cures to be supernatural and miraculous. Why, then, would you not speak out, and directly say that you can work real and undoubted miracles This would put the controversy between you and your opposers on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your presences.’ (Second Letter, p. 142.) V. 1. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles in the Third Part of the Farther Appeal. But, since you repeat the demand (though without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced), I will endeavor once more to give you a distinct, full, and determinate answer. And (1) I acknowledge that I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears several things which, to the best of my judgment, cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes, and which I therefore believe ought to be ‘ascribed to the extraordinary interposition of God.’ If any man choose to style these miracles, I reclaim not. I have diligently inquired into the facts. I have weighed the preceding and following circumstances. I have strove to account for them in a natural way. I could not without doing violence to my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded that the sudden deliverance of John Haydon was one instance of this kind, and my own recovery on May 10 another. I cannot account for either of these in a natural way. Therefore I believe they were both supernatural. I must (2) observe that the truth of these facts is supported by the same kind of proof as that of all other facts is wont to be — namely, the testimony of competent witnesses; and that the testimony here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire. Those witnesses were many in number: they could not be deceived themselves; for the facts in question they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears; nor is it credible that so many of them would combine together with a view of deceiving others, the greater part being men that feared God, as appeared by the general tenor of their lives. Thus, in the case of John Haydon, this thing was not contrived and executed in a corner, and in the presence of his own family only, or three or four persons prepared for the purpose: no; it was in an open street of the city of Bristol, at one or two in the afternoon; and, the doors being all open from the beginning, not only many of the neighbors from every side, but several others (indeed, whosoever desired it), went in, till the house could contain no more. Nor yet does the account of my own illness and recovery depend, as you suppose, on my bare word. There were many witnesses both of my disorder on Friday and Saturday, and of my lying down most part of Sunday (a thing which they were well satisfied could not be the effect of a slight indisposition); and all who saw me that evening plainly discerned (what I could not wholly conceal) that I was in pain; about two hundred of whom were present when I was seized with that cough, which cut me short, so that I could speak no more, till I cried out aloud, ‘Lord, increase my faith! Lord, confirm the word of Thy grace!’ The same persons saw and heard that at that instant I changed my posture and broke out into thanksgiving; that quickly after, I stood upright (which I could not before) and showed no more sign either of sickness or pain. Yet I must desire you well to observe (3) that my will, or choice, or desire had no place either in this or any case of this kind that has ever fallen under my notice. Five minutes before, I had no thought of this. I expected nothing less. I was willing to wait for a gradual recovery in the ordinary use of outward means. I did not look for any other cure till the moment before I found it. And it is my belief that the case was always the same with regard to the most ‘real and undoubted miracles.’ I believe God never interposed His miraculous power but according to His own sovereign will; not according to the will of man--neither of him by whom He wrought, nor of any other man whatsoever. The wisdom as well as the power are His; nor can I find that ever, from the beginning of the world, He lodged this power in any mere man, to be used whenever that man saw good. Suppose, therefore, there was a man now on earth who did work ‘real and undoubted miracles,’ I would ask, By whose power cloth he work these and at whose pleasure — his own, or God’s Not his own, but God’s. But if so, then your demand is not made on man, but on God. I cannot say it is modest thus to challenge God, or well suiting the relation of a creature to his Creator. 2. However, I cannot but think there have been already so many plain interpositions of divine power as will shortly leave you without excuse if you either deny or despise them. We desire no favor, but the justice that diligent inquiry may be made concerning them. We are ready to name the persons on whom that power was shown which belongeth to none but God (not one or two, or ten or twelve only); to point out their places of abode; and we engage they shall answer every pertinent question fairly and directly; and, if required, shall give all those answers upon oath before any who are empowered so to receive them. It is our particular request that the circumstances which went before, which accompanied, and which followed after the facts under consideration may be thoroughly examined and punctually noted down. Let but this be done (and is it not highly needful it should — at least, by those who would form an exact judgment), and we have no fear that any reasonable man should scruple to say, ‘This hath God wrought!’ As there have been already so many instances of this kind, far beyond what we had dared to ask or think, I cannot take upon me to say whether or no it will please God to add to their number. I have not herein ‘known the mind of the Lord,’ neither am I ‘His counselor.’ He may, or He may not; I cannot affirm or deny. I have no light, and I have no desire either way. ‘It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good.’ I desire only to be as clay in His hand. 3. But what if there were now to be wrought ever so many ‘real and undoubted miracles’ (I suppose you mean by ‘undoubted’ such as, being sufficiently attested, ought not to be doubted of.) Why, ‘this,’ you say, ‘would put the controversy on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your presences.’ By no means. As common as this assertion is, there is none upon earth more false. Suppose a teacher were now on this very day to work ‘real and undoubted miracles’; this would extremely little ‘shorten the controversy’ between him and the greater part of his opposers: for all this would not force them to believe; but many would still stand just where they did before, seeing men may ‘harden their hearts’ against miracles as well as against arguments. So men have done from the beginning of the world, even against such signal, glorious miracles, against such interpositions of the power of God, as may not be again till the consummation of all things. Permit me to remind you only of a few instances, and to observe that the argument holds a fortiori; for who will ever be empowered of God again to work such miracles as these were Did Pharaoh look on all that Moses and Aaron wrought as an ’effectual proof of the truth of their presences’ even when ’the Lord made the sea dry land and the waters were divided’; when ’the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left’ (Exod. xiv. 21-2.) Nay, The wounded dragon raged in vain, And, fierce the utmost plague to brave, Madly he dared the parted main, And sunk beneath the o’erwhelming wave. [See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, iv. 303.] Was all this ‘an effectual proof of the truth of their presences’ to the Israelites themselves It was not. ‘They were’ still ‘disobedient at the sea, even at the Red Sea.’ Was the giving them day by day ‘bread from heaven’ ‘an effectual proof’ to those ‘two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown,’ who said with Dathan and Abiram, ‘Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men we will not come up’ (Num. xvi. 14); nay, when ‘the ground crave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up’ (verse 32). Neither was this an ’effectual proof’ to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that went down into the pit; but the very next day they ‘murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord’ (verse 41). Was not the case generally the same with regard to the Prophets that followed several of whom ‘stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,’ did many mighty works; yet their own people received them not. Yet ‘they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword’; they were ‘destitute, afflicted, tormented’; —utterly contrary to the commonly received supposition that the working real, undoubted miracles must bring all controversy to an end and convince every gainsayer. Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord Himself and His opposers Did He not work ‘real and undoubted miracles’ And what was the effect Still, when ‘He came to His own, His own received Him not.’ Still ‘He was despised and rejected of men.’ Still it was a challenge not to be answered, ‘Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him’ After this, how can you imagine that whoever works miracles must convince ‘all men of the truth of his presences’ I would just remind you of only one instance more: ‘There sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who never had walked. The same heard Paul speak; who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.’ Here was so undoubted a miracle that the people ‘lifted up their voices, saying, The gods are come down in the likeness of men.’ But how long were even these convinced of the truth of his presences Only till ‘there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium’; and then they stoned him (as they supposed) to death! (Acts xiv. 8-19.) So certain it is that no miracles whatever which were ever yet wrought in the world were effectual to prove the most glaring truth to those that hardened their hearts against it. 4. And it will equally hold in every age and nation. ‘If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be’ convinced of what they desire not to believe, ‘though one rose from the dead.’ Without a miracle, without one rising from the dead, t T t Ta at pe, ‘if any man be willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God’; but if he is not willing to do His will, he will never want an excuse, a plausible reason, for rejecting it — yea, though ever so many miracles were wrought to confirm it. For, let ever so much ‘light come into the world,’ it will have no effect (such is the wise and just will of God) on those who ‘love darkness rather than light.’ It will not convince those who do not simply desire to do the will of their Father which is in heaven; those who mind earthly things-who, if they do not continue in any gross outward sin, yet love pleasure or ease, yet seek profit or power, preferment or reputation. Nothing will ever be an effectual proof to these of the holy and acceptable will of God, unless first their proud hearts be humbled, their stubborn wills bowed down, and their desires brought, at least in some degree, into obedience to the law of Christ. Hence, although it should please God to work anew all the wonders that ever were wrought on the earth, still these men, however ‘wise and prudent’ they may be in things relating to the present world, would fight against God and all His messengers, and that in spite of all these miracles. Meanwhile God will reveal His truth unto babes--unto those who are meek and lowly, whose desires are in heaven, who want to ’know nothing save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ These need no outward miracle to show them His will; they have a plain rule--the written Word. And ‘the anointing which they have received of Him abideth in them and teacheth them of all things’ (1 John ii. 27). Through this they are enabled to bring all doctrines ‘to the law and to the testimony’: and whatsoever is agreeable to this they receive, without waiting to see it attested by miracles; as, on the other hand, whatever is contrary to this they reject--nor can any miracles move them to receive it. 5. Yet I do not know that God hath anyway precluded Himself from thus exerting His sovereign power from working miracles in any kind or degree in any age to the end of the world. I do not recollect any scripture wherein we are taught that miracles were to be confined within the limits either of the apostolic or the Cyprianic age, or of any period of time, longer or shorter, even till the restitution of all things. I have not observed, either in the Old Testament or the New, any intimation at all of this kind. St. Paul says, indeed, once, concerning two of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (so, I think, that text is usually understood), ‘Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease.’ But he does not say, either that these or any other miracles shall cease till faith and hope shall cease also, till they all be swallowed up in the vision of God, and love be all in all. I presume you will allow there is one kind of miracles (loosely speaking) which are not ceased — namely, tata fed, ‘lying wonders,’ diabolical miracles, or works beyond the virtue of natural causes, wrought by the power of evil spirits. Nor can you easily conceive that these will cease as long as the father of lies is the prince of this world. And why should you think that the God of truth is less active than him, or that He will not have His miracles also — only, not as man wills, neither when he wills, but according to His own excellent wisdom and greatness 6. But even if it were supposed that God does now work beyond the operation of merely natural causes, yet what impression would this make upon you in the disposition your mind is now in Suppose the trial were repeated, were made again to-morrow. One informs you the next day, ‘While a clergyman was preaching yesterday where I was, a man came who had been long ill of an incurable distemper. Prayer was made for him, and he was restored to perfect health.’ Suppose, now, that this were real fact: perhaps you would scarce have patience to hear the account of it, but would cut it short in the midst with, ‘Do you tell this as something supernatural Then miracles are not ceased.’ But if you should venture to ask, ‘Where was this, and who was the person that prayed’ and it was answered, ‘At the Foundery near Moorfields; the person who prayed was Mr. Wesley,’ — what a damp comes at once! What a weight falls on your mind at the very first setting out! It is well if you have any heart or desire to move one step farther. Or if you should, what a strong additional propensity do you now feel to deny the fact! And is there not a ready excuse for so doing — ‘Oh, they who tell the story are doubtless his own people; most of whom, we may be sure, will say anything for him, and the rest will believe anything!’ But if you at length allowed the fact, might you not find means to account for it by natural causes ‘Great crowds, violent heats, with obstructions and irregularities of the blood and spirits’ will do wonders. If you could not but allow it was more than natural, might not some plausible reason be found for ranking it among the lying wonders, for ascribing it to the devil rather than God And if, after all, you was convinced it was the finger of God, must you not still bring every doctrine advanced to the law and to the testimony, the only sure and infallible test of all What, then, is the use of this continual demand, ‘Show us a sign, and we will believe’ What will you believe I hope no more than is written in the Book of God. And thus far you might venture to believe, even without a miracle. 7. Let us consider this point yet a little farther. ‘What is it you would have us prove by miracles The doctrines we preach’ We prove these by Scripture and reason, and (if need be) by antiquity. What else is it, then, that we are to prove by miracles At length we have a distinct reply: ‘Wise and sober men will not otherwise be convinced’ (that is, unless you prove this by miracles) ‘that God is, by the means of such teachers and such doctrines, working a great and extraordinary work in the earth’ (Preface, p. 6). So, then, the determinate point which you in their name call upon us to prove by miracles is this, ‘that God is by these teachers working a great and extraordinary work in the earth.’ What I mean by ‘a great and extraordinary work’ is, the bringing multitudes of gross notorious sinners in a short space to the fear and love and service of God, to an entire change of heart and life. Now, then, let us take a nearer view of the proposition, and see which part of it we are to prove by miracles. ‘Is it (1) that A. B. was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a Sabbath-breaker ‘Or (2) that he is not so now ‘Or (3) that he continued so till he heard these men preach, and from that time was another man ‘Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testimony of competent witnesses. And these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them. ‘Or would you have us prove by miracles (4) that this was not done by our own power or holiness that God only is able to raise the dead, to quicken those who are dead in trespasses and sins’ Surely no. Whosoever believes the Scriptures will want no new proof of this. Where, then, is the wisdom of those men who demand miracles in proof of such a proposition one branch of which, ‘that such sinners were reformed by the means of these teachers,’ being a plain fact, can only be proved by testimony, as all other facts are; and the other, ‘that this is a work of God, and a great and more than ordinary work,’ needs no proof, as carrying its own evidence to every thinking man. 8. To sum up this. No truly wise or sober man can possibly desire or expect miracles to prove either (1) that these doctrines are true; this must be decided by Scripture and reason: or (2) that these facts are true; this can only be proved by testimony: or (3) that to change sinners from darkness to light is the work of God alone, only using what instruments He pleases; this is glaringly self-evident: or (4) that such a change wrought in so many notorious sinners within so short a time is a great and extraordinary work of God; this also carries its own evidence. What, then, is it which remains to be proved by miracles Perhaps you will say, It is this: ’That God hath called or sent you to do this.’ Nay, this is implied in the third of the foregoing propositions. If God has actually used us therein, if His work hath in fact prospered in our hands, then He hath called or sent us to do this. I entreat reasonable men to weigh this thoroughly, -- whether the fact does not plainly prove the call; whether He who enables us thus to save souls alive does not commission us so to do; whether, by giving us the power to pluck these brands out of the burning, He does not authorize us to exert it. Oh that it were possible for you to consider calmly, whether the success of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as it is preached by us, the least of His servants, be not itself a miracle, never to be forgotten; -- one which cannot be denied, as being visible at this day, not in one but an hundred places; one which cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of any natural cause whatsoever; one which cannot be ascribed with any color of reason to diabolical agency; and, lastly, one which will bear the infallible test--the trial of the written Word! VI. 1. But here I am aware of abundance of objections. You object, That to speak anything of myself, of what I have done, or am doing now, is mere boasting and vanity. This charge you frequently repeat. So page 102: ‘The following page is full of boasting.’ ‘You boast very much of the numbers you have converted’ (page 113); and again, ‘As to myself, I hope I shall never be led to imitate you in boasting.’ I think, therefore, it is needful, once for all, to examine this charge thoroughly, and to show distinctly what that good thing is which you disguise under this bad name. (1) From the year 1725 to 1729 I preached much, but saw no fruit of my labor. Indeed, it could not be that I should: for I neither laid the foundation of repentance nor of believing the gospel; taking it for granted that all to whom I preached were believers and that many of them ‘needed no repentance.’ (2) From the year 1729 to 1734, laying a deeper foundation of repentance, I saw a little fruit. But it was only a little; and no wonder: for I did not preach faith in the blood of the covenant. (3) From 1734 to 1738, speaking more of faith in Christ, I saw more fruit of my preaching and visiting from house to house than ever I had done before; though I know not if any of those who were outwardly reformed were inwardly and thoroughly converted to God. (4) From 1738 to this time, -- speaking continually of Jesus Christ; laying Him only for the foundation of the whole building, making Him all in all, the first and the last; preaching only on this plan, ‘The kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel,’ -- the ‘word of God ran’ as fire among the stubble; it ‘was glorified’ more and more; multitudes crying out, ‘What must we do to be saved’ and afterwards witnessing, ‘By grace we are saved through faith.’ (5) I considered deeply with myself what I ought to do -- whether to declare the things I had seen or not. I consulted the most serious friends I had. They all agreed I ought to declare them; that the work itself was of such a kind as ought in no wise to be concealed; and, indeed, that the unusual circumstances now attending it made it impossible that it should. (6) This very difficulty occurred: ‘Will not my speaking of this be boasting at least, will it not be accounted so’ They replied: ‘If you speak of it as your own work, it will be vanity and boasting all over; but if you ascribe it wholly to God, if you give Him all the praise, it will not. And if, after this, some will account it so still, you must be content and bear the burthen.’ (7) I yielded, and transcribed my papers for the press; only laboring as far as possible to ‘render unto God the things which are God’s,’ to give Him the praise of His own work. 2. But this very thing you improve into a fresh objection. If I ascribe anything to God, it is enthusiasm. If I do not (or if I do), it is vanity and boasting, supposing me to mention it at all. What, then, can I do to escape your censure ‘Why, be silent; say nothing at all.’ I cannot, I dare not. Were I thus to please men, I could not be the servant of Christ. You do not appear to have the least idea or conception of what is in the heart of one whom it pleases Him that worketh all in all to employ in a work of this kind. He is in no wise forward to be at all employed therein: he starts back, again and again; not only because he readily foresees what shame, care, sorrow, reproach, what loss of friends, and of all that the world accounts dear, will inevitably follow; but much more because he (in some measure) knows himself. This chiefly it is which constrains him to cry out (and that many times, in the bitterness of his soul, when no human eye seeth him), ‘O Lord, send by whom Thou wilt send, only send not me! What am I A worm! a dead dog! a man unclean in heart and lips!’ And when he dares no longer gainsay or resist, when he is at last ‘thrust out into the harvest,’ he looketh on the right hand and on the left, he takes every step with fear and trembling, and with the deepest sense (such as words cannot express) of ‘Who is sufficient for these things’ Every gift which he has received of God for the furtherance of His word, whether of nature or grace, heightens this fear and increases his jealousy over himself; knowing that so much the stricter must the inquiry be when he gives an account of his stewardship. He is most of all jealous over himself when the work of the Lord prospers in his hand. He is then amazed and confounded before God. Shame covers his face. Yet, when he sees that he ought ‘to praise the Lord for His goodness and to declare the wonders which He doeth for the children of men,’ he is in a strait between two; he knows not which way to turn: he cannot speak; he dares not be silent. It may be for a time he ‘keeps his mouth with a bridle; he holds his peace even from good. But his heart is hot within him,’ and constrains him at length to declare what God hath wrought. And this he then doeth in all simplicity, with ‘great plainness of speech’; desiring only to commend himself to Him who ‘searcheth the heart and trieth the reins,’ and (whether his words are the savor of life or of death to others) to have that witness in himself, ’As of sincerity, as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.’ If any man counts this boasting, he cannot help it. It is enough that a higher Judge standeth at the door. 3. But you may say, ‘Why do you talk of the success of the gospel in England, which was a Christian country before you was born’ Was it indeed Is it so at this day I would explain myself a little on this head also. And (1) None can deny that the people of England in general are called Christians. They are called so, a few only excepted, by others as well as by themselves. But I presume no man will say that the name makes the thing, that men are Christians barely because they are called so. (2) It must be allowed that the people of England, generally speaking, have been christened or baptized. But neither can we infer, ’These were once baptized; therefore they are Christians now.’ (3) It is allowed that many of those who were once baptized, and are called Christians to this day, hear the word of God, attend public prayers, and partake of the Lord’s Supper. But neither does this prove that they are Christians. For, notwithstanding this, some of them live in open sin: and others, though not conscious to themselves of hypocrisy, yet are utter strangers to the religion of the heart; are full of pride, vanity, covetousness, ambition; of hatred, anger, malice, or envy; and consequently are no more scriptural Christians than the open drunkard or common swearer. Now, these being removed, where are the Christians, from whom we may properly term England a Christian country the men who have the mind which was in Christ, and who walk as He also walked, whose inmost soul is renewed after the image of God, and who are outwardly holy, as He who hath called them is holy There are doubtless a few such to be found. To deny this would be want of candor. But how few! how thinly scattered up and down! And as for a Christian visible Church, or a body of Christians visibly united together, where is this to be seen Ye different sects, who all declare Lo, here is Christ! or, Christ is there! Your stronger proofs divinely give, And show me where the Christians live! [Published in 1743 at the end of An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. See Works, viii. 43; Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, v. 480-1.] And what use is it of, what good end does it serve, to term England a Christian country (Although it is true most of the natives are called Christians, have been baptized, frequent the ordinances; and although a real Christian is here and there to be found, ‘as a light shining in a dark place.’) Does it do any honor to our great Master among those who are not called by His name Does it recommend Christianity to the Jews, the Mahometans, or the avowed heathens Surely no one can conceive it does. It only makes Christianity stink in their nostrils. Does it answer any good end with regard to those on whom this worthy name is called I fear not; but rather an exceeding bad one. For does it not keep multitudes easy in their heathen practice does it not make or keep still greater numbers satisfied with their heathen tempers does it not directly tend to make both the one and the other imagine that they are what indeed they are not -- that they are Christians while they are utterly without Christ and without God in the world To close this point: If men are not Christians till they are renewed after the image of Christ, and if the people of England in general are not thus renewed, why do we term them so The god of this world hath long blinded their hearts. Let us do nothing to increase that blindness, but rather labor to recover them from that strong delusion, that they may no longer believe a lie. 4. Let us labor to convince all mankind that to be a real Christian is to love the Lord our God with all our heart and to serve Him with all our strength, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and therefore do unto every man as we would he should do unto us. Nay, you say, ‘Had you confined yourselves to these great points, there would have been no objection against your doctrine. But the doctrines you have distinguished yourselves by are not the love of God and man, but many false and pernicious errors’ (page 104). I have again and again, with all the plainness I could, declared what our constant doctrines are, whereby we are distinguished only from heathens or nominal Christians, not from any that worship God in spirit and in truth. Our main doctrines, which include all the rest, are three -- that of Repentance, of Faith, and of Holiness. The first of these we account, as it were, the porch of religion; the next, the door; the third, religion itself. That repentance or conviction of sin, which is always previous to faith (either in an higher or lower degree, as it pleases God), we describe in words to this effect: ‘When men feel in themselves the heavy burthen of sin, see damnation to be the reward of it, behold with the eye of their mind the horror of hell, they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto Him for mercy. This being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is laid apart, and loathing of all worldly things and pleasure cometh in place. So that nothing then liketh them more than to weep, to lament, to mourn; and both with words and behavior of body to show themselves weary of life.’ Now, permit me to ask: What if, before you had observed that these were the very words of our own Church, one of your acquaintance or parishioners had come and told you that, ever since he heard a sermon at the Foundry, he ‘saw damnation’ before him, ‘and beheld with the eye of his mind the horror of hell’ What if he had ‘trembled and quaked,’ and been so taken up ‘partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from the danger of hell and damnation,’ as to ‘weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behavior to show himself weary of life’ Would you have scrupled to say — ‘Here is another “deplorable instance” of the “Methodists driving men to distraction”! See “into what excessive terrors, frights, doubts, and perplexities they throw weak and well-meaning men! quite oversetting their understandings and judgments, and making them liable to all these miseries!”’ I dare not refrain from adding one plain question, which I beseech you to answer, not to me, but to God: Have you ever experienced this repentance yourself Did you ever ‘feel in yourself that heavy burthen of sin’--of sin in general, more especially inward sin; of pride, anger, lust, vanity of (what is all sin in one) that carnal mind which is enmity, essential enmity, against God Do you know by experience what it is to ‘behold with the eye of the mind the horror of hell’ Was ‘your mind’ ever so ‘taken up, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that even all desire of meat and drink’ was taken away, and you ‘loathed all worldly things and pleasure’ Surely, if you had known what it is to have the ‘arrows of the Almighty’ thus ‘sticking fast in you,’ you could not so lightly have condemned those who now cry out, ‘The pains of hell come about me, the sorrows of death compass me, and the overflowings of ungodliness make me afraid.’ 5. Concerning the gate of religion (if it may be allowed so to speak)--the true, Christian, saving faith--we believe it implies abundantly more than an assent to the truth of the Bible. ‘Even the devils believe that Christ was born of a virgin, that He wrought all kinds of miracles, that for our sakes He suffered a most painful death to redeem us from death everlasting. These Articles of our faith the very devils believe, and so they believe all that is written in the Old and New Testament. And yet, for all this faith, they be but devils. They remain still in their damnable estate, lacking the very true Christian faith. The right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe that the Holy Scriptures and the Articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation through Christ.’ Perhaps it may be expressed more clearly thus: ‘A sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favor of God.’ For giving this account of Christian faith (as well as the preceding account of repentance, both which I have here also purposely described in the very terms of the Homilies), I have been again and again for near these eight years past accused of enthusiasm; sometimes by those who spoke to my face either in conversation or from the pulpit; but more frequently by those who chose to speak in my absence, and not seldom from the press. I wait for those who judge this to be enthusiasm to bring forth their strong reasons. Till then I must continue to account all these the ‘words of truth and soberness.’ 6. Religion itself (I choose to use the very words wherein I described it long ago) we define, ‘The loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves; and in that love abstaining from all evil, and doing all possible good to all men.’ The same meaning we have sometimes expressed a little more at large, thus, -- ‘Religion we conceive to be no other than love: the love of God and of all mankind; the loving God “with all our heart and soul and strength,” as having “first loved us,” as the fountain of all the good we have received and of all we ever hope to enjoy; and the loving every soul which God hath made, every man on earth, as our own soul. ‘This love we believe to be the medicine of life, the neverfailing remedy for all the evils of a disordered world, for all the miseries and vices of men. Wherever this is, there are virtue and happiness going hand in hand. There is humbleness of mind, gentleness, longsuffering, the whole image of God, and at the same time a peace that passeth all understanding and joy unspeakable and full of glory. ‘This religion we long to see established in the world, -- a religion of love and joy and peace; having its seat in the heart, in the inmost soul, but ever showing itself by its fruits; continually springing forth, not only in all innocence (for love worketh no ill to his neighbor), but likewise in every kind of beneficence, spreading virtue and happiness all around it.’ [An Earnest Appeal. See Works, viii. 3-4.] If this can be proved by Scripture or reason to be enthusiastic or erroneous doctrine, we will then plead guilty to the indictment of ‘teaching error and enthusiasm.’ But if this be the genuine religion of Christ, then will all who advance this charge against us be found false witnesses before God in the day when He shall judge the earth. 7. However, with regard to the fruits of our teaching, you say, ‘It is to be feared the numbers of serious men who have been perplexed and deluded are much greater than the numbers of notorious sinners who have been brought to repentance and good life’ ( page 113). ‘Indeed, if you could prove that the Methodists were in general very wicked people before they followed you, and that all you have been teaching them is the love of God and their neighbor, and a care to keep His commandments, which accordingly they have done since, you would stop the mouths of all adversaries at once. But we have great reason to believe that the generality of the Methodists, before they became so, were serious, regular, and well-disposed people.’ (Page 103.) If the question were proposed, ‘Which are greater, the numbers of serious men who have been perplexed and deluded, or of notorious sinners who have been brought to repentance and good life, by these preachers throughout England within seven years’ it might be difficult for you to fix the conclusion. For England is a place of wide dimensions; nor is it easy to make a satisfactory computation, unless you confine yourself within a smaller compass. Suppose, then, we were to contract the question, in order to make it a little less unwieldy. We will bound our inquiry for the present within a square of three or four miles. It may be certainly known by candid men, both what has been and what is now done within this distance; and from hence they may judge of those fruits elsewhere, which they cannot be so particularly informed of. Inquire, then, ‘Which are greater, the numbers of serious men perplexed and deluded by these teachers, or of notorious sinners brought to repentance and good life,’ within the forest of Kingswood Many, indeed, of the inhabitants are nearly as they were, are not much better or worse for their preaching, because the neighboring clergy and gentry have successfully labored to deter them from hearing it. But between three and four hundred of those who would not be deterred are now under the care of those preachers. Now, what number of these were serious Christians before Were fifty were twenty were ten Peradventure there might five such be found. But it is a question whether there could be or no. The remainder were gross, open sinners, common swearers, drunkards, Sabbath-breakers, whoremongers, plunderers, robbers, implacable, unmerciful, wolves and bears in the shape of men. Do you desire instances of more ‘notorious sinners’ than these I know not if Turkey or Japan can afford them. And what do you include in ‘repentance and good life’ Give the strictest definition thereof that you are able, and I will undertake these once notorious sinners shall be weighed in that balance and not found wanting. 8. Not that all the Methodists (so called) ‘were very wicked people before they followed us.’ There are those among them, and not a few, who are able to stop the boasting of those that despise them, and to say, ‘Whereinsoever any of you is bold, I am bold also’; only they ‘count all these things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus.’ But these we found, as it were, when we sought them not. We went forth to ‘seek that which was lost’ (more eminently lost); ‘to call’ the most flagrant, hardened, desperate ‘sinners to repentance.’ To this end we preached in the Horsefair at Bristol, in Kingswood, in Newcastle; among the colliers in Staffordshire and the tinners in Cornwall; in Southwark, Wapping, Moorfields, Drury Lane, at London. Did any man ever pick out such places as these in order to find ‘serious, regular, well-disposed people’ How many such might then be in any of them I know not. But this I know, that four in five of those who are now with us were not of that number, but were wallowing in their blood, till God by us said unto them, ‘Live.’ Sir, I willingly put the whole cause on this issue: What are the general consequences of this preaching Are there more tares or wheat more ‘good men destroyed’ (that is the proper question) or ‘wicked men saved’ The last place where we began constant preaching is a part of Wiltshire and Somersetshire, near Bath. Now, let any man inquire at Road, Bradford, Wrexal, [Wraxhill Green, five miles south of Shepton Mallet.] or among the colliers at Coleford, (1) what kind of people were those ‘before they followed these men’ (2) what are the main doctrines they have been teaching for this twelvemonth (3) what effect have these doctrines upon their followers what manner of lives do they lead now And if you do not find (1) that three in four of these were two years ago notoriously wicked men; (2) that the main doctrines they have heard since were, ‘Love God and your neighbor, and carefully keep His commandments’; and (3) that they have since exercised themselves herein, and continue so to do; -- I say, if you, or any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to inquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact, I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast or whatsoever else you shall please to style me. Only one caution I would give to such an inquirer. Let him not ask the colliers of Coleford: ‘Were not the generality of you, before you followed these men, serious, regular, well-disposed people’ Were you not ‘offended at the profaneness and debauchery of the age’ and ‘Was it not this disposition which at first made you liable to receive these impressions’ (Page 103.) Because, if he talk thus to some of those who do not yet ‘follow these men,’ perhaps he will not live to bring back their answer. 9. But will this, or a thousand such instances as this, ‘stop the mouths of all adversaries at once’ O sir, would one expect such a thought as this in one that had read the Bible What if you could convert as many sinners as St. Paul himself Would that ‘stop the mouths of all your adversaries’ Yea, if you could convert three thousand at one sermon, still you would be so far from ‘stopping all their mouths at once,’ that the greater part of them would gnash upon you with their teeth, and cry, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth!’ I never, therefore, expect ‘to persuade the world,’ the majority of mankind, that I ‘have been’ for some years ‘advancing nothing’ but what has a clear, immediate connection with ‘the true knowledge and love of God’; that God hath been pleased to use me, a weak, vile worm, in reforming many of my fellow sinners, and making them at this day living witnesses of ‘inward and pure religion’; and that many of these, ‘from living in all sin, are quite changed, are become’ so far ‘holy that,’ though they are not ’free from all sin,’ yet no sin hath dominion over them. And yet I do firmly believe ‘it is nothing but downright prejudice to deny or oppose any of these particulars.’ (Preface, p. 5.) ‘Allow Mr. Wesley,’ you say, ‘but these few points, and he will defend his conduct beyond exception.’ That is most true. If I have, indeed, ‘been advancing nothing but the true knowledge and love of God’; if God has made me an instrument in reforming many sinners, and bringing them to ‘inward and pure religion’; and if many of these continue holy to this day, and free from all willful sin, -- then may I, even I, use those awful words, ‘He that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me.’ But I never expect the world to allow me one of these points. However, I must go on as God shall enable me. I must lay out whatsoever He entrusts me with (whether others will believe I do it or no), in advancing the true Christian knowledge of God and the love and fear of God among men; in reforming (if so be it please Him to use me still) those who are yet without God in the world; and in propagating inward and pure religion--righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 10. But you believe I only corrupt those who were good Christians before, teaching them to revile and censure their neighbors; and to abuse the clergy, notwithstanding all their meekness and gentleness, as I do myself. ‘I must declare,’ say you, ‘we have in general answered your presence with all meekness and temper; the railing and reviling has been chiefly on the side of the Methodists’ (page 16). Your first charge ran thus: ‘How have such abuses as these been thrown out by you against our regular clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted!’ (Remarks, p. 15). I answered: ‘I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected; neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the clergy than they have received from me to this day.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect.1.15.] You reply: (1) ‘One instance of your misrepresenting and injuring a preacher of our Church I mentioned’ (Second Letter, p. 105). ‘Mentioned’! Well, but did you prove it was an injury or misrepresentation I know not that you once attempted it. (2) You next quote part of a letter [See letter of Dec. 10, 1734, sect24.] from the Third Journal (Journal, ii. 165), wherein, according to your account, the ‘most considerable of our clergy are abused, and at once accused in a very gross manner’ (Second Letter, p. 106). Set down the whole paragraph, and I will prove that this also is naked truth, and no abuse at all. You say (3) ‘You approved of Whitefield’s railing against the clergy’: that is, I say, ‘Mr. Whitefield preached concerning the “Holy Ghost, which all who believe are to receive”; not without a just, though severe, censure of those who preach as if there were no Holy Ghost’ (ii. 238-9). Nor is this railing, but melancholy truth. I have myself heard several preach in this manner. (4) You cite my words: ‘Woe unto you, ye blind leaders of the blind! How long will you pervert the right ways of the Lord’ and add, ‘I appeal to yourself, whether you did not design this reflection against the clergy in general who differ from you.’ No more than I did against Moses and Aaron. I expressly specify whom I design: ‘Ye who tell the mourners in Zion, Much religion hath made you mad.’ You say (5) (with a N.B.), ‘All the clergy who differ from you, you style so, page 225; in which, and the foregoing page, you causelessly slander them as speaking of their own holiness as that for the sake of which, on account of which, we are justified before God.’ [Works, viii. 224 -5.] Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein slander no man: I speak what I know, what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that part of the clergy who preach or write thus--namely, if they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind. (6) You quote those words, ‘Nor can I be said to intrude into the labors of those who do not labor at all, but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died to perish for lack of knowledge’ (ii. 249). I wrote that letter near Kingswood. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! (7) The first passage you cite from the Earnest Appeal evidently relates to a few only among the clergy; and if the charge be true but of one in five hundred, it abundantly supports my reasoning. (8) In the next I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain. [Works, viii. 25-8.] You conclude: ‘The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the clergy; and your late sermon is too fresh an instance on the like usage of the universities’ [On Scriptural Christianity. See Works, v. 37-52.] (Second Letter, p. 107). It is an instance of speaking the truth in love. So I desire all mankind may use me. Nor could I have said less, either to the university or the clergy, without sinning against God and my own soul. II. But I must explain myself a little on that practice which you so often term ‘abusing the clergy.’ I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them in the only way which is now in my power; and sometimes, though rarely, to speak of them -- of a few, not all in general. In either case I take an especial care (1) to speak nothing but the truth; (2) to speak this with all plainness; and (3) with love and in the spirit of meekness. Now, if you will call this abusing, railing, or reviling, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must thus rail, thus abuse sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them. When I first read your declaration that our brethren ’in general had treated us with all meekness and temper,’ I had thoughts of spreading before you a few of the flowers which they have strewed upon us with no sparing hand. But, on reflection, I judged it better to forbear. Let them die and be forgotten! As to those of the people called Methodists, whom you suppose to ’rail at and abuse the clergy’ and to ‘revile and censure their neighbors,’ I can only say, Which are they Show me the men. And if it appear that any of those under my care habitually ‘censure’ or ‘revile’ others, whether clergy or laity, I will make them an example for the benefit of all the rest. Touching you, I believe I was afraid without cause. I do not think you advanced a willful untruth. This was a rash word. I hereby openly retract it, and ask pardon of God and you. To draw toward a conclusion: whosoever they are that ‘despise me, and make no account of my labors,’ I know that they are ‘not in vain in the Lord,’ and that I have not ‘fought as one that beateth the air.’ I still see (and I praise ‘the Father of Lights, from whom every good and perfect gift descendeth’) a continual increase of pure religion and undefiled, of the love of God and man, of the ‘wisdom’ which is ‘pure and peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and of good fruits.’ I see more and more of those ‘who before lived in a thorough contempt of God’s ordinances, and of all duties, now zealously discharging their duties to God and man, and walking in all His ordinances blameless.’ A few, indeed, I have seen draw back to perdition, chiefly through a fear of being ‘righteous overmuch.’ And here and there one has fallen into Calvinism or turned aside to the Moravians. But I doubt not these ‘are in a better state’ than they were before they heard us. Admit they are in error, yea and die therein, yet who dares affirm they will perish everlastingly But, had they died in gross sin, we are sure they had fallen into ‘the fire that never shall be quenched.’ I have now considered, as far as my time would permit, not everything in your letter, whether of moment or no, but those points which I conceived to be of the greatest weight. That God may lead us both into all truth, and that we may not drop our love in the pursuit of it, is the continued prayer of, reverend sir, Your friend and servant for Christ’s sake. To the Editor of the ‘London Magazine’ LONDON, June 18, 1746. SIR, -- I delayed answering your letter of March 18 till I could be fully informed of the facts in question. I said in the Farther Appeal, p. 48, ’Who dares repel one of the greatest men in his parish from the Lord’s Table, even though he openly deny the Lord that bought him Mr. Stonehouse [George Stonehouse, Vicar of Islington. See Journal, i. 460;Works, viii. 175.] did this once. But what was the event The gentleman brought an action against him.’ And who was able and willing to espouse his cause He alone who took it into His own hands; and, before the day when it should have been tried here, caused the plaintiff to answer at an higher bar. You (1) blame me for supposing that gentleman to be one who openly denied the Lord that bought him; I mean, openly denied the supreme Godhead of Christ. If he did not, I retract the charge. You say (2) that gentleman brought no action nor commenced any suit against Mr. Stonehouse. Upon stricter inquiry, I find he did not; it was another gentleman, Mr. C--p--r. You (3) observe it was not the death of the plaintiff which stopped the action; but, before it proceeded to a trial, Mr. Stonehouse thought fit to request it as a favour that the action might be stopped, promising not to do the like any more. Mr. Stonehouse himself gives a different account; but whether his or yours be the more just is not material, since the substance of what you observe is true--namely, ’that it was not the plaintiff’s death which stopped the action.’ You add, ’I would willingly hope that you did not deliberately design to impose upon the world.’ I did not; and do therefore acknowledge the truth in as public a manner as I am able, being willing as far as in me lies to make amends for whatever injury I have done.--I am, sir, Yours. To Mrs.Hutton June 19, 1746. DEAR MADAM,--I cannot but return you my hearty thanks (which I had designed to do last week) for the information you give me concerning Nicholas Mason. We could never before now come to the true state of his case: though he was suspected three or four years ago; and, partly upon that suspicion, partly for idleness, was excluded from our Society about two years since. Jonathan Woodward, I believe, never belonged to the Moravians. I hope he is lunatic. I expect to see Mr. Piers every day. When I do, I will inquire farther concerning that note.[See letter of Jan. 18.] I am, with thankfulness for this and all your favours, dear madam, Your obliged servant. To ‘John Smith’ LONDON, June 25, 1746. SIR, -- At length I have the opportunity, which I have long desired, of answering the letter you favored me with some time since. [Wesley had sent him A Farther Appeal with his previous letter, and this ‘John Smith’ acknowledges in his letter of Feb. 26.] Oh that God may still give us to bear with each other and to speak what we believe is the truth in love! 1. I detest all zeal which is any other than the flame of love. Yet I find it is not easy to avoid it. It is not easy (at least to me) to be ‘always zealously affected in a good thing’ without being sometimes so affected in things of an indifferent nature. Nor do I find it always easy to proportion my zeal to the importance of the occasion, and to temper it duly with prudence according to the various and complicated circumstances that occur. I sincerely thank you for endeavoring to assist me herein, to guard me from running into excess. I am always in danger of this, and yet I daily experience a far greater danger of the other extreme. To this day I have abundantly more temptation to lukewarmness than to impetuosity; to be a saunterer inter sylvas Academicas, a philosophical sluggard, than an itinerant preacher. And, in fact, what I now do is so exceeding little, compared with what I am convinced I ought to do, that I am often ashamed before God, and know not how to lift up mine eyes to the height of heaven! 2. But may not love itself constrain us to lay before men ‘the terrors of the Lord’ And is it not better that sinners ‘should be terrified now than that they should sleep on and awake in hell’ I have known exceeding happy effects of this, even upon men of strong understanding; yet I agree with you that there is little good to be done by ‘the profuse throwing about hell and damnation,’ and the best way of deciding the points in question with us is cool and friendly argumentation. I agree, too, ‘that scheme of religion bids fairest for the true which breathes the most extensive charity.’ Touching the charity due to those who are in error, I suppose we both likewise agree that really invincible ignorance never did nor ever shall exclude any man from heaven; and hence I doubt not but God will receive thousands of those who differ from me, even where I hold the truth. But still, I cannot believe He will receive any man into glory (I speak of those under the Christian dispensation) ‘without such an inspiration of the Holy Ghost as fills his heart with peace and joy and love.’ 3. In this Mr. Whitefield and I agree; but in other points we widely differ. And therefore I still apprehend it is inexcusably unjust to link us together, whether we will or no. For by this means each is constrained to bear not only his own but another’s burthen. Accordingly I have been accused an hundred times of holding unconditional predestination. And no wonder; for, wherever this charge is advanced, -- ‘The Methodists preach sundry erroneous doctrines; in particular three, Unconditional Predestination, Perceptible Inspiration, and Sinless Perfection,’ -- the bulk of mankind will naturally suppose that the Methodists in general hold these three doctrines. It will follow that, if any of these afterwards hears ‘Mr. Wesley is a Methodist,’ he will conclude, ‘Then he preaches unconditional predestination, perceptible inspiration, and sinless perfection.’ And thus one man is made accountable by others, if not by you, for all the errors and faults of another. 4. The case of many who subscribe to the Eleventh and following Articles I cannot yet think is exactly the same with the case of Mr. Whitefield and me subscribing the Seventeenth; for each of us can truly say, ‘I subscribe this Article in that which I believe from my heart is its plain, grammatical meaning.’ Twenty years ago I subscribed the Fifteenth Article likewise, in its plain, unforced, grammatical meaning. And whatever I do not now believe in this sense I will on no terms subscribe at all. 5. I speak variously, doubtless, on various occasions; but I hope not inconsistently. Concerning the seeming inconsistency which you mention, permit me to observe briefly, (1) That I have seen many things which I believe were miraculous; yet I desire none to believe my words any farther than they are confirmed by Scripture and reason. And thus far I disclaim miracles. (2) That I believe ‘he that marrieth doeth well; but he that doth not (being a believer) doeth better.’ [Wesley’s critic said: ‘In one paragraph you allow it lawful for good people to marry; in another, you say all should refrain who can, and that all the children of God can.’ See Works, xi. 456n, for Wesley’s Thoughts on Marriage and a Single Life (1743).] However, I have doubts concerning the tract on this head, which I have not yet leisure to weigh thoroughly. (3) That a newly justified person has at once, in that hour, power over all sin, and finds from that hour the work of God in his soul slowly and gradually increasing. And (lastly) That many, who while they have faith cannot doubt, do afterwards doubt whether they ever had it or no. Yea, many receive from the Holy Ghost an attestation of their acceptance as perceptible as the sun at noonday: and yet those same persons at other times doubt whether they ever had any such attestation -- nay, perhaps more than doubt, perhaps wholly deny, all that God has ever done for their souls; inasmuch as, in ‘this hour and power of darkness,’ they cannot believe they ever saw light. 6. I think St. Austin’s description of his own case (whether it prove anything more or less) greatly illustrates that light, that assurance of faith, whereof we are now speaking. He does not appear, in writing this confession to God, to have had any adversary in view, nor to use any rhetorical heightening at all; but to express the naked experience of his heart, and that in as plain and unmetaphorical words as the nature of the thing would bear. [In his reply to the letter of Dec. 30, 1745, sect. 8, ‘Smith’ thought Augustine ‘flighty and injudicious; . . . the same impetuosity of temper which made him so profligate a rake whilst a sinner made him so flighty and rapturous when he became a saint.’] 7. I believe firmly, and that in the most literal sense, that ‘without God we can do nothing’; that we cannot think, or speak, or move an hand or an eye without the concurrence of the divine energy; and that all our natural faculties are God’s gift, nor can the meanest be exerted without the assistance of His Spirit. What, then, do I mean by saying that faith, hope, and love are not the effect of any or all our natural faculties I mean this: that, supposing a man to be now void of faith and hope and love, he cannot effect any degree of them in himself by any possible exertion of his understanding and of any or all his other natural faculties, though he should enjoy them in the utmost perfection. A distinct power from God, not implied in any of these, is indispensably necessary before it is possible he should arrive at the very lowest degree of Christian faith or hope or love. In order to his having any of these (which, on this very consideration, I suppose St. Paul terms the ‘fruits of the Spirit’) he must be created anew, thoroughly and inwardly changed by the operation of the Spirit of God; by a power equivalent to that which raises the dead and which calls the things which are not as though they were. 8. The ‘living soberly, righteously, and godly’ in this present world, or the uniform practice of universal piety, presupposes some degree of these ‘fruits of the Spirit,’ nor can possibly subsist without them. I never said men were too apt to rest on this practice. But I still say I know abundance of men who quiet their conscience, without either faith or love, by the practice of a few outward works; and this keeps them as easy and contented, though they are without hope and without God in the world, as either the doctrine of Irresistible Decrees could do or any theory whatsoever. Now, what is this but using outward works as commutations for inward holiness For (1) These men love not inward holiness; they love the world; they love money; they love pleasure or praise: therefore the love of God is not in them; nor, consequently, the Christian love of their neighbor. Yet (2) They are in no wise convinced that they are in the broad way which leads to destruction. They sleep on and take their rest. They say, ‘Peace, peace,’ to their soul, though there is no peace. But on what presence Why, on this very ground -- because (3) They do such and such outward works; they go to church, and perhaps to the Lord’s Table; they use in some sort private prayer; they give alms; and therefore they imagine themselves to be in the high road to heaven. Though they have not ‘the mind that was in Christ,’ yet they doubt not but all is safe, because they do thus and thus, because their lives are not as other men’s are. This is what I mean by using outward works as commutations for inward holiness. I find more and more instances every day of this miserable self-deceit. The thing is plain and clear. But if you dislike the phrase, we will drop it and use another. Nearly allied to this is the ‘gross superstition of those who think to put devotion upon God instead of honesty’: I mean, who practice neither justice nor mercy, and yet hope to go to heaven because they go to church and sacrament. Can you find no such men in the Church of England I find them in every street. Nine times in ten, when I have told a tradesman, ‘You have cheated me; sold me this for more than it is worth, which I think is a breach both of justice and mercy. Are you a Christian Do you hope to go to heaven’ his answer, if he deigned any answer at all, has been to this effect: ‘As good a Christian as yourself! Go to heaven! Yes, sure; for I keep my church as well as any man.’ Now, what can be plainer than that this man keeps his church, not only as an act of goodness, but as a commutation instead of goodness -- as something which he hopes will do as well, will bring him to heaven, without either justice or mercy Perhaps, indeed, if he fell into adultery or murder, it might awaken him out of his dream, and convince him, as well as his neighbors, that this worship is not a mitigation but an aggravation of his wickedness; but nothing short of this will. In spite of all your reasoning and mine, he will persist in thinking himself a good Christian; and that if his ‘brother have aught against him,’ yet all will be well so he do but constantly ‘bring his gift to the altar.’ I entreat you, sir, to make the experiment yourself; to talk freely with any that come in your way. And you will surely find it is the very thing which almost destroys the (so called) Christian world. Every nominal Christian has some bit or scrap of outward religion, either negative or positive; either he does not do in some respect like other men, or he does something more than they. And by this, however freely he may condemn others, he takes care to excuse himself, and stifles whatever convictions he might otherwise have ‘that the wrath of God abideth on him.’ After a few impartial inquiries of this kind, I am persuaded you will not say, ‘As a commutation, surely no Protestant ever did (receive the sacrament) but yourself.’ Is there not something wrong in these words on another account, as well as in those, ‘You should not treat others as the children of the devil, for taking the same liberty which you and Mr. Whitefield take, who continue, notwithstanding, to be the children of God’ Is there not in both these expressions (and perhaps in some others which are scattered up and down in your letters) something too keen something that borders too much upon sarcasm upon tartness, if not bitterness Does not anything of this sort either make the mind sore or harden it against conviction Does it not make us less able to bear plainness of speech or at least less ready to improve by it Give me leave to add one word more before I proceed. I cannot but be jealous over you. I fear you do not know, near so well as you suppose, even what passes in your own mind. I question not but you believe that without inward holiness no man shall see the Lord; but are you sure you never once entertained a thought that something else might be put upon Him in the stead Perhaps not grossly, not if it appeared just in that shape: no, nor have I, for these twenty years. But I find the same thought to this day stealing in continually under a thousand different forms. I find a continual danger of stopping short of a full renewal in the image of God; a continual propensity to rest in whatever comes between--to put some work or other that I do, even for God’s sake, or some gift that I receive, in the stead of that great work of God, ‘the renewal of my soul after His likeness in righteousness and true holiness.’ 9. One point of doctrine remains: ‘Is there any such thing as perceptible inspiration or not’ I asserted, ‘There is’; but at the same time subjoined, ‘Be pleased to observe what we mean thereby: we mean that inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit whereby He fills us (every true believer) with righteousness and peace and joy, with love to Him and all mankind. And we believe it cannot be in the nature of things that a man should be filled with this peace and joy and love by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost without perceiving it as clearly as he does the light of the sun.’ You reply, ‘You have now entirely shifted the question.’ I think not. You objected that I had perceptible inspiration. I answered, ‘I do’: but observe in what sense; otherwise I must recall my concession. I hold God inspires every Christian with peace, joy, and love, which are all perceptible. You reply, ‘The question is not whether the fruits of inspiration are perceptible, but whether the work of inspiration itself be so.’ This was not my question; nor did I till now understand that it was yours. If I had, I should have returned a different answer, as I have elsewhere done already. When one warmly objected near two years ago, ‘All reasonable Christians believe that the Holy Spirit works His graces in us in an imperceptible manner,’ my answer was, ‘You are here disproving, as you suppose, a proposition of mine. But are you sure you understand it By the operations (inspirations or workings) of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which He operates, but the graces which He operates (inspires or works) in a Christian.’ If you ask, But do not you hold ’that Christian faith implies a direct, perceptible testimony of the Spirit, as distinguishable from the suggestion of fancy as light is distinguishable from darkness; whereas we suppose He imperceptibly influences our minds’ I answer, I do hold this. I suppose that every Christian believer, over and above that imperceptible influence, hath a direct perceptible testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God. As I have little time, I must beg you to read and consider what I have already spoken upon this subject, in the First Part of the Farther Appeal, at the thirty-eighth and following pages [Works, viii. 76-111]; and then to let me know what kind of proof it is which you expect in a question of this nature, over and above that of Scripture, as interpreted by the writers of the earliest Christian Church. I have not studied the writings of the Quakers enough (having read few of them beside Robert Barclay [See letter of Feb. 10, 1748.]) to say precisely what they mean by perceptible inspiration, and whether their account of it be right or wrong. And I am not curious to know, since between me and them there is a great gulf fixed. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper keep us at a wide distance from each other; insomuch that, according to the view of things I have now, I should as soon commence Deist as Quaker. [‘Smith’ had said: ‘The son of a Wesley and an Annesley is in no danger of lukewarmness, but ought to take great care on the side of impetuosity and zeal. The tempter will never make you a saunterer or a sluggard, but, if you are not upon your guard, may possibly, before you are aware, make you a Quaker.’] I would just add that I regard even faith itself not as an end but a means only. The end of the commandment is love, of every command, of the whole Christian dispensation. Let this love be attained, by whatever means, and I am content; I desire no more. All is well, if we love the Lord our God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. 10. I am aware of one inconvenience in answering what you say touching the consequences of my preaching. It will oblige me to speak what will try your temper beyond anything I have said yet. I could, indeed, avoid this by standing on my guard and speaking with great reserve. But had you not rather that I should deal frankly with you and tell you just what is in my heart I am the more inclined to do this because the question before us is of so deep importance; insomuch that, were I convinced you had decided it right, there would be an end at once of my preaching. And it lies in a small compass, as you say, ‘I am not making conjectures of what may happen, but relating mischiefs which actually have happened’ These, then, ‘the mischiefs which have actually happened,’ let us consider as calmly as possible. But first we may set aside the ‘thousands whom (it is said) we should have had pretending a mission from God to preach against the wickedness of the great had not the rebels been driven back.’ The rebels, blessed be God, are driven back.. [The Young Pretender’s forces in 1745.] So that mischief has not actually happened. We may waive also ’the legion of monstrous errors and wickednesses, the sedition, murder, and treason of the last century’; seeing, whatever may be hereafter, it is certain these mischiefs also have not yet actually happened. Nor have I anything to do with that poor madman (I never heard of any more than one such) who came, some time since, ‘preaching in London streets against Prelacy’ and Methodism, and ‘denouncing curses against George Whitefield, John Wesley, and all bishops, priests, and deacons.’ [‘Smith’ speaks in his letter of Feb. 26 of ‘mischiefs which actually have happened.’ ‘Others have come preaching in the street against Prelacy, and denouncing the bitterest woes and curses against all bishops, priests, and deacons,’] I was more nearly concerned in what has actually happened at Wednesbury, Darlaston, and Walsall. And these were ’shameful disorders ’indeed. Publish them not in Gath or Askelon! Concerning the occasion of which, I may speak more freely to you than it was proper to do to the public. When I preached at Wednesbury first, Mr. Egginton (the vicar) invited me to his house, and told me that the oftener I came the welcomer I should be; for I had done much good there already, and he doubted not but I should do much more. But the next year I found him another man. He had not only heard a vehement Visitation Charge, but had been informed that we had publicly preached against drunkards, which must have been designed for satire on him. From this time we found more and more effects of his unwearied labors, public and private, in stirring up the people on every side, ‘to drive these fellows out of the country.’ One of his sermons I heard with my own ears. I pray God I may never hear such another! The minister of Darlaston and the curate of Walsall trod in the same steps. And these were they who (not undesignedly) occasioned all the disorders which followed there.[See Journal, iii. 74-5.] You add: ‘In countries which you have not much frequented there have appeared Antinomian preachers personating your disciples.’ These have appeared most in countries I never frequented at all, as in the west of Lancashire, in Dorsetshire, and in Ireland. When I came they disappeared, and were seen no more there -- at least, not personating our disciples. And yet, by all I can learn, even these poor wretches have done as little harm as good. I cannot learn that they have destroyed one soul that was before truly seeking salvation. But you think I myself ‘do a great deal of harm by breaking and setting aside order. For, order once ever so little set aside, confusion rushes in like a torrent.’ What do you mean by order a plan of Church discipline What plan the scriptural, the primitive, or our own It is in the last sense of the word that I have been generally charged with breaking or setting aside order--that is, the rules of our own Church, both by preaching in the fields and by using extemporary prayer. I have often replied: (1) It were better for me to die than not to preach the gospel of Christ; yea, and in the fields, either where I may not preach in the church or where the church will not contain the congregation. (2) That I use the Service of the Church every Lord’s Day, and it has never yet appeared to me that any rule of the Church forbids my using extemporary prayer on other occasions. But methinks I would go deeper. I would inquire, What is the end of all ecclesiastical order Is it not to bring souls from the power of Satan to God, and to build them up in His fear and love Order, then, is so far valuable as it answers these ends; and if it answers them not, it is nothing worth. Now, I would fain know, where has order answered these ends Not in any place where I have been; -- not among the tinners in Cornwall, the keelmen at Newcastle, the colliers in Kingswood or Staffordshire; not among the drunkards, swearers, Sabbath-breakers of Moorfields, or the harlots of Drury Lane. They could not be built up in the fear and love of God while they were open, barefaced servants of the devil; and such they continued, notwithstanding the most orderly preaching both in St. Luke’s and St. Giles’s Church. [See letter of March 25, 1747, sect. 12.] One reason whereof was, they never came near the church, nor had any desire or design so to do, till, by what you term ‘breach of order,’ they were brought to fear God, to love Him, and keep His commandments. It was not, therefore, so much the want of order as of the knowledge and love of God which kept those poor souls for so many years in open bondage to an hard master. And, indeed, wherever the knowledge and love of God are, true order will not be wanting. But the most apostolical order, where these are not, is less than nothing and vanity. But you say, ‘Strict order once set aside, confusion rushes in like a torrent.’ It has been so far from rushing in where we have preached most, that the very reverse is true. Surely never was ‘confusion worse confounded’ than it was a few years since in the forest of Kingswood. But how has it been since the word of God was preached there, even in this disorderly manner Confusion heard his voice, and wild uproar Stood ruled, ... and order from disorder sprung. [Paradise Lost, iii. 710-14.] O sir, be not carried away with the torrent, the clamour either of the great vulgar or the small! Re-examine your very first notions of these things; and then review that sentence, ‘The devil makes use of your honest zeal to his dishonest and diabolical purposes. He well knows you do him more service by breach of order than disservice by all your laborious industry.’ I hope not: (1) because I bring the very order you contend for into places where it never was before; and (2) because I bring--yet not I, but the grace of God--that knowledge and love of God also, in conjunction wherewith order is of great price, but without them a worthless shadow. I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified, by faith that is in Him. To Mrs. Jones, of Fonmon Castle BRISTOL, August 4, 1746 The first thing which it is absolutely necessary for me to do is to finish a volume of Sermons for the press. This is of more extensive use than the visiting any particular place; upon which consideration my brother [Charles was in Cornwall, and met John at Bristol on Aug. 28.] has undertaken to go the Round this autumn in my place. I had intended to go to Neath, if not to Cardigan; and hope he will do the same. I am not sure of returning hither in the beginning of September, as I now propose to do. If nothing prevent this, I hope to see you in Wales still, before the end of autumn. Be perfect, be of one mind. Live in peace, and the God of peace and love shall be with you. -- I am You ever affectionate brother and servant. PS.--Mr. Wesley has altered his design. He now proposes (if nothing unforeseen fall out) to go to Garth, Carmarthen, Cardigan, and then to return by Neath so as to be at Fonmon on Tuesday, the 19th of this month.[Wesley preached at Fonmon Castle on Aug. 19.] May the Lord continually pour His blessings upon you and your family, and make you at last meet for His eternal kingdom and glory! May you daily grow in grace and in the knowledge and love of God and of His Son Jesus Christ I To-morrow I am to set out for Cornwall. Pray for me that I may have a prosperous journey.--I remain Your very affectionate servant, T. RICHARDS. [See letter of March 3, 1747.] To Benjamin Ingham September 8, 1746. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- On Tuesday last I light upon a letter of yours in Devonshire, which I understand has been a great traveler. I think it is the part of brotherly love to mention to you some points therein wherein I doubt whether you are not a little mistaken; if I mistake, you will set me right. You say, -- 1. ‘First, as to stillness: The thing meant hereby is that man cannot attain to salvation by his own wisdom, strength, righteousness, goodness, merits, or works; that therefore, when he applies to God for it, he is to cast away all dependence upon everything of his own, and, trusting only to the mercy of God through the merits of Christ, in true poverty of spirit to resign himself up to the will of God, and thus quietly wait for His salvation.’ I conceive this to be the first mistake. I have nothing to object to this stillness. I never did oppose this in word or deed. But this is not ‘the thing meant thereby,’ either by Molther, or the Moravians, or the English Brethren, at the time that I (and you at Mr. Bowers’s) opposed them. 2. ‘That the Brethren teach that people who are seeking after salvation are all the while to sit still and do nothing --that they are not to read, hear, or pray -- is altogether false.’ This I apprehend to be a second mistake. Whatever the Brethren do now, they did teach thus, and that explicitly, in the years 1739 and 1740. In particular, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bowers, Mr. Bell, Mr. Bray, and Mr. Simpson,[John Simpson. See Journal, ii. 343, iii-243, iv. 231.] then with the Moravians. Many of their words I heard with my own ears; many more I received from those who did so. And Mr. Molther himself, on December 31, 1739, said to me, in many and plain words, that the way to attain faith is ‘to be still -- that is: ‘Not to use (what we term) the means of grace; ‘Not to go to church; ‘Not to communicate; ‘Not to fast; ‘Not to use so much private prayer; ‘Not to read the Scriptures; ‘Not to do temporal good; and ‘Not to attempt to do spiritual good.’ These things I myself heard him speak, as I am ready to give upon oath whenever required. You ought not, therefore, to say, ‘This is altogether false,’ on the bare denial of Mr. Molther or any other. 3. ‘Some of Fetter Lane Society, when the difference broke out, spoke and acted very imprudently. But then, to lay the blame on the Moravian Church as if it were their fault is quite wrong.’ I think so too; and have said so in my answer to Mr. Church, published some time before you sent your letter.[See letter of Feb. a, 1745, sect. I. 2.] If, therefore, you imagine that I lay the blame on the Moravian Church, you are under a mistake here also; or if you think I ‘lay the fault of one man upon an whole community.’ 4. ‘As to the English that really were to blame, they confessed their faults and asked Mr. Wesley’s pardon. And some of them, if I mistake not, did it with tears.’ I really think you do mistake again. I remember no such thing. Fifty persons and more spoke bitter things concerning me. One or two asked my pardon for so doing, but in so slight and cursory a manner that I do not so much as know who were the men, neither the time or place where it was done -- so far were they from doing it with tears, or with any solemnity or earnestness at all. As for the rest, if they were ever convinced or ashamed at all, it is a secret to me to this day. 5. ‘Therefore to publish things which ought to have been buried in eternal oblivion is what I do not like.’ This whole matter of asking pardon you seem to mistake, as Count Zinzendorf did before. I wish you would consider the answer I gave him: ‘They asked my pardon for using me ill. I replied, that was superfluous: I was not angry with them; but I was afraid of two things, -- (1) that there was error in their doctrine; (2) that there was sin (allowed) in their practice.’ This was then, and is at this day, the one question between them and me. Now, this cannot be buried in oblivion. That error and sin have spread too far already; and it was my part, after private reproof had been tried again and again to no purpose, to give public warning thereof to all the world, that, if possible, they might spread no farther. 6. ‘Mr. Wesley is partial throughout his Journal.’ I want to know the particular instances. ‘In what he mentions of me, he does not represent our conversation rightly.’ Then it is the fault of my memory. But be so kind as to point out the particulars that are not rightly represented. ‘He has done the cause of our Savior more mischief than any one else could have done.’ Tell me how, unless you mean the Antinomian cause by the cause of our Savior. ‘I have several times gone to Mr. Wesley to explain matters and to desire him to be reconciled.’ Several times! When, and where You surprise me much! Either my memory or yours fails strangely. ’In truth, it is he that has stood out.’ Alas, my brother! What an assertion is this! Did not I come three years ago (before that Journal was published) in all haste from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and my brother in five days from the Land’s End, to a supposed conference in London [see Journal, iii. 84-6.] Was this standing out But with what effect Why, Mr. Spangenberg had just left London. None besides had any power to confer with us. And, to cut us off from any such expectation, James Hutton said they had orders not to confer at all unless the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London were present. There cannot be under heaven a greater mistake than this, that I ever did stand out, and that I do so now. There has not been one day for these seven years last past wherein my soul has not longed for union. And they have grossly abused your honest credulity whoever have made you believe the contrary. 7. ‘Since the Mr. Wesleys have published such stuff and inconsistencies, I cannot agree with them.’ My brother, make some of those inconsistencies appear, and it will be an act of solid friendship. But ‘time will manifest matters, and what is of God will stand, and what is of man will come to naught.’ Most true; and according to this sure rule, it has already appeared whose work is of God, both at Bradford, at Horton, and in several towns not far from your own neighborhood. 8. The account you give of the Moravians in general is the very same I had given before -- viz. that next to those of our own Church, ‘who have the faith and love which is among them, without those errors either of judgment or practice, the body of the Moravian Church, however mistaken some of them are, are in the main, all of whom I have seen, the best Christians in the world.’ In the same tract I sum up my latest judgment concerning them in these terms: ‘I believe they love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and have a measure of the mind that was in Him. And I am in great earnest when I declare once more, that I have a deep, abiding conviction by how many degrees the good which is among them overbalances the evil,[I speak of the simple and artless part of their congregations; as for the teachers in their Church, it is my solemn belief (I speak it with grief and reluctance) that they are no better than a kind of Protestant Jesuits (Wesley). See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. I. 12.] and that I cannot speak of them but with tender affection, were it only for the benefits I have received from them; and that at this hour I desire union with them (were those stumbling-blocks once put away which have hitherto made that desire ineffectual) above all things under heaven.’ 9. In what respects the Brethren are Antinomians, in what sense they lean to Quietism, I have spoken at large. If they can refute the charge, I shall rejoice more than if I had gained great spoils. My brother, I heartily wish both you and them the genuine, open gospel simplicity; that you may always use that artless plainness of speech in which you once excelled; and that by manifestation of the truth you may commend yourself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Cownley BRISTOL, September 20, 1746. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- As many of you as have set your hands to the plough, see that you go on and look not back. The prize and the crown are before you; and in due time you shall reap if you faint not. Meantime fight the good fight of faith, enduring the cross and despising the shame. Beware that none of you return evil for evil or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing. Show forth out of a loving heart your good conversation with meekness and wisdom. Avoid all disputes as you would avoid fire: so shall ye continue kindly affectioned one toward another. The God of peace be with you. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To John Bennet LONDON, December 20, 1746. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Is what you mention concerning poor David Taylor a certain truth Do you speak on sure grounds Or is it only a flying report It is exceeding strange, if it is true. If it was true, did not his late teachers know it And if they did know it, could they be honest men Surely it would be worth while to talk with him once. It may help him, and not hurt you. Methinks you should see poor Mr. Hutchings also once. I scarce know how to believe that he is so weak. Although, when a believer has once let go his hold, he may sink into anything. You should also talk with as many of the scattered sheep as you can. Some of them, perhaps, may yet return into the way of truth. I shall write to my brother by this post, and mention his coming through Cheshire, if possible. It will be best for you to write to him immediately to Newcastle, and fix a day for meeting him at Birstall or Sheffield.[Charles Wesley was in Newcastle, and reached Sheffield on Feb. 1, 1747.] You should write to me as often as you can. T. Westall [Thomas Westall was one of Wesley’s first lay preachers. ‘He was a pattern of simplicity and humble love.’ He resided at Bristol, where he died in 1794. see Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 486-7.]will take advice in all things. Be strong, and God shall comfort your heart. But you must not be always at one place. Grace be with you. Farewell. TO Mr. John Bennet, Chinley End, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1]This letter to Mrs. Hutton, of College Street, Westminster, is an instance of Wesley’s considerate courtesy to one who had been a true friend to him and his brother, though she dissented strongly from his views about conversion. [2] This letter is headed ‘The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained’; and is an Answer to Church’s second letter, entitled Some Farther Remarks on the Reverend Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal, together with a few Considerations on his Farther Appeal, 143 pages. Wesley’s reply to the first letter begins on page 175. [3]The London Magazine charged Wesley with ‘some false facts affirmed by him in his Farther Appeal.’ It said one passage about the Sacraments ‘contains almost as many falsehoods as it does lines, &c.’ See Tyerman’s Wesley, i. 513-14.> [4]Hutton’s ‘severity became unbounded’ when any one spoke evil of the gospel for his own selfish ends. In 1743 ‘one Mr. Mason, who was the means of injuring, though not of destroying, the friendly relations subsisting between the brethren and the excellent Dr. Philip Doddridge,’ was castigated by him ‘for gossiping against the Church in things that are false, and which he himself could not think to be true, yet spreading them as though they were true.’ The castigation ‘made him quail; for he had thus behaved after having acknowledged his fault, professed repentance, and commended himself to the prayers of the brethren.’ Wesley met him in London, and had tea with him. See Benham’s Hutton, p. 117; Diary in Journal, ii. 82, 158, 388; and letter of August 24, 1758. [5]Wesley’s first volume of twelve sermons was published in 1746. The proposal for printing three volumes was dated September 7, 1745. He says in his Preface: ‘I am not conscious that there is any one point of doctrine on which I am accustomed to speak in public which is not here incidentally, if not professedly, laid before every Christian reader.’ See Green’s Bibliography, No. 88. [6]Joseph Cownley was born at Leominster in 1723, and was converted under Wesley in Bath, where he was traveling as secretary to a justice of the peace. When he returned to Leominster in 1743, he found a little Society formed by a Welsh preacher, and began to preach. The Society was disturbed by Calvinistic teaching, and Cownley wrote to Wesley for advice, who sent (through him) this letter to the members. His efforts to restore peace were unsuccessful. Wesley received him as an itinerant in 1747. See Journal, iii. 275n; and letter of March 3, 1747. [7] John Bennet was converted under David Taylor For Taylor’s lack of steadfastness, see Journal, iii. 112. He was with Wesley in the riot at Bolton, where he engaged a part of the mob ’with smoother and softer words’ than John Bennet, who spoke to others of ’the terrors of the Lord’ (ibid. iii. 442). John Hutchings had fallen under the influence of the Moravians. Edward Perronet notes in his copy of the Journal that the entry ’Mr. H--s’ for August 4, 1755, refers to this clergyman as now a beggar and forsaken of all. Wesley had not seen him for some years, but called at his lodgings to offer any help in his power, and was pleasingly surprised to find him reading his Bible. ‘Oh what a pattern of holiness and stability of mind was this very man till he was stolen away by the men whose “words are smoother than oil”! But were they not to him very swords’ See letters of April 21, 1741, and March 17, 1748. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: 31. 1747 ======================================================================== 1747 To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL, January 26, 1747. DEAR SIR, — Our number of patients increases here daily. We have now upwards of two hundred. Many have already desired to return thanks, having found a considerable change for the better already. But we are at a great loss for medicines, several of those we should choose being not to be had at any price in Bristol. I have been sometimes afraid you have suffered loss for want of a frank acknowledgement of the truth: I mean with regard to the gay world. If we openly avow what we approve, the fear or shame generally lights on them; but if we are ashamed or afraid, then they pursue, and will be apt to rally us both out of our reason and religion. — I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. My best respects attend Mrs. Blackwell and Mrs. Dewal.[Mrs. Hannah Dewal lived with the Blackwells at Lewisham, and was one of the most intimate friends of John and Charles Wesley. See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 170, 379-83.] I hope you strengthen each other’s hands. To Howell Harris NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, March 3, 1747. MY DEAR BROTHER, — I was glad to receive a letter from you, though sorry for some of the contents of it. I believed Brother Cownley would labor for peace and simply preach the gospel. I wrote pressingly to Brother Richards (who, I suppose, was at Plymouth since, in his return from Cornwall) to tread in the same steps. By degrees I trust these unkind affections will subside and brotherly love revive and increase. My brother said (this I know) ‘he had no more design to have a Society at Plymouth than a palace’; and he had not neither then nor when he desired John Trembath to call there. Nor, indeed, does he now concern himself therewith. The burthen lies upon me, and I am in a strait between two. I am much solicited to suffer those who press for it to be under my care. But what to do I know not. May God make plain my way before my face. From the day I saw him first, I never found the least shadow of double dealing in James Wheatley. I scarce know his fellow upon earth for simplicity and godly sincerity. His preaching in the street I cannot blame; but I should not have advised him to do it at that hour. I will take particular care that those who may hereafter call at Plymouth be of a mild and peaceable spirit. Those who are warm I will desire to go into Cornwall and return another way. I had fully determined to have gone or sent to Portsmouth; but on hearing Brother Jenkins had been there already, I gave up the design. Remember me, my dear brother, in all your prayers, who am Your affectionate brother and fellow laborer. To Mr. Howell Harris, At Trevecca, Near Hay, Brecknockshire. Free-James Erskine. To ‘John Smith’ NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, March 25, 1747. SIR, — I. In your last I do not find much reason to complain either of tartness or bitterness. But is it so serious as the cause requires If it be asked, Ridentem dicere verum, Quis vetat’ [Horace’s Satires, I, i. 24: ‘Yet may not truth in laughing guise be dressed’] 1. I think the nature of the things whereof we speak should forbid it. For surely it is a very serious concern whether we dwell in the eternal glory of God or in the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 2. If those who subscribe the Eleventh and following Articles do subscribe in what they believe from their hearts to be the plain, unforced, grammatical meaning of the words, then they are clear before God. I trust you can answer for yourself herein; but you cannot for all our brethren. 3. I am glad that our dispute concerning commutations in religion proves to be ‘entirely verbal’: as we both agree (1) that abundance of those who bear the name of Christians put a part of religion for the whole — generally some outward work or form of worship; (2) that whatever is thus put for the whole of religion — in particular, where it is used to supersede or commute for the religion of the heart--it is no longer a part of it; it is gross irreligion, it is mere mockery of God. 4. When you warned me against ‘excess of zeal,’ I did not say this was not my weak side, that it was not one weakness to which I am exposed. My words were: ‘I am always in danger of this; and yet I daily experience a far greater danger of the other extreme.’ I do. I am to this day ashamed before God that I do so little to what I ought to do. But this you call ‘over-done humility,’ and suppose it to be inconsistent with what occurs in the ninety-third and ninety-fourth paragraphs of the Earnest Appeal. [See Works, viii. 38-9.] I believe it is not at all inconsistent therewith: only one expression there is too strong — ‘all his time and strength’; for this very cause ‘I am ashamed before God.’ I do not spend all my time so profitably as I might, nor all my strength; at least, not all I might have, if it were not for my own lukewarmness and remissness, if I wrestled with God in constant and fervent prayer. You mention four other instances of self-contradiction: (1) ‘You claim and you disclaim miracles. You claim them, as having seen many miraculous attestations to your ministry; you disclaim them, desiring none to believe your words farther than they are confirmed by Scripture and reason: that is, you claim them in one sense, and disclaim 1 them in another.’ Perhaps so; but this is no contradiction. (2) ‘You are not at leisure yet either to permit or forbid to marry.’ Indeed I am. Although I commend those who are as ‘eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,’ yet I know ‘all men cannot receive this saying,’ and that ‘it is better to marry than to burn.’ (3) ‘The newly justified has at once, in that hour, power over all sin, and finds from that hour the work of God in the soul slowly and gradually increasing. What, until he has power over more than all sin’ No: but until he has more power over all sin, the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit gradually decreasing; and till he has more peace, more joy in the Holy Ghost, more of the knowledge and love of God. (4) ‘But surely the tip-top of all inconsistencies is what follows, even as explained in your own way: many receive from the Holy Ghost an attestation of their acceptance as perceptible as the sun at noonday; and yet these same persons at other times doubt or deny that they ever had such attestation.’ The fact stands thus: (1) A man feels in himself the testimony of God’s Spirit that he is a child of God; and he can then no more deny or doubt thereof than of the shining of the sun at noonday. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn. (3) He begins to reason within himself concerning it; next, to doubt whether that testimony was from God; and, perhaps, in the end to deny that it was. And yet he may be all this time in every other respect ‘of sound memory as well as understanding.’ Now, whether these propositions are true or false, they are not contradictory to each other. They cannot, unless it were affirmed that the same person has and has not the same testimony at the same time. 5. However, you think I assert a thing impossible. What is impossible That the Spirit of God should bear a clear, perceptible witness with our spirit that we are the children of God Surely no! Whether this be the fact or not, no man of reason will say it is impossible. Or that the Spirit of God should cease to bear this witness Neither can the possibility of this be denied. The thing, then, which is supposed impossible is this — that a man who once had it should ever doubt whether he had it or no; that is (as you subjoin), ‘if he continue sound in mind’ (or understanding) ‘and memory.’ Right! ‘If he continue’; but the very supposition is that in this respect he does not continue so. While he did so continue, he could not doubt. But his understanding is now darkened, and the very traces of that divine work wellnigh erased out of his memory. Nor can I think ‘it is vain to have recourse here to the energeia of the power of darkness.’ I verily believe, as it was the God of heaven who once shone in his heart to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, so it is the god of this world who hath now blinded his heart so that the glorious light cannot shine upon it. 6. If the Quakers hold the same perceptible inspiration with me, I am glad; and it is neither better nor worse for their holding it: although if I ‘distinguish it away,’ I do not hold it at all. But do I distinguish it away or any point which I believe to be the truth of God I am not conscious of this. But when men tack absurdities to the truth of God with which it hath nothing to do, I distinguish away those absurdities and let the truth remain in its native purity. It was several months before my correspondence with you that I thus distinguished away perceptible inspiration; declaring to all men, ‘by “perceiving” or “feeling the operations of the Spirit,” I mean being inwardly conscious of them.’ ‘By “the operations of the Spirit” I do not mean the “manner” in which He operates in a Christian.’ This I mentioned in my last. But it is certain, over and above those other graces which the Holy Spirit inspires into or operates in a Christian, and over and above His imperceptible influences, I do intend all mankind should understand me to assert (what I therefore express in the clearest language I am master of) every Christian believer hath a perceptible testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God. I use the phrase ‘testimony of the Spirit’ rather than ‘inspiration,’ because it has a more determinate meaning. And I desire men to know what I mean, and what I do not; that I may not fight as one that beateth the air. 7. Is there ‘not one word said of this, either in the Farther Appeal or in any one place in the Bible’ I think there is in the Bible, in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter to the Romans. And is not this very place proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer in the Farther Appeal, from the forty-fifth to the forty-ninth and from the fifty-sixth to the fifty-ninth page [Part I. See Works, viii. 83-7, 93-5] Give me leave to remind you of some of the words. In the forty-ninth page the argument concludes thus: ‘It will follow that this witness of the Spirit is the private testimony given to our own consciences, which consequently all sober Christians may claim, without any danger of enthusiasm.’ In the fifty-seventh page are these words: ‘Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, “Our Father which art in heaven”; the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit that they are the children of God. According to Origen, therefore, this testimony of the Spirit is not any public testimony by miracles, but an inward testimony belonging in common to all that are born of God.’ Once more: in the fifty-eighth page are these words: ‘He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had this Spirit of adoption: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” “I prove this,” says he, “not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere expressed more plainly, ‘God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!’ But what is ‘The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit’” He means the Paraclete by the gift given unto us.’ (But that this was an extraordinary gift we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after.) ‘And when the Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt; but when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer’ I am mistaken if this does not come home to the point, to the question now before us: describing a perceptible testimony of the Holy Ghost, ‘directly felt to be worked by Himself.’ 8. But I will waive all authorities, that of Origen and Chrysostom, as well as of Hannah Richardson (though not a weak woman, but eminently the reverse) and Averel Spenser [See letters of Dec. 30, 1745, sects. 4, 7, and March 22, 1748, sect. 14.](though not a wicked one), only observing that your argument proves too much. I am as fully assured to-day, as I am of the shining of the sun, that the Scriptures are of God. I cannot possibly deny or doubt of it now: yet I may doubt of it to-morrow; as I have done heretofore a thousand times, and that after the fullest assurance preceding. Now, if this be ’a demonstration that my former assurance was a mere fancy,’ then farewell all revelation at once! But to come closer yet, and weigh the point in debate in the balance of plain reason. You must allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. ‘But,’ you say, ‘it is not a perceptible one.’ How is this Let us examine it thoroughly. It is allowed (1) the Spirit of God (2) bears testimony to my spirit (3) that I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what the first, second, or third particular Am I not to perceive what is testified — that I am a child of God Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unlaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive that it is testified to my spirit Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul! Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit, but not to perceive who it is that testifies not to know it is the Spirit of God O sir, if there really be a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies who it is that speaks to his heart that speaks in his inmost soul as never man spake If he does not, he is ignorant of the whole affair. If you are in this state, I pray God you may say from the heart, ‘Lord, what I know not, teach Thou me.’ How much better were this than to canonize your own ignorance as the only knowledge and wisdom, and to condemn all the generation of God’s children of ‘idiotism and madness’! 9. Under your last head you do not confine yourself now within the bounds you at first proposed, when you said, ‘I am not making conjectures of what may happen, but relating mischiefs which actually have happened.’ Take care you do not grow warm when I reply to this; you will have need of all your patience to bear it. You begin: ‘Will you ask what I mean by “order” Was it not manifest I meant to speak against lay-preaching’ It was; but not against that alone. Therefore, before I entered upon the question, I defined the term in a wider sense, so as to include both this and every irregularity you had objected. You go on: ‘How could you give so strange an answer, “I bring this order you contend for into places where it never was before”’ I reply: This is not my whole answer; it is but one, and that the most inconsiderable, part of it: but it is strictly true. ‘Do you, then, bring in the ministry of regularly ordained ministers, where, before, people were used to the preaching of lay brethren’ Yes; them who were before used to no preaching at all, or to that of those whom you would term lay brethren, I bring to attend on the ministry of those regular preachers who have the charge of their several parishes. But very ‘ill consequences’ of our irregular preaching, you say, have ‘actually happened: a number of unsent persons going about the kingdom, and preaching the worst of heresies.’ ‘A number’! Where Within these nine years past, I have heard of two, and no more (besides that lunatic clergyman [See letter of June 25, 1746, sect. 10.]), who have gone about thus, though I doubt sent neither of God nor man. But I have heard of no heresy which they preached; only a little smooth, undigested nonsense. Nor can the ill done by these balance the thousandth part of the good already done by the preaching of other laymen — namely, the turning so many bold, barefaced servants of the devil into humble, holy servants of God. However, evil ‘will happen if any State faction shall join the irregulars.’ If they shall! Yea, if they shall attempt it (which is far enough off), the irregulars will not join them. We bless God that the Government is at present very fully convinced of this. ‘But if unsent well-meaning laymen may preach, unsent ill-meaning laymen will, upon the first opportunity, spread sedition like wild-fire.’ Yea, and clergymen as well as laymen, sent as well as unsent. Thus it ever was, and I presume ever will be. 10. That ‘the irregularities of Mr. Cartwright [Thomas Cartwright was the Puritan Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1569. He lectured and preached against the habits worn by the clergy; and criticized the Constitution of the Church of England, and argued for that of Geneva. He was removed from the professorship in 1570. See Walton’s Hooker, p. 138.] did more harm in the course of a century than all the labors of his life did good’ is by no means plain to me; and the less so, because I cannot learn from Mr. Stripe [John Strype (1643-1737) wrote a History of the Life and Actions of Edmund Grindal, who zealously opposed Cartwright.] or any other impartial writer (whatever his mistakes in judgement were) that he fell into any irregularities at all. I look upon him and the body of Puritans in that age (to whom the German Anabaptists bore small resemblance) to have been both the most learned and most pious men that were then in the English nation. Nor did they separate from the Church, but were driven out, whether they would or no. The vengeance of God which fell on the posterity of their persecutors, I think, is no imputation on Mr. Cartwright or them; but a wonderful scene of divine Providence, visiting the sins of the fathers upon their children (when they also had filled up the measure of their iniquities) unto the third and fourth generation. I am not careful for what may be an hundred years hence. He who governed the world before I was born shall take care of it likewise when I am dead. My part is to improve the present moment. And whatever may be the fruits of laypreaching when you and I are gone to our long home, every serious man has cause to bless God for those he may now see with his eyes, for the saving so many souls from death and hiding a multitude of sins. The instances glare in the face of the sun. Many, indeed, God hath taken to Himself; but many more remain, both young and old, who now fear God and work righteousness. 11. Perhaps a parallel drawn from physic may hold more exactly than you was apprised of. For more than twenty years I have had numberless proofs that regular physicians do exceeding little good. From a deep conviction of this, I have believed it my duty, within these four months last past, to prescribe such medicines to six or seven hundred of the poor as I knew were proper for their several disorders. [See letter of Jan. 26.] Within six weeks nine in ten of them who had taken these medicines were remarkably altered for the better; and many were cured of diseases under which they had labored for ten, twenty, forty years. Now, ought I to have let one of these poor wretches perish because I was not a regular physician to have said, ‘I know what will cure you; but I am not of the College: you must send for Dr. Mead’ [For Dr. Richard Mead, see heading to letter of Sept. 28, 1745.] ‘Before Dr. Mead had come in his chariot, the man might have been in his coffin. And when the doctor was come, where was his fee What! he cannot live upon nothing! So, instead of an orderly cure, the patient dies; and God requires his blood at my hands!’ [See letter of May 4, 1748.] 12. But you think, ‘if one should look out of his grave in the middle of the next century, he would find the orderly preaching at St. Luke’s and St. Church had done more good than the disorderly preaching at Kennington.’ I cannot learn, by all the inquiries I have made, that at present it does any good at all; that either Dr. Bulkeley [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. III. 5.] or Dr. Gally [Henry Gally, Vicar of St. Giles’ in-the-Fields 1732-69.] has in all these years converted one sinner to God. And if a man saves no souls while he is alive, I fear he will save few after he is dead. But ‘it does abundance less harm.’ Perhaps not so, neither. ‘He that gathereth not with Me scattereth,’ more especially if he be a preacher. He must scatter from Him, if he does not gather souls to God. Therefore a lifeless, unconverting minister is the murderer-general of his parish. He enters not into the kingdom of heaven himself, and those that would enter in he suffers not. He stands in the gap between them and true religion. Because he has it not, they are easy without it. Dead form contents him, and why not them ‘Sure it is enough if we go as far as our guide!’ And if he is not outwardly vicious, he the more effectually secures them from all inward, solid virtue. How choice a factor for hell is this! destroying more souls than any Deist in the kingdom! I could not have blamed St. Chrysostom if he had only said, ‘Hell is paved with the skulls of such Christian priests!’ 13. I must be short on what remains. You suppose the impression made on men’s minds by this irregular way of preaching is chiefly owing to ‘the force of novelty.’ I believe it was to obviate this very supposition that my preaching has so rarely made any impression at all till the novelty of it was over. When I had preached more than six score times at this town, I found scarce any effect; only that abundance of people heard, and gaped and stared, and went away much as they came. And it was one evening, while I was in doubt if I had not labored in vain, that such a blessing of God was given as has continued ever since, and I trust will be remembered unto many generations. You ascribe it likewise in part to ‘a natural knack of persuasion.’ If either by a natural or an acquired power of persuasion I can prevail upon sinners to turn to God, am I to bury even that talent in the earth ‘No; but try if you cannot do more good in a college or in a parish.’ [See letter of March 20, 1739, to James Hervey.] I have tried both, and I could not do any substantial good, either to my pupils or my parishioners. Among my parishioners in Lincolnshire I tried for some years; but I am well assured I did far more good to them by preaching three days on my father’s tomb than I did by preaching three years in his pulpit. But you ‘know no call I have to preach up and down, to play the part of an itinerant evangelist.’ Perhaps you do not. But I do: I know God hath required this at my hands. To me, His blessing my work is an abundant proof; although such a proof as often makes me tremble. But ‘is there not pride or vanity in my heart’ There is; yet this is not my motive to preaching. I know and feel that the spring of this is a deep conviction that it is the will of God, and that, were I to refrain, I should never hear that word, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ but, ‘Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, where is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.’ To Ebenezer Blackwell SHEFFIELD, May 14, 1747. DEAR SIR, — Are you not getting weary and faint in your mind Do you continue to strive for the mastery It is a good though painful fight. I am sometimes afraid of your turning back before you conquer. Your enemies are many, and your strength is small. What an amazing thing it will be, if you should endure to the end! I doubt you will sometimes be in danger by a snare you are not aware of: you will often meet with persons who labor till they are delivered of all they know, and who (perhaps ‘with very good intent, but little wit’) will tell you abundance of things, good or bad, of the Society, or any member of it. Now, all this is poison to your soul. You have only to give an account of yourself to God. Oh may you do it with joy, and not with grief! — I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London TO DR. GIBSON, BISHOP OF LONDON Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person; neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my Maker would soon take me away.--Job xxxii. 21-2. LONDON, June 11, 1747. MY LORD, — 1. When abundance of persons have for several years laid to my charge things that I knew not, I have generally thought it my duty to pass it over in silence, to be ’as one that heard not.’ But the case is different when a person of your Lordship’s character calls me forth to answer for myself. Silence now might be interpreted contempt. It might appear like a sullen disregard, a withholding honor from him to whom honor is due, were it only on account of his high office in the Church, more especially when I apprehend so eminent a person as this to be under considerable mistakes concerning me. Were I now to be silent, were I not to do what was in my power for the removal of those mistakes, I could not ‘have a conscience void of offence,’ either ‘towards God or towards man.’ 2. But I am sensible how difficult it is to speak in such a manner as I ought and as I desire to do. When your Lordship published those queries under the title of Observations, [Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodist. 1744. See Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 164.] I did not lie under the same difficulty; because, as your name was not inscribed, I had ‘the liberty to stand, as it were, on even ground.’ But I must now always remember to whom I speak. And may the God ‘whom I serve in the gospel of His Son’ enable me to do it with deep seriousness of spirit, with modesty and humility, and at the same time with the utmost plainness of speech, seeing we must ‘both stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.’ 3. In this, then, I entreat your Lordship to bear with me, and in particular when I speak of myself (how tender a point!) just as freely as I would of another man. Let not this be termed boasting. Is there not a cause Can I refrain from speaking, and be guiltless And if I speak at all, ought I not to speak (what appears to me to be) the whole truth Does not your Lordship desire that I should do this I will, then, God being my helper. And you will bear with me in my folly (if such it is), with my speaking in the simplicity of my heart. 4. Your Lordship begins: ‘There is another species of enemies, who give shameful disturbance to the parochial clergy, and use very unwarrantable methods to prejudice their people against them, and to seduce their flocks from them — the Methodists and Moravians, who agree in annoying the Established ministry, and in drawing over to themselves the lowest and most ignorant of the people, by presences to greater sanctity’ (Charge, p. 4). But have no endeavors been used to show them their error Yes; your Lordship remarks, ‘Endeavors have not been wanting. But though these endeavors have caused some abatement in the pomp and grandeur with which these people for some time acted’ (truly, one would not have expected it from them!), ‘yet they do not seem to have made any impression upon their leaders.’ (Page 6.) Your Lordship adds: ‘Their innovations in points of discipline I do not intend to enter into at present; but to inquire what the doctrines are which they spread’ (page 7). ‘Doctrines big with pernicious influences upon practice’ (page 8). Six of these your Lordship mentions, after having premised, ‘It is not at all needful, to the end of guarding against them, to charge the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them’ (page 7). Indeed, my Lord, it is needful in the highest degree. For if the minister who is to guard his people, either against Peter Bohler, Mr. Whitefield, or me, does not know what our particular tenets are, he must needs ‘run as uncertainly and fight as one that beateth the air.’ I will fairly own which of these belong to me. The indirect practices which your Lordship charges upon me may then be considered, together with the consequences of these doctrines and your Lordship’s instructions to the clergy. 5. ‘The first that I shall take notice of,’ says your Lordship, ‘is the Antinomian doctrine’ (page 8). The second, ‘that Christ has done all, and left nothing for us to do but to believe’ (page 9). These belong not to me. I am unconcerned therein. I have earnestly opposed, but did never teach or embrace them. ‘There is another notion,’ your Lordship says, ‘which we find propagated throughout the writings of those people, and that is the making inward, secret, and sudden impulses the guides of their actions, resolutions, and designs’ (page 14). Mr. Church urged the same objection before: ‘Instead of making the Word of God the rule of his actions, he follows only his secret impulse.’ I beg leave to return the same answer: ‘In the whole compass of language there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again that I make the Word of God “the rule” of all my actions, and that I no more follow any “secret impulse” instead thereof than I follow Mahomet or Confucius.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. iii 5.] 6. Before I proceed, suffer me to observe, here are three grievous errors charged on the Moravians, Mr. Whitefield, and me conjointly, in none of which I am any more concerned than in the doctrine of the Metempsychosis! But it was ‘not needful to charge particular tenets on particular persons.’ Just as needful, my Lord, as it is not to put a stumbling-block in the way of our brethren; not to lay them under an almost insuperable temptation of condemning the innocent with the guilty. I beseech your Lordship to answer in your own conscience before God whether you did not foresee how many of your hearers would charge these tenets upon me — nay, whether you did not design they should. If so, my Lord, is this Christianity Is it humanity Let me speak plain. Is it honest heathenism 7. I am not one jot more concerned in instantaneous justification as your Lordship explains it — namely, ‘A sudden, instantaneous justification, by which the person receives from God a certain seal of His salvation or an absolute assurance of being saved at last’ (Charge, p. 11). ‘Such an instantaneous working of the Holy Spirit as finishes the business of salvation once for all’ (ibid.). I neither teach nor believe it, and am therefore clear of all the consequences that may arise therefrom. I believe ‘a gradual improvement in grace and goodness,’I mean in the knowledge and love of God, is a good ‘testimony of our present sincerity towards God’; although I dare not say it is ‘the only true ground of humble assurance,’ or the only foundation on which a Christian builds his ‘hopes of acceptance and salvation.’ For I think ‘other foundation’ of these ‘can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ.’ 8. To the charge of holding ‘sinless perfection,’ as your Lordship states it, I might likewise plead, Not guilty; seeing one ingredient thereof in your Lordship’s account is ‘freedom from temptation’ (page 17). Whereas I believe ‘there is no such perfection in this life as implies an entire deliverance from manifold temptations.’ But I will not decline the charge. I will repeat once more my coolest thoughts upon this head; and that in the very terms which I did several years ago, as I presume your Lordship cannot be ignorant: — ‘What, it may be asked, do you mean by “one that is perfect” or “one that is as his Master” We mean one in whom is “the mind which was in Christ,” and who so “walketh as He walked”; a man that “hath clean hands and a pure heart,” or that is “cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit”; one “in whom there is no occasion of stumbling,” and who accordingly “doth not commit sin.” To declare this a little more particularly: we understand by that scriptural expression, “a perfect man,” one in whom God hath fulfilled His faithful word — “From all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. I will also save you from all your uncleanness.” We understand hereby one whom God hath sanctified throughout, even in “body, soul, and spirit”; one who “walketh in the light, as He is in the light,” in whom “is no darkness at all; the blood of Jesus Christ His Son” having cleansed “him from all sin.” ‘This man can now testify to all mankind, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet I live not, but Christ liveth in me.” He “is holy, as God who called him is holy,” both in life and “in all manner of conversation.” He “loveth the Lord his God with all his heart, and serveth Him with all his strength.” He “loveth his neighbor” (every man) “as himself”; yea, “as Christ loved us” — them in particular that “despitefully use him and persecute him,” because “they know not the Son, neither the Father.” Indeed, his soul is all love, filled with “bowels of mercies, kindness, meekness, gentleness, longsuffering.” And his life agreeth thereto, full of “the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labor of love.” And “whatsoever he doeth, either in word or deed,” he doeth “it all in the name,” in the love and power, “of the Lord Jesus.” In a word, he doeth the will of God “on earth, as it is done in heaven.” ‘This is to be “a perfect man,” to be “sanctified throughout, created anew in Jesus Christ”; even “to have an heart so all-flaming with the love of God” (to use Archbishop’s Ussher’s words), “as continually to offer up every thought, word, and work as a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable unto God through Christ.” In every thought of our hearts, in every word of our tongues, in every work of our hands, “to show forth His praise who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous light.” Oh that both we and all who seek the Lord Jesus in sincerity may thus “be made perfect in one”!’ 9. I conjure you, my Lord, by the mercies of God, if these are not the words of truth and soberness, point me out wherein I have erred from the truth; show me clearly wherein I have spoken either beyond or contrary to the Word of God. But might I not humbly entreat that your Lordship, in doing this, would abstain from such expressions as these, ‘If they will but put themselves under their direction and discipline . . . after their course of discipline is once over’ (page 15), as not suitable either to the weight of the subject or the dignity of your Lordship’s character. And might I not expect something more than these loose assertions, — that this is ‘a delusion altogether groundless, a notion contrary to the whole tenor both of the Old and New Testament’; that ’the Scriptures forbid all thought of it, as vain, arrogant, and presumptuous’; that they ‘represent all mankind, without distinction, as subject to sin and corruption’ (‘subject to sin and corruption’! strong words!) ‘during their continuance in this world; and require no more than an honest desire and endeavor to find ourselves less and less in a state of imperfection’ (pages 15-16). Is it not from your Lordship’s entirely mistaking the question, not at all apprehending what perfection I teach, that you go on to guard against the same imaginary consequences as your Lordship did in the Observations Surely, my Lord, you never gave yourself the trouble to read the answer given in the Farther Appeal, to every objection which you now urge afresh; seeing you do not now appear to know any more of my sentiments than if you had never proposed one question nor received one answer upon the subject! 10. If your Lordship designed to show my real sentiments concerning the last doctrine which you mention, as one would imagine by your adding ‘These are his own words’ (page 18), should you not have cited all my own words — at least, all the words of that paragraph, and not have mangled it as Mr. Church did before It runs thus: ‘Sat. 28. — I showed at large, in order to answer those who taught that none but they who are full of faith and the Holy Ghost ought ever to communicate: (1) That the Lord’s Supper was ordained by God to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. (2) That the persons for whom it was ordained are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to “show their sins forgiven,” or to “renew their souls” in the image of God. (3) That inasmuch as we come to His Table, not to give Him anything, but to receive whatsoever He sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary but a desire to receive whatsoever He pleases to give. And (4) That no fitness is required at the time of communicating but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ in this as well as all other ways of His appointment.’ (Journal, ii. 361-2.) In the second letter to Mr. Church I explain myself farther on this head: ‘I am sorry to find you still affirm that, with regard to the Lord’s Supper also, I “advance many injudicious, false, and dangerous things. Such as: (1) That ‘a man ought to communicate without a sure trust in God’s mercy through Christ.’” You mark these as my words; but I know them not. (2) “That there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God pleases to give.” But I include abundantly more in that desire than you seem to apprehend, even a willingness to know and do the whole will of God. (3) “That no fitness is required at the time of communicating” (I recite the whole sentence) “but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ in this as well as in all other ways of His appointment.” But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist without earnest desires of universal holiness.’ [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. II. 7.] And now, what can I say Had your Lordship never seen this That is hardly to be imagined. But if you had, how was it possible your Lordship should thus explicitly and solemnly charge me, in the presence of God and all my brethren (only the person so charged was not present), with ‘meaning by those words to set aside self-examination, and repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come, as things no way necessary to make a worthy communicant’ (Charge, p. 18.) If an evidence at the Bar should swerve from truth, an equitable judge may place the thing in a true light. But if the judge himself shall bear false witness, where then can we find a remedy Actual preparation was here entirely out of the question. It might be absolutely and indispensably necessary, for anything I had either said or meant to the contrary; for it was not at all in my thoughts. And the habitual preparation which I had in terms declared to be indispensably necessary was ‘a willingness to know and to do the whole will of God’ and ‘earnest desires of universal holiness.’ Does your Lordship think this is ‘meant to set aside all repentance for sins past and resolutions of living better for the time to come’ 11. Your Lordship next falls with all your might upon that strange assertion, as you term it, ‘We come to His Table, not to give Him anything, but to receive whatsoever He sees best for us.’ ‘Whereas,’ says your Lordship, ‘in the exhortation at the time of receiving, the people are told that they must give most humble and hearty thanks . . . and immediately after receiving, both minister and people join in offering and presenting themselves before God’ (pages 20-1). O God! in what manner are the most sacred things here treated! the most venerable mysteries of our religion! What quibbling, what playing upon words, is here! ‘Not to give Him anything.’ ‘Yes, to give Him thanks.’ O my Lord, are these the words of a Father of the Church 12. Your Lordship goes on: ‘To the foregoing account of these modern principles and doctrines it may not be improper to subjoin a few observations upon the indirect practices of the same people in gaining proselytes’ (pages 23-4). I. ‘They persuade the people that the Established worship, with a regular attendance upon it, is not sufficient to answer the ends of devotion.’ Your Lordship mentioned this likewise in the Observations. In your fourth query it stood thus: ‘Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, does not answer the true ends of devotion.’ Suffer me to repeat part of the answer then given: ‘I suppose by “devotion” you mean public worship; by the “true ends” of it, the love of God and man; and by “a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way,: the going as often as we can to our parish church and to the sacrament there administered. If so, the question is, Whether this attendance on those offices does not produce the love of God and man. I answer, Sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years, and yet am conscious to myself that during that whole time I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons who are ready to testify the same thing.’ [A Farther Appeal, Part 1. See Works, viii. 61.] I subjoined: (1) ‘We continually exhort all who attend on our preaching to attend the offices of the Church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there than ever they did before. (2) Their attending the church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all till they attended this preaching also. (3) It is the preaching remission of sins through Jesus Christ which alone answers the true ends of devotion.’ II. 13. ‘They censure the clergy,’ says your Lordship, ‘as less zealous than themselves in the several branches of the ministerial function. For this they are undeservedly reproached by these noisy itinerant leaders.’ (Charge, pp. 24-5.) My Lord, I am not conscious to myself of this. I do not willingly compare myself with any man; much less do I reproach my brethren of the clergy, whether they deserve it or not. But it is needless to add any more on this head than what was said above a year ago: ‘I must explain myself a little on that practice which you so often term “abusing the clergy.” I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them in the only way which is now in my power; and sometimes, though rarely, to speak of them — of a few, not all in general. In either case, I take an especial care (1) to speak nothing but the truth; (2) to speak this with all plainness; and (3) with love and in the spirit of meekness. Now, if you will call this abusing, railing, or reviling, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must thus rail, thus abuse sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.’[See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. vi. II.] III. 14. ‘They value themselves upon extraordinary strictnesses and severities in life, and such as are beyond what the rules of Christianity require. They captivate the people by such professions and appearances of uncommon sanctity. But that which can never fail of a general respect is a quiet and exemplary life, free from the many follies and indiscretions which those restless and vagrant teachers are apt to fall into.’ (Charge, p. 25.) By ‘extraordinary strictnesses and severities,’ I presume your Lordship means the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your Lordship is not thoroughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of ‘annoying parochial ministers,’ or of ‘captivating’ any ‘people’ thereby, unless it were the Chicasaw or Choctaw Indians. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them, ‘I will eat flesh while the world standeth’ rather than ‘make my brother to offend.’ Dr. Cheyne advised me to leave them off again, assuring me, ‘Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.’ And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders. [I continued this about two years (Wesley). See Tyerman’s Wesley, i.28-9; and letter of Nov. 1, 1724.] Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all ‘follies and indiscretions’! But this I never expect to attain till my spirit returns to God. 15. But in how strange a manner does your Lordship represent this! What a construction do you put upon it! ‘Appearances of an uncommon sanctity, in order to captivate the people. Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and fickle heads.’ (Page 25.) ‘Pretences to greater sanctity, whereby they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people’ (page 4). If these are ‘appearances of uncommon sanctity’ (which, indeed, might bear a dispute), how does your Lordship know that they are only appearances that they do not spring from the heart Suppose these were ’exalted degrees of strictness,’ is your Lordship absolutely assured that we practice them only ‘to make our way into weak minds and fickle heads’ Where is the proof that these ’presences to greater sanctity’ (as your Lordship is pleased to phrase them) are mere presences, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them My Lord, this is an accusation of the highest nature. If we are guilty, we are not so much as moral heathens. We are monsters, not only unworthy of the Christian name, but unfit for human society. It tears up all presences to the love of God and man, to justice, mercy, or truth. But how is it proved Or does your Lordship read the heart, and so pass sentence without any proof at all O my Lord, ought an accusation of the lowest kind to be thus received, even against the lowest of the people How much less can this be reconciled with the apostolical advice to the Bishop of Ephesus! — ‘Against a presbyter receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses’; and those face to face. When it is thus proved, ‘them that sin, rebuke before all.’ Your Lordship doubtless remembers the words that follow (how worthy to be written in your heart!): ‘I charge thee, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality’ (I Tim. v. 19-21). IV. 16. ‘They mislead the people into an opinion of the high merit of punctual attendance on their performances, to the neglect of the business of their stations’ (page 26). My Lord, this is not so. You yourself in this very Charge have cleared us from one part of this accusation. You have borne us witness (page 10) that we disclaim all merit, even in (really) good works; how much more in such works as we continually declare are not good, but very evil! such as the attending sermons, or any public offices whatever, ‘to the neglect of the business of our station.’ When your Lordship urged this before in the Observations, I openly declared my belief ‘that true religion cannot lead into a disregard or disesteem of the common duties and offices of life; that, on the contrary, it leads men to discharge all those duties with the strictest and closest attention; that Christianity requires this attention and diligence in all stations and in all conditions; that the performance of the lowest offices of life, as unto God, is truly a serving of Christ; and that this is the doctrine I preach continually’ [A Farther Appeal, Part I. See Works, viii. 46.]; — a fact whereof any man may easily be informed. Now, if after all this your Lordship will repeat the charge as if I had not once opened my mouth concerning it, I cannot help it. I can say no more. I commend my cause to God. 17. Having considered what your Lordship has advanced concerning dangerous doctrines and indirect practices, I now come to the instructions your Lordship gives to the clergy of your diocese. How awful a thing is this! The very occasion carries in it a solemnity not to be expressed. Here is an angel of the Church of Christ, one of the stars in God’s right hand, calling together all the subordinate pastors, for whom he is to give an account to God; and directing them (in the name and by the authority of ‘the great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ, the First-begotten from the dead, the Prince of the kings of the earth’) how to ‘make full proof of their ministry,’ that they may be ’pure from the blood of all men’; how to ‘take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers’; how to ‘feed the flock of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood’! To this end they are all assembled together. And what is the substance of all his instructions ‘Reverend brethren, I charge you all, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and warn and arm and fortify all mankind against a people called Methodists!’ True it is, your Lordship gives them several advices; but all in order to this end. You direct them to ‘inculcate the excellency of our Liturgy as a wise, grave, and serious service’; to ‘show their people that a diligent attendance on their business is a serving of God’; ‘punctually to perform both the public offices of the Church and all other pastoral duties’; and to ‘engage the esteem of their parishioners by a constant regularity of life.’ But all these your Lordship recommends eo nomine as means to that great end--the arming and fortifying their people against the Moravians or Methodists and their doctrines. Is it possible Could your Lordship discern no other enemies of the gospel of Christ Are there no other heretics or schismatics on earth, or even within the four seas Are there no Papists, no Deists in the land Or are their errors of less importance Or are their numbers in England less considerable or less likely to increase Does it appear, then, that they have lost their zeal for making proselytes Or are all the people so guarded against them already that their labor is in vain Can your Lordship answer these few plain questions to the satisfaction of your own conscience Have the Methodists (so called) already monopolized all the sins as well as errors in the nation Is Methodism the only sin, or the only fatal or spreading sin, to be found within the Bills of Mortality Have two thousand (or more) ‘ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God’ no other business than to guard, warn, arm, and fortify their people against this O my Lord, if this engrosses their time and strength (as it must, if they follow your Lordship’s instructions), they will not give an account with joy, either of themselves or of their flock, in that day! 18. Your Lordship seems in some measure sensible of this, when you very gently condemn their opinion who think the Methodists ‘might better be disregarded and despised than taken notice of and opposed, if it were not for the disturbance they give to the parochial ministers, and their unwarrantable endeavors to seduce the people from their lawful pastors’ (Charge, p. 22). The same complaint with which your Lordship opened your Charge: ‘They give shameful disturbances to the parochial clergy; they annoy the Established ministry, using very unwarrantable methods, first to prejudice their people against them, and then to seduce their flocks from them’ (page 4). Whether we seduce them or no (which will be presently considered), I am sorry your Lordship should give any countenance to that low, senseless, and now generally exploded slander that we do it for a maintenance. This your Lordship insinuates by applying to us those words of Bishop Sanderson: [Robert Sanderson (1587-1663), Fellow of Lincoln College 1606; Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford, 1642; Bishop of Lincoln 1660. Izaak Walton in his Lives calls him ‘This pattern of meekness and primitive innocence.’] ‘And all this to serve their own belly, to make a prey of the poor deluded proselytes; for by this means the people fall unto them, and thereout suck they no small advantage’ (page 15). Your Lordship cannot but know that my Fellowship and my brother’s Studentship afford us more than sufficient for life and godliness, especially for that manner of life which we choose, whether out of ostentation or in sincerity. [Charles Wesley’s Studentship yielded 4 a year paid quarterly, and 16s. 8d. annually for ‘livery,’ i.e. clothes. Had he been resident he would have had free rooms and ‘commons,’ or diet. Both Fellowship and Studentship were terminable on marriage. For Wesley’s income, see Works, vii. 36.] 19. But do we willingly ‘annoy the Established ministry’ or ‘give disturbance to the parochial clergy’ My Lord, we do not. We trust herein to have a conscience void of offence. Nor do we designedly ‘prejudice their people against them.’ In this also our heart condemneth us not. But you ‘seduce their flocks from them.’ No, not even from those who feed themselves, not the flock. All who hear us attend the service of the Church, at least as much as they did before. And for this very thing are we reproached as bigots to the Church by those of most other denominations. Give me leave, my Lord, to say you have mistook and misrepresented this whole affair from the top to the bottom. And I am the more concerned to take notice of this because so many have fallen into the same mistake. It is indeed, and has been from the beginning, the pts ed, ‘the capital blunder,’ of our bitterest adversaries; though how they can advance it I see not, without ‘loving,’ if not ‘making, a lie.’ It is not our care, endeavor, or desire to proselyte any from one man to another; or from one church (so called), from one congregation or society, to another, — we would not move a finger to do this, to make ten thousand such proselytes,--but from darkness to light, from Belial to Christ, from the power of Satan to God. Our one aim is to proselyte sinners to repentance, the servants of the devil to serve the living and true God. If this be not done in fact, we will stand condemned, not as well-meaning fools, but as devils incarnate. But if it be, if the instances glare in the face of the sun, if they increase daily, maugre all the power of earth and hell; then, my Lord, neither you nor any man beside (let me use great plainness of speech) can ‘oppose’ and ’fortify people against us,’ without being found even ‘to fight against God.’ 20. I would fain set this point in a clearer light. Here are in and near Moorfields ten thousand poor souls, for whom Christ died, rushing headlong into hell. Is Dr. Bulkeley, the parochial minister, both willing and able to stop them [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. III. 5.] If so, let it be done, and I have no place in these parts: I go and call other sinners to repentance. But if, after all he has done and all he can do, they are still in the broad way to destruction, let me see if God will put a word even in my mouth. True, I am a poor worm that of myself can do nothing. But if God sends by whomsoever He will send, His word shall not return empty. All the messenger of God asks is, p st (no help of man!) a s. [Give me where to stand, and I will shake the earth’ (Archimedes and his lever). See letter in Dec. 1751, sect. 3, to Bishop Lavington.] The arm of the Lord is revealed. The lion roars, having the prey plucked out of his teeth. And ‘there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over’ more than ‘one sinner that repenteth.’ 21. Is this any annoyance to the parochial minister Then what manner of spirit is he of Does he look on this part of his flock as lost, because they are found of the great Shepherd My Lord, great is my boldness toward you. You speak of the consequences of our doctrines. You seem well pleased with the success of your endeavors against them, because, you say, they ‘have pernicious consequences, are big with pernicious influences upon practice, dangerous to religion and the souls of men’ (pages 8, 22). In answer to all this, I appeal to plain fact. I say once more: ‘What have been the consequences (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) of the doctrines I have preached for nine years last past By the fruits shall ye know those of whom I speak; even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel which I preach to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard that was is now temperate in all things; the whoremonger now flees fornication; he that stole, steals no more, but works with his hands; he that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear and rejoice unto Him with reverence; those formerly enslaved to various habits of sin are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts: I can name the men, with their places of abode. One of them was an avowed Atheist for many years; some were Jews; a considerable number Papists; the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form as to the power of godliness.’ My Lord, can you deny these facts I will make whatever proof of them you shall require. But if the facts be allowed, who can deny the doctrines to be in substance the gospel of Christ ‘For is there any other name under heaven given to men whereby they may thus be saved’ or is there any other word that thus ‘commendeth itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God’ 22. But I must draw to a conclusion. Your Lordship has without doubt had some success in opposing this doctrine. Very many have, by your Lordship’s unwearied endeavors, been deterred from hearing at all; and have thereby probably escaped the being seduced into holiness, have lived and died in their sins. My Lord, the time is short. I am past the noon of life, and my remaining years flee away as a shadow. Your Lordship is old and full of days, having past the usual age of man. It cannot, therefore, be long before we shall both drop this house of earth and stand naked before God; no, nor before we shall see the great white throne coming down from heaven, and Him that sitteth thereon. On His left hand shall be those who are shortly to dwell in everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. In that number will be all who died in their sins, and, among the rest, those whom you preserved from repentance. Will you then rejoice in your success The Lord God grant it may not be said in that hour, ’These have perished in their iniquity; but their blood I require at thy hands’! – I am Your Lordship’s dutiful son and servant. To ‘John Smith’ ST. IVES, July 10, 1747. SIR, -- 1. You put me in mind of an eminent man who, preaching at St. James’s, said, ‘If you do not repent, you will go to a place which I shall not name before this audience.’ I cannot promise so much, either in preaching or writing, before any audience or to any person whatever. Yet I am not conscious of doing this very often — of ‘profusely flinging about everlasting fire’; though it is true I mentioned it in my last letter to you, as I have done now a second time; and perhaps I may mention it yet again. For, to say the truth, I desire to have both heaven and hell ever in my eye, while I stand on this isthmus of life, between these two boundless oceans; and I verily think the daily consideration of both highly becomes all men of reason and religion. 2. I think likewise (or I would not spend five words upon the head) that these are nearly concerned in our present question. To touch only on one branch of it: if I live in willful sin, in a sinful ‘deviation from established order,’ am I not in the way to hell I cannot take it any otherwise. I cannot help ‘blending these two inquiries together.’ I must therefore speak seriously, or not at all; and yet, I trust, ‘without losing my temper.’ Do you complain of this first, that I may not complain It appears to me that you show more eagerness of spirit, more warmth and resentment, in your last than you ever have done from the beginning. 3. You spoke of ‘a number of unsent persons going about and preaching the worst of heresies.’ I answered, ‘Within these nine years I have heard of two, and no more, who have gone about thus, though I doubt neither sent of God nor man.’ Their names were Jonathan Wildboar, [At Bristol, on July 29, 1740 (see his Journal), Charles Wesley says: ’One, pestered with the Predestinarians, desired me to expound Rom. ix. I did, through Christ strengthening me, in an extraordinary manner. The poor creature Wildboar contradicted and blasphemed, and even called for damnation upon his own soul, if Christ died for all, and if God was willing that all men should be saved. The power of the Lord was present so much the more ‘I have not known a more triumphant night since I knew Bristol.’ John Wesley’s Diary for Oct. 20, 1740, shows that he was at Mrs. ‘Wildbore’s’ house in London.] and Thomas Smith,[Wesley published an advertisement on Aug. 3, 1748, warning the public against this ‘cheat and impostor’ (Journal, iii. 365).] alias Moor, alias I know not what — for I fear he changed his name as often as his place. It is not unlikely that either of these might steal as well as lie, which they have done abundantly, particularly in claiming acquaintance with Mr. Whitefield or me wherever they judged it would recommend them to their hearers. I should not be surprised to hear of two more such; but I have not yet, in all the counties I have gone through between London and Berwick-upon-Tweed, or between Deal and the Land’s End. 4. I would to God all the clergy throughout the land were ‘zealous for inward, solid virtue.’ But I dare not say one in ten of those I have known are so in any degree. The two clergymen of this place, on a late public occasion, were led home at one or two in the morning in such a condition as I care not to describe. One of them is rector of Lelant also (a parish east of St. Ives), of Twidnack, to the south, and Zennor, to the west. At Zennor he keeps another assistant, and one who is just as sober as himself, and near as zealous--not, indeed, for inward or outward virtue, but against these ‘scoundrels that pretend to preach in his parish.’ 5. I never ‘attempted to deny’ that the novelty of our manner of preaching has induced thousands and ten thousands to hear us who would otherwise never have heard us at all, nor perhaps any other preacher. But I utterly deny that ‘the effects wrought on many of them that heard were owing to novelty, and that only.’ The particular effects wrought at Epworth [Where he preached with extraordinary effect on his father’s tombstone on June 6, 1742 (Journal, iii. 19). His defence of field-preaching is given in Parts I and III of A Farther Appeal. See Works, viii.113-119, 229-31.] were these: many drunkards, many unjust and profane men, on whom both my father and I had for several years spent our strength in vain, from that time began to live, and continue so to do, a sober, righteous, and godly life. Now, I deny that this effect can be owing to novelty, or to any principle but the power of God. If it be asked, But were there not ‘the same hearers, the same preachers, and the same God to influence in the church as on the tombstone’ I answer: (1) There were not all the same hearers in the church--not above one-third of them; (2) there was the same preacher in the church, but he did not then preach the same doctrine; and therefore, (3) though there was the same God, there was not the same influence or blessing from Him. 6. The sum of what I offered before concerning perceptible inspiration was this: ‘Every Christian believer has a perceptible testimony of God’s Spirit that he is a child of God.’ You objected that there was not one word said of this, either in the Bible or in the Appeal, to which I referred. I replied: ‘I think there is in the Bible, in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter to the Romans. And in the Farther Appeal this place is proved to describe the ordinary privilege of every Christian believer.’ This is there shown, both by Scripture, by reason, and by authority, particularly that of Origen and Chrysostom, whom his Lordship of Lichfield had cited in his Charge [Richard Smallbroke, Bishop of Lichfield 1730-49, published treatises against Whiston and Woolaston. In a Charge, delivered in 1741 and published in 1744, he set himself ‘to obviate the Contagion of those Enthusiastical Pretensions that in several parts of the nation have lately, as well as formerly, betrayed whole Multitudes either into an unreasonable Presumption of their Salvation, or into melancholy if not desponding Opinions about it.’ He attempted to prove, with the aid of Origen and Chrysostom’s homily on I Cor. ii. 4, that the ‘demonstration of the Spirit and power’ referred to the miracles of the apostolic age (pp. 15, 26, 31-2), and that the Testimony of the Spirit, in the Sense of the Holy Scriptures, is abusively pretended to by a new sect of Enthusiastical Seducers among us.’ Whitefield wrote Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, and Wesley answered the Bishop in A Farther Appeal.] as asserting just the contrary. But, waiving authorities, I reasoned thus: ‘You allow there is a testimony of the Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. But you say it is not a perceptible one. How is this Let us examine it thoroughly. It is allowed (1) the Spirit of God (2) bears testimony to my spirit (3) that I am a child of God. But I am not to perceive it. Not to perceive what the first, second, or third particular Am I not to perceive what is testified — that I am a child of God Then it is not testified at all. This is saying and unlaying in the same breath. Or am I not to perceive that it is testified to my spirit Yea, but I must perceive what passes in my own soul! Or, lastly, am I to perceive that I am a child of God, and that this is testified to my spirit, but not to perceive who it is that testifies not to know it is the Spirit of God O sir, if there be really a man in the world who hath this testimony in himself, can it be supposed that he does not know who it is that testifies who it is that speaks to his heart’ 7. Instead of giving a direct answer to this, you have recourse to the same supposition with his Lordship of Lichfield and Coventry — namely, that there was once an inward, perceptible testimony of the Spirit, but that it was peculiar to the early ages of the Church. ‘There are three ways,’ say you, ‘in which the Holy Spirit may be said to bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God: (1) By external, miraculous attestations. (2) By internal, plainly perceptible whispers.’ (I must add, ‘not in words, at least not always, but by some kind of impressions equivalent thereto.’) ‘(3) By His standing testimony in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostles had all these three; Origen and Chrysostom probably the two latter. But if St. Bernard, several hundred years after, pretended to any other than the third, his neighbors would naturally ask for proof, either that it should be so by Scripture or that it was so by facts.’ Well, then, let us suppose St. Bernard and one of his neighbors to be talking together on this subject. On St. Bernard’s saying, ‘The Spirit of God bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God,’ his neighbor replies, ‘I suppose He does, but not by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony.’ ‘Yes, by an inward, plainly perceptible testimony. I now have this testimony in myself; I plainly perceive that I am a child of God, and that it is His Spirit who testifies it to my spirit.’ ‘I fear you are somewhat enthusiastically given. I allow God’s standing testimony in the Scriptures; but I cannot allow that there is now any such thing as this inward testimony, unless you can either prove by Scripture that it should be so or by facts that it is so.’ ‘Are not these words Scripture: “The Spirit itself beareth testimony with our spirit that we are the children of God”’ ‘Yes; but the question is, how they are to be understood: for I deny that they speak of an inward testimony. They speak of the outward, standing testimony of God in the Holy Scriptures.’ ‘You put a manifest force upon the text. You cannot prove that it speaks of any outward testimony at all. But the words immediately preceding prove to a demonstration that it speaks of an inward testimony: “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage unto fear” (is not fear an inward thing); “but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!” The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, even the same Spirit which “God hath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father I”’ ‘I do not deny that the Spirit bears witness with our spirit. But I deny your peculiar interpretation of this text. I deny that this text at all favors an inward, perceptible testimony.’ ‘The Spirit which God hath sent into my heart, and which now cries in my heart “Abba, Father,” now beareth testimony with my spirit that I am a child of God. How can these words be interpreted at all but of an inward, perceptible testimony’ ‘I tell you, of God’s standing testimony in Scripture.’ ‘This is a palpable violence to the words. They no more speak of Scripture than of miracles. They manifestly speak of what passes in the heart, the spirit, the inmost soul of a believer, and that only.’ 8. But you would say, ‘Suppose this scripture to prove that it should be so, can you show by facts that it is so’ Not if you take it for granted that every one who speaks of having this witness in himself is an enthusiast. You are then in no danger of proof from this quarter. You have a short answer to every fact which can be alleged. But you turn the tables. You say it is I who allow that ‘many of God’s children do not continue in sound mind and memory.’ I allowed: (1) A man feels the testimony of God’s Spirit, and cannot then deny or doubt his being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn: not from every child of God; many retain the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end. (3) Then he may doubt whether that testimony was of God, and perhaps at length deny that it was, especially if his heart be hardened by the deceitfulness of his sin. And yet he may be all this time in every other respect of ‘sound memory as well as understanding.’ In this respect I allowed he is not — that is, ‘his understanding is now darkened, and the very traces of that divine work wellnigh erased out of his memory.’ So I expressly determined the sense wherein I allowed ‘he does not continue in sound mind and memory.’ But did I allow that even then he was non compos mentis -- a madman in the common sense Nothing less: I allowed no more than, the divine light being withdrawn, his mind was again dark as to the things of God; and that he had forgotten t aTas t pa at ‘aat, [2 Pet. i. 9 ‘The purification from his former sins.’] wellnigh as if it had never been. 9. But you say, ‘If variable facts be produced, to-day asserted, to-morrow denied.’ Nay, the facts, whether asserted or denied, are still invariable. ‘But if they be ever doubted or denied, they never were plainly perceptible.’ I cannot discern any force in that consequence: however, if they are afterward ‘denied, they are not from Him “in whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”’ Neither is this consequence good. Though God is ever the same, man may either assert or deny His works. ‘The spirit of man and his fancies or opinions may vary; but God and His facts cannot.’ Thus far they can and do: God does not now bear witness as He did before. And this variation of the fact makes way for a variation in the judgment of him who had that witness, but now hath it not. ‘You may be fully of opinion to-day that the Scriptures are of God, and doubt of this to-morrow. But what is this to the purpose’ Very much. I am as fully convinced to-day that the Scriptures are of God as that the sun shines. And this conviction (as every good gift) cometh from the Father of lights. Yet I may doubt of it to-morrow. – I may throw away the good gift of God. ‘But we were speaking not of man’s opinions, but of God’s facts.’ We were speaking of both — of man’s opinions, or judgment, concerning God’s facts. ‘But could he to whom Christ said, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” ever doubt or deny that Christ said so’ I question not but in process of time he might, particularly if he drew back unto perdition. But, however that be, it is no ‘blasphemous supposition,’ but a plain, undeniable truth, that the god of this world can obliterate what the God of heaven has strongly imprinted upon the soul — yea, and that he surely will, unless we stir up the gift of God which is in us by earnestly and continually watching unto prayer. I presume you do not deny that a believer, one who has the witness in himself, may make ‘shipwreck of the faith,’ and consequently lose the witness (however it be explained) which he once had of his being a child of God The darkness which then covers his soul again, I ascribe (in part) to the energy of Satan, who evergei, ‘worketh,’ according to the Apostle, in the children of unbelief, whether they did once believe or no. And has he not much power even on the children of God — to disturb, though not to destroy to throw fiery darts without number, especially against those who as yet are but weak in the faith to inject doubts and fears sometimes unbelieving, sometimes even blasphemous thoughts And how frequently will they be wounded thereby, if they have not put on the whole armor of God! 10. You add: ‘If we reply, There are enthusiasts in the world, you can keep your temper no longer; and the only answer is, If we perceive not that witness in ourselves, we are ignorant of the whole affair, and doomed to the “everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”’ I said not so. I can keep my temper (blessed be God) if you call me an hundred enthusiasts, if you affirm I am ten times more of an enthusiast than that poor Quaker probably was. [‘Smith’ referred to a Quaker which he was fully persuaded was who had brought him a message received from God.] The sharpest word I said was, ‘If a man does not know who it is that testifies with his spirit he is a child of God, he is ignorant of the whole affair.’ But I felt no anger when I said this. Nor do I now. Though I still think (because you say it yourself) that you are ignorant of this whole affair, of the inward testimony for which I contend. Yet am I far from dooming you to everlasting fire. What you know not, I trust God will reveal unto you. Least of all was this my ‘only answer to your supposition ’that this perceptible testimony is only an imagination, unless I am altogether in a dream.’ I have given some other answer, and a pretty full one, to the objection — such an one, I think, as the nature of the thing admits, at least as my capacity would allow. 11. I have largely considered, both in the Third Part of the Appeal and in the latter part of the Second Letter to Mr. Church, the unreasonableness of the common demand to prove our doctrine by miracles. I cannot but refer you to those tracts, having neither time nor inclination actum agere. [‘To do the same thing repeatedly.’] Only I would weigh what you have now advanced in support of that demand. ‘If the enthusiast is as confident of his inspiration as one really inspired is of his, a third person has a right to call for other proof than confident assertions’ — that is, for miracles. So you explain yourself in the following sentence. Let us try how this consequence will hold in a particular instance: ‘The Spirit said unto Paul, Go not into Macedonia.’ When he related this to his companions, ought they to have replied, ‘We call for other proof of this than your confident assertion, seeing enthusiasts are as confident of theirs as you are of this revelation’ If you say, ‘They had seen his miracles at other times’; I know not that: perhaps they had, perhaps they had not. But to step a little forward: ‘If in the days of Origen and Chrysostom external miraculous powers were ceased, while internal inspiration still remained,’ what becomes of your demand here It is totally excluded; although there were, in those days also, pretenders to what they had not. And yet there might have been other sufficient reasons for believing the assertion of Origen, Chrysostom, and St. Bernard too, that they had this internal testimony. Such was, besides the holiness of their lives, that great and standing miracle — their saving so many souls from death and hiding a multitude of sins. 12. There are at least as many pretenders to the love of God as there are to the witness of His Spirit. But does this give me a right, if a man asserts he loves God, to demand his proving that assertion by miracles Not so; but by their fruits I shall know a real and a pretended love of God. And in the same manner may I know him that has the witness of God’s love from an enthusiastic pretender to it. But if a man disclaims it, he sets himself out of the question. It is beyond dispute that he has it not. Neither do I want miracles in order to determine my judgment with regard to scriptures variously interpreted. I would not say in this case, ‘Show me a sign,’ but ‘Bring forth your strong reasons’; and according to these, weighed in an even, impartial scale, would I incline to one side or the other. 13. From the beginning of our correspondence I did not expect you to alter your judgment touching those points wherein we differed. But I was willing (and am so still) to hear and consider whatever you should advance concerning them: and so much the rather, because in the greatest points we do agree already; and in the smaller, we can bear with each other, and speak what we apprehend to be the truth in love. Let us bless God for this, and press on to the mark. It cannot be long before we shall be quite of one mind, before the veil of flesh shall drop off, and we shall both see pure light in the unclouded face of God. To the Clergyman at Tredinny TREDINNY, July 14, 1747. REVEREND SIR,--I was exceedingly surprised when I was informed yesterday of your affirming publicly in the church, in the face of a whole congregation, ’Now Wesley has sent down for an hundred pounds; and it must be raised directly. Nay, it is true.’ O sir, is this possible Can it be that you should be so totally void, I will not say of conscience, of religion, but of good nature as to credit such a tale and of good manners and common sense as thus to repeat it I must beg that you would either justify or retract this (for it is a point of no small concern), and that I may know what you propose to do, before I set out for London.--I am, reverend sir, Your brother and servant for Christ’s sake. To the Clergyman at Tredinny, In Buryan Parish, Cornwall. To Ebenezer Blackwell ST. IVES, July 18, 1747. DEAR SIR,--Are you not yet weary and faint in your mind weary of striving to enter in at the strait gate I trust you are not, and that you never will till you enter into the kingdom. Many thoughts of that kind will probably rise in your heart; but you will have power to trample them under your feet. You have nothing to do with the things that are behind: the prize and the crown are before you. So run that you may obtain, desiring only to apprehend that for which you are apprehended of Christ Jesus. A great door and effectual is opened now, almost in every corner of this country. Here is such a change within these two years as has hardly been seen in any other part of England. Wherever we went we used to carry our lives in our hands; and now there is not a dog to wag his tongue. Several ministers are clearly convinced of the truth; few are bitter; most seem to stand neuter. Some of the gentlemen (so called) are almost the only opposers now drinking, reveling, cursing, swearing gentlemen, who neither will enter into the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffer any others if they can prevent it. The most violent Jacobites among these are continually crying out that we are bringing the Pretender; and some of these worthy men bear His Majesty’s commission as Justices of the Peace. My best wishes attend Mrs. Blackwell, who, I hope, measures step for step with you in the way to the kingdom.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. I set out for Bristol on Thursday. To his Brother Charles BEERCROCOMB. July 31, 1747. DEAR BROTHER,--Yesterday I was thinking on a desideratum among us, a genesis problematica on Justifying Faith. A skeleton of it, which you may fill up, or any one that has leisure, I have roughly set down. Is justifying faith a sense of pardon Negatur. I. Every one is deeply concerned to understand this question well: but preachers most of all; lest they should either make them sad whom God hath not made sad, or encourage them to say peace where there is no peace. Some years ago we heard nothing about either justifying faith or a sense of pardon: so that, when we did hear of them, the theme was quite new to us; and we might easily, especially in the heat and hurry of controversy, lean too much either to the one hand or to the other. II. By justifying faith I mean that faith which whosoever hath not is under the wrath and curse of God. By a sense of pardon I mean a distinct, explicit assurance that my sins are forgiven. I allow (1) that there is such an explicit assurance; (2) that it is the common privilege of real Christians; (3) that it is the proper Christian faith, which purifieth the heart and overcometh the world. But I cannot allow that justifying faith is such an assurance, or necessarily connected therewith. III. Because, if justifying faith necessarily implies such an explicit sense of pardon, then every one who has it not, and every one so long as he has it not, is under the wrath and under the curse of God. But this is a supposition contrary to Scripture as well as to experience. Contrary to Scripture (Isa. l.10; Acts x. 34). Contrary to experience: for Jonathan Reeves, &c. &c., had peace with God, no fear, no doubt, before they had that sense of pardon; and so have I frequently had. Again, the assertion that justifying faith is a sense of pardon is contrary to reason; it is flatly absurd. For how can a sense of our having received pardon be the condition of our receiving it IV. If you object, (1) ‘Job, Thomas, St. Paul, &c., had this sense,’ I grant they had; but they were justified before they had it. (2) ‘We know fifteen hundred persons who have this assurance.’ Perhaps so; but this does not prove that they were not justified till they received it. (3) ’We have been exceedingly blessed in preaching this doctrine.’ We have been blessed in preaching the great truths of the gospel; although we tacked to them, in the simplicity of our hearts, a proposition which was not true. (4) ‘But does not our Church give this account of justifying faith’ I am sure she does of saving or Christian faith; I think she does of justifying faith too. But to the law and testimony. All men may err; but the word of the Lord shall stand for ever. To Ebenezer Blackwell DUBLIN, August 13, 1747. DEAR SIR, -- I have found a home in this strange land. I am at Mr. Lunell’s just as at the Foundry; only that I have not such attendance here, for I meet the people at another part of the town. For natural sweetness of temper, for courtesy and hospitality, I have never seen any people like the Irish. Indeed, all I converse with are only English transplanted into another soil; and they are much mended by the removal, having left all their roughness and surliness behind them. They receive the word of God with all gladness and readiness of mind. The danger is that it should not take deep root, that it should be as seed falling on stony ground. But is there not the same danger in England also Do not you find it in London You have received the word with joy, and it begins to spring up; but how soon may it wither away! It does not properly take root till we are convinced of inward sin, till we begin to feel the entire corruption of our nature. I believe sometimes you have found a little of this. But you are in the hands of a good Physician; who, if you give yourself up to His guidance, will not only wound, but also make whole. Mr. Lunell and his family desire their best respects to Mrs. Blackwell and you. His daughter can rejoice in God her Saviour. They propose to spend the winter in England.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. I cannot forget Mrs. Dewal, whether I see her or not. To a Preacher [LONDON], November 1747. MY DEAR BROTHER,--In public speaking speak not one word against opinions of any kind. We are not to fight against notions but sins. Least of all should I advise you once to open your lips against Predestination. It would do more mischief than you are aware of. [See heading to letter of March 3.] Keep to our one point --present inward salvation by faith, by the divine evidence of sins forgiven. Your affectionate brother. To Westley Hall LONDON, December 22, 1747. DEAR BROTHER, — I. When you was at Oxford with me fourteen or fifteen years since, you was holy and unblameable in all manner of conversation. I greatly rejoiced in the grace of God which was given unto you, which was often a blessing to my own soul. Yet even then you had frequently starts of thought which were not of God, though they at first appeared to be. But you was humble and teachable, you was easily convinced, and those imaginations vanished away. 2. More than twelve years ago you told me God had revealed it to you that you should marry my youngest sister. I was much surprised, being well assured that you was able to receive our Lord’s saying (so you had continually testified) and to be an ‘eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.’ But you vehemently affirmed the thing was of God; you was certain it was His will. God had made it plain to you that you must marry, and that she was the very person. So you asked and gained her consent, and fixed the circumstances relating thereto. 3. Hence I date your fall. Here were several faults in one: (1) you cast away the precious gift of God; (2) you leaned altogether to your own understanding, not consulting either me, who was then the guide of your soul, or the parents of your intended wife, before you had settled the whole affair; and (3) while you followed the voice of nature, you said it was the voice of God. 4. In a few days you had a counter-revelation that you was not to marry her but her sister. This last error was far worse than the first. But you was now quite above conviction. So, in spite of her poor, astonished parent, of her brothers, of all your vows and promises, you shortly after jilted the younger and married the elder sister. The other, who had honored you as an angel from heaven, and still loved you much too well (for you had stole her heart from the God of her youth), refused to be comforted. From that time she fell into a lingering illness, which terminated in her death. And doth not her blood still cry unto God from the earth Surely it is upon your head. 5. Till this time you was a pattern of lowliness, meekness, seriousness, and continual advertence to the presence of God; and, above all, of self-denial in every kind, and of suffering all things with joyfulness. But there was now a worm at the root of the gourd. Yet it did not presently wither away, but for two years or more after your marriage you behaved nearly the same as before. Then anger and surliness began to appear, particularly towards your wife. But it was not long before you was sensible of this, and you seemed to have conquered it. 6. You went up to London ten years ago, and met Mr. Whitefield, come from Georgia. After this you began to speak on any head--not with your usual diffidence and self-abasement, but with a kind of confidence in your own judgment and an air of self-sufficiency. A natural consequence was, the treating with more sharpness and contempt those who opposed either your judgment or practice. 7. You came to live at London. You then for a season appeared to gain ground again. You acted in concert with my brother and me; heard our advice, and sometimes followed it. But this continued only till you contracted a fresh acquaintance with some of the Brethren of Fetter Lane. Thenceforward you was quite shut up to us; we had no manner of influence over you; you was more and more prejudiced against us, and would receive nothing which we said. 8. About six years ago you removed to Salisbury, and began a Society there. For a year or two you went with them to the church and sacrament, and simply preached faith working by love. God was with you, and they increased both in number and in the knowledge and love of God. About four years since, you broke off all friendship with us; you would not so much as make use of our hymns, either in public or private, but laid them quite aside, and took the German hymn-book in their stead. You would not willingly suffer any of your people to read anything which we wrote. You angrily caught one of my Sermons out of your servant’s hand, saying you would have no such books read in your house. In much the same manner you spoke to Mrs. Whitemarsh, when you found her reading one of the Appeals. So that, as far as in you lay, you fixed a great gulf between us and you, which remains to this day, notwithstanding a few steps lately made towards a reunion. About the same time you left off going to church as well as to the sacrament. Your followers very soon trod in your steps, and, not content with neglecting the ordinances of God, they began, after your example, to despise them and all that continued to use them, speaking with equal contempt of the public service, of private prayer, of baptism, and of the Lord’s supper. From this time also you began to espouse and teach many uncommon opinions: as, that there is no resurrection of the body; that there is no general judgment to come; and that there is no hell, no worm that never dieth, no fire that never shall be quenched. 9. Your seriousness and advertence to the presence of God now declined daily. You could talk on anything or nothing, just as others did. You could break a jest, or laugh at it heartily; and as for fasting, abstinence, and self-denial, you, with the Moravians, trampled it under-foot. You began also very frequently to kiss the women of the Society. (In the following paragraphs I recited to him the things he had done with regard to more than one, or two, or three women, concluding thus :) And now you know not that you have done anything amiss! You can eat and drink and be merry. You are every day engaged with variety of company and frequent the coffeehouses! Alas, my brother, what is this How are you above measure hardened by the deceitfulness of sin! Do you remember the story of Santon Barsisa [The history of Santon Barsisa, taken by Steele out of the Turkish Tales, forms No. 148 of the Guardian, Aug. 31, 1718.] I pray God your last end may not be like his! Oh how have you grieved the Spirit of God! Return to Him with weeping, fasting, and mourning. You are in the very belly of hell; only the pit hath not yet shut its mouth upon you. Arise, thou sleeper, and call upon thy God! Perhaps He may yet be found. Because He still bears with me, I cannot despair for you. But you have not a moment to lose. May God this instant strike you to the heart, that you may feel His wrath abiding on you, and have no rest in your bones, by reason of your sin, till all your iniquities are done away! Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wesley had begun to give physic to the poor in London on December 5, 1746; and in three weeks about three hundred were helped. In six months six hundred came. Similar work was being done in Bristol, where Wesley had been since January 14, see Journal, iii. 273, 301, 329; W.H.S. xvi. 141-3; and letter in December 1748, sect. XII., to Vincent Perronet. [2]Objections had been raised against Wesley’s preachers in Plymouth. Charles Wesley says on June 16, 1746, ‘Some of Mr. Whitefield’s Society importuned me to go to Plymouth. I went, resolving to preach only in the streets or fields.’ Next day ‘the Society were now so exceeding urgent with me, that I could not refuse praying with them in their room.’ On August 14 he preached in the Tabernacle again. Joseph Cownley (see letter of September 20, 1746) spent three months in Cornwall, and in March 1747 removed to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Wesley thought him one of the best preachers in England (Wesley’s Veterans, iv. 122-69). – Thomas Richards, whom Wesley describes as his second lay preacher, was one of the first masters at Kingswood School, and subsequently became a clergyman (Journal, iii. 48n). — John Trembath was a popular preacher who afterwards caused Wesley much sorrow (see letter of September 21, 1755). – James Wheatley traveled with Wesley in March I 744, and bravely faced the mob in Cornwall. On June 25, 1751 (see letter), the Wesleys had to suspend him for serious misconduct. – Herbert Jenkins, one of Wesley’s itinerants, joined Whitefield, and preached frequently for Mr. Kinsman at Plymouth, where the Wesleys met him (see Journal, v. 523n). The first Calvinistic Methodist Conference in 1743 appointed him a public exhorter. He was to assist Howell Harris in visiting the Societies in England and Wales. He became a Dissenting minister at Maidstone in 1750. (See Tyerman’s Whitefield, ii. 49; W.H.S. vi. 141.) [3]Edmund Gibson (1669-1748) was Bishop of London from 1720 to 1748. Dr. Norman Sykes, in his Edmund Gibson (Oxford University Press, 1926), says that the Bishop’s Visitation Charge of 1747, to which this letter is an answer, has not survived. He adds: ‘Although there is nothing to indicate the impression produced upon Gibson by this reply, it is to be wished that a spirit of greater charity had inspired his last public utterances against the Methodists. At the outset he had seemed predisposed to regard the new movement with a considerable degree of sympathy, but the course of events had driven him into a bitter antipathy’ (page 321). Dr. Gibson, who was ‘the outstanding and dominant personality of the episcopal bench,’ showed great kindness to the Wesleys on several occasions; and when John Wesley told him what he meant by ’perfection,’ the Bishop replied, ‘Mr. Wesley, if this be all you mean, publish it to all the world’ (Works, xi. 374). Henry Moore says the letter ‘had, by every account, a great effect on that venerable prelate, so that a vulgar report got abroad that the Bishop of London was turned Methodist!’ (Life of Wesley, ii. 415). [4]Wesley preached at Tredinny on Monday, July 13, to ‘a large and earnest congregation, notwithstanding the wonderful stories which they have frequently heard related in the pulpit for certain truths. In the morning I wrote as follows.’ He adds, ‘But he never favored me with an answer.’ See Journal, iii. 308. [5]At St. Ives on June 30 Wesley wrote that they ‘walked to church without so much as one huzza. How strangely has one year changed the scene in Cornwall! This is now a peaceable, nay honorable station. They give us good words almost in every place. What have we done that the world should be so civil to us’ See Journal iii. 305. [6]Dr. Whitehead thinks the closer examination of justifying faith was due to the controversy with ‘John Smith.’ Wesley had expressed his view in the words of the homily on Salvation, that it is ‘a sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God that his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favor of God.’ Myles, in his Chronological History, says the letter shows that ‘he had thought more deeply respecting the nature of Justifying Faith after the last Conference. He was afterwards more accurate on that head, and spoke of it agreeably to the sentiments expressed in this letter.’ At the Conference in June 1747 it was asked, ‘Is justifying faith a divine assurance that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me’ And the answer was, ‘We believe it is.’ Wesley now considered the question more carefully and saw that the above definition from the homily described the habitual faith of one who was justified rather than the act by which a sinner is first justified. See Tyerman’s Wesley, i. 551-3; and for Wesley’s first letter to ‘John Smith,’ September 28, 1745. [7]In the spring of 1747 Thomas Williams arrived in Dublin, where he held services in an old Lutheran church in Marlborough Street and preached in the open air. At his invitation Wesley went over on August 9. He found a congenial home with William Lunell, a wealthy banker, who was one of Williams’s converts. This was Wesley’s first visit to Ireland. He crossed the Channel forty-two times, and devoted at least six years to work in the country, with results that not only abide there to this day, but had a large part in the introduction of Methodism to America. See Journal, iii. 312n ; and letter of February 6, 1748. [8]Hall’s miserable story is fully told in Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, pp. 386-411. He was first engaged to Martha Wesley, whom he met at her uncle’s house in London. He saw Kezia, the youngest sister, at Epworth, and became engaged to her. When he returned to London, he renewed his addresses to Martha, whom he married in 1735. Kezia died on March 9, 1741. The effect of this disappointment on Kezia does not seem to have been so disastrous as the letter suggests. Hall became a polygamist; and when Wesley called to see him at Salisbury on January 26, 1748, he told him he had no business in his house. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, pp. 368-70; and letters of December 30, 1745 (to Hall), and May 9, 1755. In his Journal, iii. 325, Wesley says: ‘Being not convinced that I had yet delivered my own soul with regard to that unhappy man, on Tuesday the 22nd I wrote once more to Mr. Westley Hall as follows.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: 32. 1748 ======================================================================== 1748 To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL, February 2, 1748. DEAR SIR,--I have received the second bill of exchange which you was so kind as to send by Saturday’s post. As we do not intend to build immediately, [See Journal, iii. 331, 376-7n. They met on Feb. 9 to consult about enlarging and strengthening the room in the Horsefair. In two or three days 230 was subscribed. Wesley preached in the new-built room on Sept. 13.] the money will be payable before we want it. I do not question but Mrs. Dewal and you will be serviceable to each other. God has given her an advisable spirit; and where that is, there will be every good and perfect gift. Poor Mr. Hall, when I was at Salisbury, furnished me with a sufficient answer to those who speak of the connexion between him and us. He could not have set the matter in a clearer light than by turning both me and my sister out of doors. [See Journal, iii. 329-30; and previous letter.] Both in Ireland and in many parts of England the work of our Lord increases daily. At Leeds only, the Society, from an hundred and fourscore, is increased to above five hundred persons. And shall you have no part in the general blessing I believe better things. You will fight and conquer; take up the cross till you receive the crown. You have both been enabled to set your faces heavenward; and you shall never look back. You are to strengthen each other’s hands in God till you come to Mount Zion, and to the general Church of the first-born.--I am, dear sir, Your most affectionate friend and servant. To William Holland BRISTOL, February 6, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to find that you have not forgotten me. Our Lord, I trust, has given us to each other, that we may strengthen each other’s hands in Him. The plain reason why I bless our Lord daily for the assistance of my brother Charles is, because I know him to be an able minister of the New Testament, of the Spirit which maketh alive, and one that exercises himself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. Surely our poor Brethren do not infer anything contrary to this from the low, self-inconsistent slanders which were handed about two or three years ago! After Mr. Williams had behaved so ill I had no thought of ever acting in union with him again. And all his overtures and acknowledgements I made no account of till he gave so substantial a proof that God employed him still, as He has done in Dublin. Then I could no longer withstand God; although to this day we have not readmitted him into the number of our stated labourers. But neither dare I reject him altogether. I was at first a little surprised that the Brethren should so obstinately persist in accounting me their enemy. But I now quietly commit my cause to Him that judgeth righteous judgement. I will write to Mr. Maxfield this post. To be with the leaders of a Sunday afternoon may be a means of uniting you together. O let us wait upon the Lord; He hath the preeminence, and His right hand bringeth mighty things to pass. On Monday the 15th instant I am to set out hence for Ireland. Grace and peace be with you.--I am, with tender affection, Your loving brother. This was wrote a week, but forgot to be sent. To Thomas Whitehead () BRISTOL, February 10, 1748. You ask me, ’Is there any difference between Quakerism and Christianity ’I think there is. What that difference is I will tell you as plainly as I can. I will first set down the account of Quakerism (so called) which is given by Robert Barclay; and then add wherein it agrees with, and wherein it differs from, Christianity. 1. ’Seeing the height of all happiness is placed in the true knowledge of God, the right understanding of this is what is most necessary to be known in the first place.’ 2. ’It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be revealed. And these revelations, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures.’ Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. ’ Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone.’ Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touchstone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal ’to the law and to the testimony,’ and try every spirit thereby. 3. ’From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints have proceeded the Scriptures of truth.’ In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. ’ Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By Him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore the Spirit is the first and principal leader.’ If by these words--’ The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners ’--be only meant that ’the Spirit is our first and principal leader,’ here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But there is great impropriety of expression. For though the Spirit is our principal leader, yet He is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby He leads us into all truth. Therefore, only talk good English; call the Spirit our ’guide,’ which signifies an intelligent being, and the Scriptures our ’rule,’ which signifies something used by an intelligent being, and all is plain and clear. 4. ’All mankind is fallen and dead, deprived of the sensation of this inward testimony of God, and subject to the power and nature of the devil, while they abide in their natural state. And hence not only their words and deeds, but all their imaginations, are evil perpetually in the sight of God.’ 5. ’God out of His infinite love hath so loved the world that He gave His only Son, to the end that whosoever believeth on Him might have everlasting life. And He enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world, as He tasted death for every man.’ 6. ’The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of His death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of His death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer His grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy.’ In these points there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. 7. ’As many as receive the light, in them is produced an holy and spiritual birth, bringing forth holiness, righteousness, purity, and all other blessed fruits. By which holy birth, as we are sanctified, so we are justified.’ Here is a wide difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is flat justification by works. Whereas the Christian doctrine is, that ’we are justified by faith’; that ’unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.’ The ground of this mistake is the not understanding the meaning of the word ’justification.’ For Robert Barclay takes it in the same sense as the Papists do, confounding it with sanctification. So, in page 208 of his Apology, he says in express terms, ’Justification, taken in its proper signification, is making one just, and is all one with sanctification.’ 8. ’In whom this holy birth is fully brought forth, the body of sin and death is crucified, and their hearts are subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion of the evil one; but to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect perfect.’ 9. ’They in whom His grace hath wrought in part to purify and sanctify them may yet by disobedience fall from it and make shipwreck of the faith.’ In these propositions there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. The uncommon expression ’This holy birth brought forth’ is taken from Jacob Behmen. [See Wesley’s Thoughts upon Jacob Behmen (1575-1624) in Works, ix. 509-18.] And, indeed, so are many other expressions used by the Quakers, as are also many of their sentiments. 10. ’By this light of God in the heart every true minister is ordained, prepared, and supplied in the work of the ministry.’ As to part of this proposition, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Doubtless ’every true minister is by the light of God prepared and supplied in the work of the ministry.’ But the Apostles themselves ordained them by ’laying on of hands.’ So we read throughout the Acts of the Apostles. ’They who have received this gift ought not to use it as a trade, to get money thereby. Yet it may be lawful for such to receive what may be needful to them for food and clothing.’ In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. ’We judge it noways unlawful for a woman to preach in the assemblies of God’s people.’ In this there is a manifest difference: for the Apostle Paul saith expressly, ’Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak.... And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.’ (I Cor. xiv.34-5.) Robert Barclay, indeed, says, ’Paul here only reproves the inconsiderate and talkative women.’ But the text says no such thing. It evidently speaks of women in general. Again: the Apostle Paul saith to Timothy, ’Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man’(which public teaching necessarily implies),’but to be in silence. (I Tim. ii. 11-12.) To this Robert Barclay makes only that harmless reply: ’We think this is not anyways repugnant to this doctrine.’ Not repugnant to this, ’I do not suffer a woman to teach’! Then I know not what is. ’But a woman " laboured with Paul in the work of the gospel." ’Yea, but not in the way he had himself expressly forbidden. ’ But Joel foretold, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." And "Philip had four daughters which prophesied." And the Apostle himself directs women to prophesy; only with their heads covered.’ Very good. But how do you prove that prophesying in any of these places means preaching 11. ’All true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of His own Spirit. We ought not to pray or preach where and when we will, but where and when we are moved thereto by His Spirit. All other worship, both praises, prayers, and preachings, which man sets about in his own will, and at his own appointment, which he can begin and end at pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are but superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatries.’ Here lies one of the main differences between Quakerism and Christianity. It is true, indeed, that ’all true worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving of His own Spirit’; or (to speak plain), that we cannot truly worship God, unless His Spirit move or incline our hearts. It is equally true that ’we ought to pray and preach only where and when we are moved thereto by His Spirit.’ But I fear you do not in any wise understand what the being ’moved by His Spirit’ means. God moves man, whom He has made a reasonable creature, according to the reason which He has given him. He moves him by his understanding as well as his affections, by light as well as by heat. He moves him to do this or that by conviction full as often as by desire. Accordingly you are as really ’moved by the Spirit’ when He convinces you you ought to feed him that is hungry, as when He gives you ever so strong an impulse, desire, or inclination so to do. In like manner, you are as really moved by the Spirit to pray, whether it be in public or private, when you have a conviction it is the will of God you should, as when you have the strongest impulse upon your heart. And He does truly move you to preach, when in His light you ’see light’ clearly satisfying you it is His will, as much as when you feel the most vehement impulse or desire to ’hold forth the words of eternal life.’ Now let us consider the main proposition: ’All worship which man sets about in his own will and at his own appointment’ Hold! That is quite another thing. It may be at his own appointment, and yet not in his own will; for instance: It is not my own will to preach at all. It is quite contrary to my will. Many a time have I cried out, ’Lord, send by whom Thou wilt send; only send not me I’ But I am moved by the Spirit of God to preach: He clearly shows me it is His will I should; and that I should do it when and where the greatest number of poor sinners may be gathered together. Moved by Him, I give up my will, and appoint a time and place, when by His power I trust to speak in His name. How widely different, then, from true Christianity is that amazing sentence, ’All praises, prayers, and preachings which man can begin and end at his pleasure, do or leave undone, as himself sees meet, are superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of God ’! There is not one tittle of Scripture for this; nor yet is there any sound reason. When you take it for granted, ’In all preachings which a man begins or ends at his pleasure, does or leaves undone as he sees meet, he is not moved by the Spirit of God,’ you are too hasty a great deal. It may be by the Spirit that he sees meet to do or leave it undone. How will you prove that it is not His pleasure may depend on the pleasure of God, signified to him by His Spirit. His appointing this or that time or place does in no wise prove the contrary. Prove me that proposition, if you can: ’Every man who preaches or prays at an appointed time, preaches or prays in his own will, and not by the Spirit.’ That ’all such preaching is will-worship, in the sense St. Paul uses the word,’ is no more true than that it is murder. That it is superstition remains also to be proved. That it is abominable idolatry, how will you reconcile with what follows but a few lines after--’However it might please God, who winked at the times of ignorance, to raise some breathings and answer them.’ What! answer the breathings of abominable idolatry! I observe how warily this is worded; but it allows enough. If God ever raised and answered those prayers which were made at set times, then those prayers could not be abominable idolatry. Again: that prayers and preachings, though made at appointed times, may yet proceed from the Spirit of God, may be clearly proved from those other words of Robert Barclay himself, page 389: ’That preaching or prayer which is not done by the actings and movings of God’s Spirit cannot beget faith.’ Most true. But preaching and prayer at appointed times have begotten faith both at Bristol and Paulton. You know it well. Therefore that preaching and prayer, though at appointed times, was ’done by the actings and movings of God’s Spirit.’ It follows that this preaching and prayer were far from ’abominable idolatry.’ That expression can never be defended. Say it was a rash word, and give it up. In truth, from the beginning to the end you set this matter upon a wrong foundation. It is not on this circumstance--the being at set times or not--that the acceptableness of our prayers depends, but on the intention and tempers with which we pray. He that prays in faith, at whatsoever time, is heard. In every time and place God accepts him who ’lifts up holy hands without wrath or doubting.’ The charge of superstition, therefore, returns upon yourself; for what gross superstition is this, to lay so much stress on an indifferent circumstance and so little on faith and the love of God! But to proceed: ’We confess singing of psalms to be a part of God’s worship, and very sweet and refreshful when it proceeds from a true sense of God’s love; but as for formal singing, it has no foundation in Scripture.’ In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But let it be observed here that the Quakers in general cannot be excused, if this is true; for if they ’confess singing of psalms to be a part of God’s worship,’ how dare they either condemn or neglect it ’ Silence is a principal part of God’s worship--that is, men’s sitting silent together, ceasing from all outwards, from their own words and actings, in the natural will and comprehension, and feeling after the inward seed of life.’ In this there is a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is will-worship, if there be any such thing under heaven; for there is neither command nor example for it in Scripture. Robert Barclay, indeed, refers to abundance of scriptures to prove it is a command. But as he did not see good to set them down at length, I will take the trouble to transcribe a few of them: ’ Wait on the Lord; be of good courage, and He shall strengthen shine heart ’(Ps. xxvii. 14). ’Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently: fret not thyself at him who prospereth in his way ’; ’Wait on the Lord, and keep His way, and He shall exalt thee to inherit the land’ (Ps. xxxvii. 7, 34). ’Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord, and He shall save thee’(Prov. xx. 22). By these one may judge of the rest. But how amazing is this! What are all these to the point in question For examples of silent meetings he refers to the five texts following: ’They were all with one accord in one place’ (Acts ii. I). ’So they sat down with him seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him; for they saw that his grief was very great’(Job ii. 13). ’Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of God;... and I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice’ (Ezra ix. 4). ’Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me (Ezek. xiv. I, XX. I). Was it possible for Robert Barclay to believe that any one of these texts was anything to the purpose The odd expressions here also--’Ceasing from all outwards, in the natural will and comprehension, and feeling after the inward seed of life’--are borrowed from Jacob Behmen. 12. ’As there is one Lord and one faith, so there is one baptism.’ Yea, one outward baptism; which you deny. Here, therefore, is another difference between Quakerism and Christianity. But ’if those whom John baptized with water were not baptized with the baptism of Christ, then the baptism of water is not the baptism of Christ.’ This is a mere quibble. The sequel ought to be, ’Then that baptism of water’(that is, John’s baptism) ’was not the baptism of Christ.’ Who says it was Yet Robert Barclay is so fond of this argument that he repeats it almost in the same words: ’ If John, who administered the baptism of water, yet did not baptize with the baptism of Christ, then the baptism of water is not the baptism of Christ.’ This is the same fallacy still. The sequel here also should be, ’Then that baptism of water was not the baptism of Christ.’ He repeats it, with a little variation, a third time: ’Christ Himself saith, "John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." ’ He repeats it a fourth time: ’Peter saith, "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." From all which it follows that such as John baptized with water, yet were not baptized with the baptism of Christ.’ Very true. But this proves neither more nor less than that the baptism of John differed from the baptism of Christ. And so doubtless it did; not, indeed, as to the outward sign, but as to the inward grace. 13. ’The breaking of bread by Christ with His disciples was but a figure, and ceases in such as have obtained the substance.’ Here is another manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity. From the very time that our Lord gave that command, ’Do this in remembrance of Me,’ all Christians throughout the habitable world did eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him. Allowing, therefore, all that Robert Barclay affirms for eighteen or twenty pages together,--namely (1) that believers partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner; (2) that this may be done in some sense when we are not eating bread and drinking wine; (3) that the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Papists differ from each other with regard to the Lord’s Supper; and (4) that many of them have spoken wildly and absurdly concerning it,--yet all this will never prove that we need not do what Christ has expressly commanded to be done, and what the whole body of Christians in all ages have done in obedience to that command. That there was such a command you cannot deny. But you say, ’It is ceased in such as have obtained the substance.’ St. Paul knew nothing of this. He says nothing of its ceasing in all he writes of it to the Corinthians. Nay, quite the contrary. He says, ’As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.’ Oh, say you, the Apostle means ’His inward coming, which some of the Corinthians had not yet known.’ Nay, this cannot be his meaning; for he saith to all the Corinthian communicants, ’Ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.’ Now, if He was not come (spiritually) in some of these, undoubtedly He was in others. Consequently he cannot be speaking here of that coming which, in many of them at least, was already past. It remains, that he speaks of His coming in the clouds to judge both the quick and dead. In what Robert Barclay teaches concerning the Scriptures, Justification, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper lies the main difference between Quakerism and Christianity. 14. ’Since God hath assumed to Himself the dominion of the conscience, who alone can rightly instruct and govern it; therefore it is not lawful for any whatsoever to force the consciences of others.’ In this there is no difference at all between Quakerism and Christianity. 15. ’It is not lawful for Christians to give or receive titles of honour, as, Your Majesty, Your Lordship, &c.’ In this there is a difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Christians may give titles of honour, such as are usually annexed to certain offices. Thus St. Paul gives the usual title of ’Most Noble’ to the Roman Governor. Robert Barclay, indeed, says, ’He would not have called him such if he had not been truly noble; as, indeed, he was, in that he would not give way to the fury of the Jews against him.’ The Scripture says quite otherwise--that he did give way to the fury of the Jews against him. I read: ’Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure (who had desired a favour against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, lying in wait in the way to kill him), said to Paul, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgement-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. If I have done anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them.’ Hence it plainly appears that Festus was a very wicked person-one who, ’to do the Jews a pleasure,’ would have betrayed the innocent blood. But although St. Paul was not ignorant of his character, still he called him ’Most Noble Festus,’ giving him the title of his office; which, indeed, was neither more nor less than saying, ’Governor Festus’ or ’King Agrippa..’ It is therefore mere superstition to scruple this. And it is, if possible, greater superstition still to scruple saying you, vous, or ihr, whether to one or more persons, as is the common way of speaking in any country. It is this which fixes the language of every nation. It is this which makes me say you in England, vous in France, and ihr in Germany, rather than thou, tu, or du, rather than su, se, or +HEB+; which, if we speak strictly, is the only scriptural language; not thou or thee any more than you. But the placing religion in such things as these is such egregious trifling, as naturally tends to make all religion stink in the nostrils of infidels and heathens. And yet this, by a far greater abuse of words than that you would reform, you call the plain language. O my friend! he uses the plain language who speaks the truth from his heart; not he who says thee or thou, and in the meantime will dissemble or flatter, like the rest of the world. ’It is not lawful for Christians to kneel, or bow the body, or uncover the head to any man.’ If this is not lawful, then some law of God forbids it. Can you show me that law If you cannot, then the scrupling this is another plain instance of superstition, not Christianity. ’It is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel; as neither to use such games, sports, and plays, under the notion of recreations, as are not consistent with gravity and godly fear.’ As to both these propositions, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Only observe, touching the former, that the sin of superfluous apparel lies chiefly in the superfluous expense. To make it, therefore, a point of conscience to differ from others as to the shape or colour of your apparel is mere superstition: let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none. ’It is not lawful for Christians to swear before a magistrate, nor to fight in any case.’ Whatever becomes of the latter proposition, the former is no part of Christianity; for Christ Himself answered upon oath before a magistrate. Yea, He would not answer till He was put to His oath, till the high-priest said unto Him, ’I adjure thee by the living God.’ Friend, you have an honest heart, but a weak head; you have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. You was zealous once for the love of God and man, for holiness of heart and holiness of life: you are now zealous for particular forms of speaking, for a set of phrases and opinions. Once your zeal was against ungodliness and unrighteousness, against evil tempers and evil works: now it is against forms of prayer, against singing psalms or hymns, against appointing times of praying or preaching; against saying ’you’ to a single person, uncovering your head, or having too many buttons upon your coat. Oh what a fall is here! What poor trifles are these, that now wellnigh engross your thoughts! Come back, come back to the weightier matters of the law, to spiritual, rational, scriptural religion. No longer waste your time and strength in beating the air, in vain controversies and strife of words; but bend your whole soul to the growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the continually advancing in that holiness without which you cannot see the Lord. To Mrs. Jones, of Fonmon Castle BRISTOL, February 12, 1748. At my return from Ireland, if not before, I believe the school in Kingswood will be opened. If your son comes there, you will probably hear complaints [See letter of Nov. 7, 1749.]; for the discipline will be exact: it being our view not so much to teach Greek and Latin as to train up soldiers for Jesus Christ. I am obliged now to go the shortest way to Holyhead, my brother being almost impatient for my arrival. I am sorry to hear that Mr. Thomas thinks of leaving Mr. Hodges: I doubt their separation will not be for the furtherance of the gospel. My love and service attend all your family.--I am Your affectionate friend and servant. I have sent a few copies for Miss Molly.[Mrs. Jones’s eldest daughter, Mary, who married William Thomas, of Llanbradach, in Glamorganshire.] To Howell Harris HOLYHEAD, February 28, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I presume you know how bitter Mr. Ellis (the minister here) used to be against the Methodists. On Friday he came to hear me preach, I believe with no friendly intention. Brother Swindells[Robert Swindells, a man of great zeal and fine spirit, was one of Wesley’s devoted preachers for more than forty years. He did much for the poor, and sometimes gave even part of his own clothes to relieve distress. He suffered much, and died suddenly in 1782. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 409; and letter of Feb. 14, 1778, to Mrs. Johnson.] spoke a few words to him, whereupon he invited him to his house. Since then they have spent several hours together, and I believe his views of things are greatly changed. He commends you much for bringing the Methodists back to the Church; and at his request I have wrote a little thing to the same effect. He will translate it into Welsh, and then I design to print it both in Welsh and English: I will send you some as soon as I can, that you may disperse them when you see occasion. I thought it good to apprise you of this before. I know your heart is herein as my heart. O my brother, let us join hand in hand and fight our way through I I want all your prayers. I believe God has detained us here for the sake both of the minister and the people. Grace and peace be with you and yours.--I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Cennick March 14, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have heard much since I came to Dublin of the affair of Skinner’s Alley. I am unwilling to do anything which may appear contrary to brotherly love, and therefore, if you desire it and can procure Mr. Edwards’ consent, I am willing to give up the house into your hands this day. I wish you much light and love of God; and am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Cennick, Skinner’s Alley. To John Cennick SHIP STREET, March 14, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You say true, Mr. Edwards has not now any authority to let that house. What I desire is to do as I would be done to with as little noise as possible. I am ready just now, and throughly willing to put you into possession of the house. I am only in doubt which is the most inoffensive method of doing it, and whether it would not be best to delay a few days; but in this also I shall be glad to be advised. I salute you and yours in the Lord and our dear brother Toltschig; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Cennick, At Skinner’s Alley. To Ebenezer Blackwell DUBLIN, March 15, 1743. DEAR SIR,--I have inquired of several, but cannot yet hear of any such merchant as Mr. John Warr in Dublin. A gentleman informed me this morning that there was one of that name, but he has been dead for many years. I suppose this cannot be the same person to whom Mr. Belchier’s [William Belchier was a banker in Southwark. He represented that borough in Parliament in 1747 and 1754. Wesley dined with him at Epsom on Aug. 13, 1759. See Journal, iv. 349; W.H.S. iv. 67-9; and letter of April 9, 1755.] letter is directed. We have not found a place yet that will suit us for building. Several we have heard of, and seen some; but they are all leasehold land, and I am determined to have freehold, if it is to be had in Dublin; otherwise we must lie at the mercy of our landlord whenever the lease is to be renewed. I find the engaging, though but a little, in these temporal affairs is apt to damp and deaden the soul; and there is no remedy but continual prayer. What, then, but the mighty power of God can keep your soul alive, who are engaged all the day long in such a multiplicity of them It is well that His grace is sufficient for you. But do you not find need to pray always And if you can’t always say, My hands are but employed below, My heart is still with Thee, is there not the more occasion for some season of solemn retirement (if it were possible, every day), wherein you may withdraw your mind from earth, and even the accounts between God and your own soul I commend you and yours to His continual protection; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. I suppose my brother will be with you almost as soon as this.[Charles Wesley was detained a week through ill-health, but got to Holyhead on March 21.] To William Holland DUBLIN, March 16, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The affair of which you had some account in London is likely to come to a good conclusion. Mr. Samuel Edwards has given Mr. Perronet a lease of the house in Skinner’s Alley for three years. This Mr. Perronet transferred to me on Monday; on which I immediately wrote to Mr. Cennick, into whose hands I design to give it up with as little noise as possible. I could not be easy if I had two places to preach in and he none at all. I have not heard from you a long time. I trust you are at peace in Him that hath loved you, and that your heart is still with Your affectionate brother. To William Holland DUBLIN, March 17, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Satan hindered our journey hither as long as he could. We were a month in the journey from Bristol to Dublin, and after twelve days’ stop at Holyhead were at length driven over by a violent storm. But we came neither too soon nor too late. Our Lord’s time is the best time. You give me an agreeable account of Mr. Hutchins.[See letter of Dec. 20, 1746.] I immediately communicated it to my brother, who will consider that matter more deeply when he comes to London. He is to sail as soon as the wind serves. I rejoice to hear that you are acquainted with Brother Jones, and trust you will be blest to each other’s souls. He is indeed simple of heart, and a faithful labourer in the vineyard of our blessed Lord. I greatly want two books, which I forgot to procure at London--the one the Count’s Testament, the other the Herrnhut Gesang-Buch. Perhaps, if any of the brethren come from London, they would be so kind as to bring them for me. Peace be with you and yours, my dear brother.--I am Your ever loving brother. To ’John Smith’ DUBLIN, March 22, 1748. SIR,--1. I rejoice to find that in some points we come nearer each other, and that we can bear with each other where we do not. I entirely agree that hell was designed only for stubborn, impenitent sinners, and consequently that it would be absurd to ’threaten damnation to any merely for differing from me in speculations.’ But it is an absurdity which I have nothing to do with; for it never yet entered into my thoughts. 2. I rejoice likewise in your allowing that my ’speculations, though false, yea, and leading to a deviation from order, may yet possibly be neither wilful nor sinful’; and much more in that which follows--’I question not but God’s mercy may both forgive and reward’ even that zeal which is not according to knowledge. 3. Yet ’such deviation,’ you think, ’may open a door to much disorder and error.’ I grant it may; but I still insist (1) that accidental ill consequences may flow from a good thing; (2) that the good consequences in the present case overbalance the evil beyond all possible degrees of comparison. The same I believe of Mr. Whitefield’s public preaching (which was not the consequence but the cause of mine), whose doctrine in general (though he is mistaken in some points) I believe to be the truth of the gospel. 4. I never did censure the whole body of clergy; and God forbid that I ever should. I do not willingly censure any, even the grossly immoral. But you advise to ’complain of these to the Bishop of the diocese.’ In what way ’Be so public-spirited as to present them.’ Much may be said on that question. I should ask: (1) Have I a right to present them I apprehend not. The churchwardens of each parish are to do this; which they will hardly do at my instance. (2) If I could do it myself, the presenting them to the Court is not presenting them to the Bishop: the Bishop, you cannot but know, has no more authority in what is called the Bishop’s Court than the Pope of Rome. (3) I cannot present, suppose, thirty persons in as many counties, to the lay chancellors or officials (men whom I apprehend to have just as much authority from Scripture to administer the sacraments as to try ecclesiastical causes), without such an expense both of labour and money and time as I am by no means able to sustain. And what would be the fruit, if I could sustain it if I was the informer-general against the immoral clergy of England O sir, can you imagine, or dare you say, that I should ’have the thanks of the bishops, and of all good men, both clergy and laity’ If you allow only those to be good men who would thank me for this, I fear you would not find seven thousand good men in all our Israel. 5. But you have been ’assured there are proofs about to be produced of very shocking things among us also.’ It is very possible you may. And, to say the truth, I expected such things long ago. In such a body of people, must there not be some hypocrites, and some who did for a time serve God in sincerity, and yet afterwards turn back from the holy commandment once delivered to them I am amazed there have been so few instances of this, and look for more every day. The melancholy case of that unhappy man Mr. Hall I do not rank among these; for he had renounced us long ago, and that over and over, both by word and writing, [See letter of Nov. 17, 1742.] And though he called upon me once or twice a year, and lately made some little overtures of friendship, yet I have it under his own hand he could have no fellowship with us because we would not leave the Church. But quia intellexi minus, protrusit foras. [’Because I seemed reluctant to entertain his views, he expelled me from his dwelling.’] To make it quite plain and clear how close a connexion there was between him and me, when I lately called on his poor wife at Salisbury, he fairly turned me out of doors and my sister after me.[See letter of Feb. 2.] 6. My father did not die unacquainted with the faith of the gospel, of the primitive Christians, or of our first Reformers; the same which, by the grace of God, I preach, and which is just as new as Christianity. What he experienced before, I know not; but I know that during his last illness, which continued eight months, he enjoyed a clear sense of his acceptance with God. I heard him express it more than once, although at that time I understood him not. ’The inward witness, son, the inward witness,’ said he to me, ’that is the proof, the strongest proof, of Christianity.’ And when I asked him (the time of his change drawing nigh), ’Sir, are you in much pain’ he answered aloud, with a smile, ’God does chasten me with pain--yea, all my bones with strong pain; but I thank Him for all, I bless Him for all, I love Him for all!’ I think the last words he spoke, when I had just commended his soul to God, were, ’Now you have done all.’ And, with the same serene, cheerful countenance, he fell asleep, without one struggle or sigh or groan. I cannot therefore doubt but the Spirit of God bore an inward witness with his spirit that he was a child of God.[See Charles Wesley’s letter to Samuel, April 30, 1735, in Priestley’s Letters, pp. 51-3.] 7. That ’God blesses a doctrine preached (new or old) to the saving of souls from death does not prove that every circumstance of it is true; for a Predestinarian preacher may save souls.’ But it undoubtedly proves that the main of what is preached is the truth as it is in Jesus; for it is only the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto salvation. Human wisdom, as human laws, may restrain from outward sin; but they cannot avail to the saving of the soul. If God gives this blessing to what is preached, it is a sufficient ’proof of His approbation.’ But I will not contend about words, or, when His blessing is allowed, dispute whether it has His approbation or not. 8. But to argue on your own supposition: you say, ’It only shows that novelty, which has a natural tendency to awakening, may, when God pleases, have an efficacious tendency to amending.’ Well, then, if the novelty of an indifferent circumstance, such as place, has a natural tendency to awakening, surely we may use it according to its natural tendency, in order to awaken those that sleep in sin I And if God has, in fact, been pleased to use it beyond its natural tendency, to make it efficacious for amending as well as awakening, ought we not to acquiesce, yea, and rejoice therein 9. But are sinners amended Are they saved from their sins Are they truly converted to God Here is, what always must be, the main question. That many are in some sort converted is owned. But to what are they converted ’to the belief of such proofless, incredible stuff as transubstantiation or to the Popish severities of flesh-fasting, celibacies, and other monkeries’ Not so. If they are converted at all, they are converted from all manner of wickedness ’to a sober, righteous, and godly life.’ Such an uniform practice is true outward holiness. And, wherever this is undeniably found, we ought to believe there is holiness of heart, seeing the tree is known by its fruits. 10. That ’the conversion of sinners to this holiness is no miracle at all’ is new doctrine indeed! So new to me that I never heard it before, either among Protestants or Papists. I think a miracle is a work of omnipotence wrought by the supernatural power of God. Now, if the conversion of sinners to holiness is not such a work, I cannot tell what is. I apprehend our Lord accounts it a greater work than giving sight to the blind, yea, or raising the dead; for it was after He had raised Lazarus from the dead that He told His Apostles, ’Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also. And greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto My Father.’ Greater outward works they could not do. It remains, therefore, that we understand those solemn words of converting souls to God; which is, indeed, a greater work than any that can be wrought on the body. 11. I am glad you do ’not demand miracles in proof of doctrines.’ Thus far, then, we are agreed. But you demand them (1) ’as things to which I lay claim,’ and in order to show that claim cannot be supported; (2) as necessary to give me ’a right to be implicitly believed ’; and (3) to justify my ’assuming the Apostolate of England.’ If this be all, your demand must soon fall to the ground, since the whole foundation sinks beneath it. For: (1) I lay no claim (in your sense) to miracles; for the clearing of which suffer me to refer you once more (that I may not be surfeited with crambe decies repetita [Juvenal’s Satires, vii. 154: ’Saying the same things ten times over.’ Wesley adds decies.]) to the second letter to Mr. Church.[See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. 5.] (2) I claim no implicit faith: I neither pay it to, nor expect it from, any man living. (3) I no otherwise assume the Apostolate of England (if you choose to use the phrase) than I assume the Apostolate of all Europe, or, rather, of all the world; that is, in plain terms, wherever I see one or a thousand men running into hell, be it in England, Ireland, or France, yea, in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, I will stop them if I can: as a minister of Christ, I will beseech them in His name to turn back and be reconciled to God.[See letter of March 20, 1739.] Were I to do otherwise, were I to let any soul drop into the pit whom I might have saved from everlasting burnings, I am not satisfied God would accept my plea, ’Lord, he was not of my parish.’ 12. If a single parish takes up your whole time and care, and you spend and are spent upon it, well. And yet I will be bold to say that no blessing from God will accompany your ministry, but the drunkard will be a drunkard still (and so the covetous, the brawler, the adulterer), unless you both believe and teach what you love to call my ’new notions of inspiration’; I mean as to the substance, not the particular manner of explication. You will all the day long stretch out your hands in vain, unless you teach them to pray that the Spirit of God may inwardly witness with their spirits that they are the children of God. I apprehend you are the person that ’wriggle on this head,’ because the argument pinches: you appear to me to twist and wind to and fro, because I ’distinguish away,’ not my doctrines, but your objections--unravelling the fallacies, showing what part is false, and what part true, but nothing to the purpose. Since you move it again, I will resume the point once more. You will pardon me if I speak home, that it may be seen which of us two it is that has hitherto given the ’evasive answers.’ 13. You say, ’Notwithstanding all your pains to distort that text, for anything which has yet been said to the contrary, it may be understood of the Spirit’s witness by miracles, by prophecy, or by the imperceptibly wrought assurances of the Holy Ghost.’ This (unless it gives up the whole cause; as indeed it must if it does not imply a contradiction, seeing imperceptible assurance is no assurance at all) is neither an evasive nor an unevasive answer. It is just no answer at all. Instead of refuting my arguments, you reply, ’You distort the text. Ipse dixi.’ ’The Quakers maintain divine illapses and sensible communications always; you only sometimes.’ If you speak to the purpose, if you mean the inward witness of God’s Spirit, I maintain it always as well as they. ’The Methodist writings abound with intimations of divine communications, prophetic whispers, and special guidances.’ Perhaps so; but that is another question. We are now speaking of the inward witness of the Spirit. 14. ’They teach the notification of justification to be as perceptible as the sun at noonday.’ Now you come to the point, and I allow the charge. From the beginning of our correspondence to this day I have, without any shifting or evasion at all, maintained flatly and plainly: (1) A man feels the testimony of God’s Spirit, and cannot then deny or doubt his being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony is withdrawn: not from every child of God; many retain the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end. (3) Then he may doubt whether this testimony was of God; and perhaps at length deny that it was. There is no shadow of contradiction between this and the case of Hannah Richardson.[See letter of Dec. 30, 1745, sect. 7, to him.] For (1) She felt the testimony of God’s Spirit, and could not then deny or doubt her being a child of God. (2) After a time this testimony was withdrawn. (3) Then she doubted whether it was of God. Observe: she never forgot or denied that she had such a testimony; but she then doubted whether it was of God. But you have still more to remark upon this head: so I attend you step by step. 15. ’The instances produced’ (it should be ’instance,’ for you cite but one) ’in support of these high claims, instead of supporting, utterly subvert them. Thus Hannah Richardson had her justification notified; and yet she denied that her sins were forgiven.’ You should say, She doubted of it after a time, when the testimony of God’s Spirit was withdrawn. ’Now, either this notification was not so distinct as is pretended, or, if distinct, was notified by one of suspected credit, whom she could not believe. Or, if it was both distinct and credible, she was not of sound understanding if she disbelieved it, nor of sound memory if she’ (afterwards, it should be) ’doubted or denied that she had ever received such a message.’ You say: (1) ’Either that notification was not so distinct.’ It was so distinct that she could not then doubt. ’Or (2) Was notified to her by one of suspected credit, whom she could not believe.’ Yes; she then believed, and knew it was the voice of God. ’Or (3) She was not of sound understanding if she disbelieved it.’ When she disbelieved it, she was not. For as the serpent deceived Eve, so he then deceived her, fqeivrwn toV novmma aujth’". [See 2 Cor. xi. 3.] ’But could she possibly deny a plain matter of fact’ You add, as if I have said so, ’Yes, in process of time she might, particularly if she drew back to perdition ’; and then subjoin, ’But what is this evasive answer to the case of Hannah Richardson’ I think, nothing at all. I never applied it to her case. She never denied her having had such a testimony. But after a time she doubted (as I said before) whether that testimony was true. 16. I presume Eve in paradise was at least equal in understanding with any of her posterity. Now, unto her God said, ’In the day that thou eatest of the tree of knowledge thou shalt surely die.’ And doubtless ’this notification was as distinct and perceptible to her as the sun at noonday.’ Yet after a time (perhaps only a few days) she utterly disbelieved it. You exclaim, ’Absurd! Impossible! There could be no such thing; as I shall prove immediately.’ ’Either this notification was not so distinct as is pretended, or, if distinct, was notified by one of suspected credit, whom she could not believe. Or else, if it was both distinct and credible, she was not of sound understanding if she disbelieved it, nor of sound memory if she doubted of it.’ Therefore the whole story is absurd and a self-inconsistent (not a cunningly devised) fable. Is not the plain answer this This notification was as distinct as pretended; and it was not notified by one of suspected credit, whom she did then firmly believe. But afterwards Satan deceived her by his subtilty, fqeirwn to nohma auths --’corrupting, spoiling, destroying, the soundness of her understanding,’ and of her memory too; and then she disbelieved God, and believed him who said, ’Ye shall not surely die.’ How much more is he able by the same subtilty to deceive any of the fallen children of men! 17. What follows you did not design for argument, but wit. ’I cannot help thinking that Paul, with all his infirmities, might more reasonably be looked upon as an inspired prophet than Mr. Wesley, though arrived, in his own imagination, to a sinless perfection.’ I never told you so, nor any one else. I no more imagine that I have already attained, that I already love God with all my heart, soul, and strength, than that I am in the third heavens. But you make me abundant amends for this by your charitable belief that, though I may now imagine things that are not and be mistaken in many points, yet He who remembers I am but dust will at last ’forgive and reward me.’ It is enough; the time of error and sin is short, for eternity is at hand. Strangers and pilgrims here below, This earth, we know, is not our place; And hasten through the vale of woe, And, restless to behold Thy face, Swift to our heavenly country move, Our everlasting home above. To John Cennick CORK STREET, March 26, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Till the wind serves for Mr. Perronet and my brother to sail I shall have more encumbrance on my hand. When this is over, the sooner our little affair is dispatched the more agreeable a good deal to me. Mr. Perronet has made over the three years’ lease to me, so that now I think nothing hinders my doing what I see good. I know, indeed, many will blame me. But I cannot help that. I have only to clear my conscience in the sight of God. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be ever with your spirit and with all that are near and dear to you.--I remain Your most affectionate brother. To Mr. Cennick. To John Toltschig CORK STREET, March 26, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Has Mr. Cennick left any orders with you concerning the house in Skinner’s Alley If he has, if he is of the same mind, I am ready to do as I said to-day. If he has altered his mind, I design to preach there myself next week.--I am Your loving brother. I expected to have heard from him before he left Ireland. To Brother Toltschig To John Toltschig CORK STREET March 29, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I don’t think Mr. Cennick has used me well. He ought to have let me hear from him before he left the kingdom. It would have been only common civility, to say nothing of brotherly love. Since he has left all things undetermined (whether on purpose or no I leave to the Searcher of Hearts) my conscience is satisfied, and I think it would not be right to let the house lie empty any longer. I therefore design to preach there tomorrow. But whenever Mr. Cennick will indemnify me as to the bonds and covenants I am under, I will relinquish it to him at a month’s warning.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Toltschig. To his Brother Charles DUBLIN, Saturday, April 16, 1748. DEAR BROTHER,--We returned hither last night. But I must (as you observe) make another journey into the country. Our Societies there already consist of 350 members. But they are most of them raw, undisciplined soldiers, and, without great care, will desert to their old master. The Conference must be in London this year, in order to the meeting of the Stewards from all the Societies. I hope to be there about Wednesday in Whitsun week. Skinner’s Alley house is now, as it ever was, a millstone about my neck. I shall shake it off as soon as possible, and do as I would be done to. I can never get over ’We laid out so much money and have not had a penny returned.’[See letter of March 14.] T. Alsop is not equal to Reading, nor can John Jones ride long journeys.[John Jones was a medical man who became one of Wesley’s trusted preachers. He was a master at Kingswood. See Journal, iii. 530; and letter of Sept. 3, 1756, to Nicholas Norton.] I am glad you are returned. To William Mondet CORK STREET, April 16, 1748. SIR,--A warm letter, subscribed by Mr. Binns and you, was given me the evening before I left Dublin. The most material part of it ran thus: ’Why did you not settle that affair with Mr. Cennick before you preached in the house, which you could not preach in a fortnight ago for conscience’ sake’ Have patience: I will tell you why. I did not settle that affair with Mr. Cennick before he went away because I heard not one word of his going till he was agone. Otherwise it was my full design to have settled it then, which might have been done in a few hours’ time. I did not preach in the house a fortnight before because I was determined not to preach there till I should have made Mr. Cennick one more offer, as I thought brotherly love required; but after I had done this and he appeared to me (comparing his behaviour to me with his words to others) to trifle and put me off, I could not in conscience delay preaching there any longer. The fault lay at his door, and I now conceived myself to be clear in the sight of God and man, even though I should never have made him another offer of the place at all. You go on: ’How can you venture to take God’s name in your mouth, and to call upon God in an house, at which time your own conscience must tell you that you have taken the house over people’s heads It is our opinion, if you had the least feeling of God’s love in your heart, you could not do it.’ I suppose it is your opinion. But I stand before an higher Judge. You entirely mistake my motive of acting. I never looked upon the taking this house as ’the taking it over people’s heads.’ For it was advertised; and you positively refused to take it. This was not the ground of my scruple. But I desired to do as I would be done to. And I have done so to the best of my knowledge. Lord, what I know not teach Thou me! That I added after all, I ’am still ready, if it shall be required, to relinquish it at a month’s warning,’ you ought to have acknowledged as a fresh and signal proof both of uprightness and brotherly kindness. Mr. William Mondet. To John Toltschig CORK STREET, April 16, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--In my last letter I said, ’Whenever Mr. Cennick will indemnify me as to the bonds and covenants I am under, I will relinquish it’ (the house in Skinner’s Alley) ’to him at a month’s warning.’ I say so still. There has not yet been any stop on my part, neither shall be. By your letter of the 14th instant I learn (as well as by Mr. Cennick’s enclosed therein) that Mr. Horne has authority from Mr. Cennick to treat with me concerning it; who, you say, ’only waits for the time and place I shall appoint to meet with me.’ I will be ready at Mr. Watts’ in Park Street at six on Monday morning to show Mr. Horne what bonds and covenants I am under. And as soon as I am legally indemnified therefrom, I will put the house into his hands. The people at your Society hurt themselves only by the many untrue and unkind words which they continually utter concerning Your still loving though much injured brother. To Mr. Toltschig In Skinner’s Alley. To Ebenezer Blackwell DUBLIN, April 20, 1748.. DEAR SIR,--I am persuaded God has taught both Mrs. Blackwell and you to say, ’The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ Shall not all these things work together for good Perhaps God was jealous over you, lest your heart should lean to any of the things of earth. He will have you to be all His own, to desire nothing but Him, to seek Him and love Him with your whole heart. And He knows what are the hindrances, and what means will be most effectual toward it. Then let Him work according to the counsel of His own will. It is the Lord! Let Him do what seemeth Him good. Oh what a pearl, of how great price, is the very lowest degree of the peace of God! A little measure of it, I doubt not, you will find in the most trying circumstances. May God increase it a thousand-fold in both your hearts!--I am, dear sir, Your most affectionate servant, To William Holland DUBLIN, April 20, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope you now find things more according to your desire than when I left London, and that she who is as your own soul is more reconciled than she was to the will of our Lord concerning you. The Brethren also, I presume, now leave you to act as you are persuaded in your own mind. I have had some trials myself lately from those who are in union with them. I seek for peace; but when I speak unto them thereof, they make themselves ready for battle.[See letter of Feb. 6.] I trust they will do me much good; for I cannot possibly fasten any kindness on them. They seem determined to believe not one word I say. So much the more may I confirm my love toward them. O my brother, this is good and profitable for our souls. May our Lord give us all the mind that was in Him!--I am Your affectionate brother. To William Horne CORK STREET, April 22, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Meriton designs to call upon Mr. Edwards to-morrow and try whether he will accept of you for tenants. If he will, I shall be free from all encumbrances, and you will have the house by a common lease. If he will not, it will not hinder me; but I will meet you, if you please, at Mr. Watts’ at six on Monday morning.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Horne. To William Horne CORK STREET, April 27, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER, or, to speak civilly, SIR,--You do well to speak your mind. If it was my mind to keep the house, I should do it without seeking any presence at all. I have the staff in my own hands. But it is not my mind to keep it. One thing I know, that you had the house before we came to Dublin. A second thing I believe, that if we had not come you would have had it still. And this determined me to take the lease of Mr. Perronet that you might have it again. My yea is yea, and my nay is nay. What I said at first I say still. Indemnify me as to the rents and covenants, and take the house when you will. I have empowered Mr. Meriton to act for me, as you do for Mr. Cennick.--I am Your affectionate brother, or, if you choose it rather, Your humble servant. To a Clergyman TULLAMORE, May 4, 1748. REVEREND SIR,--I have at present neither leisure nor inclination to enter into a formal controversy; but you will give me leave just to offer a few loose hints relating to the subject of last night’s conversation. I. 1. Seeing life and health are things of so great importance, it is without question highly expedient that physicians should have all possible advantages of learning and education. 2. That trial should be made of them by competent judges before they practice publicly. 3. That after such trial they be authorized to practice by those who are empowered to convey that authority. 4. And that, while they are preserving the lives of others, they should have what is sufficient to sustain their own. 5. But, supposing a gentleman bred at the University in Dublin, with all the advantages of education, after he has undergone all the usual trials, and then been regularly authorized to practice,-- 6. Suppose, I say, this physician settles at --for some years, and yet makes no cures at all; but, after trying his skill on five hundred persons, cannot show that he has healed one, many of his patients dying under his hands, and the rest remaining just as they were before he came,-- 7. Will you condemn a man who, having some little skill in physic and a tender compassion for those who are sick or dying all around him, cures many of those without fee or reward whom the doctor could not cure-- 8. At least, did not; which is the same thing as to the case in hand, were it only for this reason--because he did not go to them, and they would not come to him. 9. Will you condemn him, because he has not learning or has not had an university education What then He cures those whom the man of learning and education cannot cure. 10. Will you object, that he is no physician nor has any authority to practice I cannot come into your opinion. I think medicus est qui medetur, ’he is a physician who heals,’ and that every man has authority to save the life of a dying man. But, if you only mean he has no authority to take fees, I contend not; for he takes none at all. 11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, medicus non est qui non medetur;--I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, ’he is no physician who works no cure.’ 12. ’Oh, but he has taken his degree of Doctor of Physic, and therefore has authority.’ Authority to do what ’Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him.’ But (to waive the case of those who will not employ him; and would you have even their lives thrown away) he does not heal those that do employ him. He that was sick before is sick still; or else he is gone hence, and is no more seen. Therefore his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end for which it was given. 13. And surely he has not authority to kill them by hindering another from saving their lives! 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men he regards his own fees more than the lives of his patients. II. Now to apply. 1. Seeing life everlasting and holiness, or health of soul, are things of so great importance, it was highly expedient that ministers, being physicians of the soul, should have all advantages of education and learning. 2. That full trial should be made of them in all respects, and that by the most competent judges, before they enter on the public exercise of their office, the saving souls from death. 3. That after such trial they be authorized to exercise that office by those who are empowered to convey that authority. (I believe bishops are empowered to do this, and have been so from the apostolic age.) 4. And that those whose souls they save ought in the meantime to provide them what is needful for the body. 5. But, suppose a gentleman bred at the University of Dublin, with all the advantages of education, after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death,-- 6. Suppose, I say, this minister settles at for some years, and yet saves no soul at all, saves no sinners from their sins; but, after he has preached all this time to five or six hundred persons, cannot show that he has converted one from the error of his ways, many of his parishioners dying as they lived, and the rest remaining just as they were before he came,-- 7. Will you condemn a man who, having compassion on dying souls and some knowledge of the gospel of Christ, without any temporal reward, saves many from their sins whom the minister could not save-- 8. At least, did not: nor ever was likely to do it; for he did not go to them, and they would not come to him. 9. Will you condemn such a preacher, because he has not learning or has not had an university education What then He saves those sinners from their sins whom the man of learning and education cannot save. A peasant being brought before the College of Physicians in Paris, a learned doctor accosted him, ’What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe to people that have agues Dost thou know what an ague is’ He replied, ’Yes, sir. An ague is what I can cure and you cannot.’ 10. Will you object, ’But he is no minister, nor has any authority to save souls’ I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think he is a true, evangelical minister, diakonos, servant of Christ and His Church, who outw diakonei, so ministers, as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins; and that every Christian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul. But, if you only mean he has no authority to take tithes, I grant it. He takes none; as he has freely received, so he freely gives. 11. But to carry the matter a little farther. I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, medicus non est qui non medetur;--I am afraid reasonable men will be much inclined to think he that saves no souls is no minister of Christ. 12. ’Oh, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.’ Authority to do what ’To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care.’ True; but (to waive the case of them that will not; and would you desire that even those should perish) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care. Therefore what end does his authority serve He that was a drunkard is a drunkard still. The same is true of the Sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case; for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman’s hand. 13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls, either by his neglect, by his smooth if not false doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire and bringing them to life everlasting! 14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear that he regards his own profit more than the salvation of souls.--I am, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother. To William Mondet CORK STREET, May 14, 1748. SIR,--What I said at first, I say just now without any intricacy or reserve at all: ’Indemnify me, and take the house to-day.’ But be sure; I will keep it till I am indemnified. And if you refuse to do this, ’tis not I refuse to quit, but you refuse to take the house. Every sensible man must see where it sticks--namely, at you, and not at me.--I am Your well-wisher and servant for Christ’s sake. Mr. Meriton and Williams have power to transact this without me. To Mr. W. Mondet. To John Cennick May 16, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I know you cannot indemnify me with regard to the rents and covenants I am under, which was the thing I always insisted on, and must insist on still, without encumbering yourselves. If, therefore, you cannot accept the house ’upon these conditions,’ the case is determined at once. I wish you much happiness; and am Your very affectionate brother. To Mr. Cennick. To John Haime LONDON, June 21, 1748. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which God hath seen good to try you with. Indeed, the chastisement for the present is not joyous, but grievous; nevertheless it will by-and-by bring forth the peaceable fruits of righteousness. It is good for you to be in the fiery furnace: though the flesh be weary to bear it, you shall be purified therein, but not consumed; for there is one with you whose form is as the Son of God. O look up! Take knowledge of Him who spreads underneath you His everlasting arms I Lean upon Him with the whole weight of your soul. He is yours; lay hold upon Him. Away let grief and sighing flee; Jesus hath died for thee, for thee. Mercy and peace shall not forsake you. Through every threatening cloud look up, and wait for happy days. To Ebenezer Blackwell NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, August 14, 1748. DEAR SIR,--I trust you do not grow weary or faint in your mind; although you cannot but find a thousand temptations. Business itself, when it comes in such a flood upon you, must needs be one of the greatest temptations, since it naturally tends to hinder your waiting upon God (as you would desire always to do) without distraction. And when our mind is hurried, it is hardly possible to retain either the spirit of prayer or of thankfulness. But still, with God no word shall be impossible. He has called you by His providence to this way of life; and He is able to preserve you in the midst of the world as well as in a desert. And I cannot doubt but He will, because you appear to be sensible of your danger. Walk, then, through the fire; you shall not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon you. Come unto Jesus upon the waves of the sea; the floods shall not run over you. I have had some thoughts of printing, on a finer paper and with a larger letter, not only all that we have published already, but, it may be, all that is most valuable in the English tongue, in threescore or fourscore volumes, in order to provide a complete library for those that fear God. I should print only an hundred copies of each. Brother Downes [See letter of Nov. 7, 1751.] would give himself up to the work; so that, whenever I can procure a printing-press, types, and some quantity of paper, I can begin immediately. I am inclined to think several would be glad to forward such a design; and if so, the sooner the better, because my life is far spent, and I know not how soon the night cometh wherein no man can work. I commend you, and dear Mrs. Blackwell, and Mrs. Dewal to the grace of God; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. I leave this place on Tuesday, and propose to spend ten or twelve days about Leeds. To a Friend NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, August 14, 1748. Are you still pressing toward the mark, the prize of your high calling Is your hope full of immortality Do you continue to count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus Some time since, I was in much concern for you, lest you should be swallowed up in the things of earth. But I trust God has wrought a great deliverance for you, and given you to choose Him for your God and your all. O seek Him with an undivided heart, till you see Him as He is. I have often thought of mentioning to you and a few others a design I have had for some years of printing a little library, perhaps of fourscore or one hundred volumes, for the use of those that fear God. My purpose was to select whatever I had seen most valuable in the English language, and either abridge or take the whole tracts, only a little corrected or explained, as occasion should require. Of these I could print ten or twelve, more or less, every year, on a fine paper, and large letter, which should be cast for the purpose. As soon as I am able to purchase a printing-press and types, I think of entering on this design. I have several books now ready, and a printer who desires nothing more than food and raiment. In three or four weeks I hope to be in London, and, if God permits, to begin without delay. To James Hargrave, the Constable at Barrowford WIDDUP, August 26, 1748. SIR,--When I came last night to Roughlee, I found abundance of people, many of whom pressed me to preach there. But I told them I had given my word I would not preach there that evening. They then desired me to stay with them all night; but this also I refused, staying no longer than till our horses were ready, and till I had given them a short exhortation not to be out late at night and as much as lay in them to live peaceably with all men. This is a short account of what I’ve done. I must now mention a little what you have done: I say you, because all that was done yesterday was in the eye of the law as much your act and deed as if you had done all with your own hands; seeing (not to touch now upon some other points, evidence of which may be produced in due time) all those actions are imputable to you which you could have prevented and would not. Between twelve and one o’clock, when I was speaking to some quiet people without any noise or tumult, a drunken rabble came with clubs and staves in a tumultuous and riotous manner; the captain of whom, Richard Bocock by name, said he was a deputy constable, and that he was come to bring me to you. I made no resistance (though he had no warrant to show, and consequently all he did was utterly illegal), but went with him. I had scarce gone ten yards, when a man of his company struck me with his fist in the face with all his might! I told him it was not well, and went on quickly after another threw his stick at my head. I then made a stand, having little encouragement to go forward. But another of the champions, cursing and swearing in the most shocking manner, and flourishing his club over his head, cried out, ’Bring him away!’ So, perceiving there was no remedy, I walked on to Barrowford (where they informed me you was); their drummer going before, to draw all the rabble together and encourage them in their work. I must just stop to inform you (if you know it not) that this whole action of carrying me along against my will was an assault upon the King’s highway, contrary to his peace, crown, and dignity. When your deputy had brought me prisoner into the house, he permitted Mr. Grimshaw, the minister of Haworth, Mr. Colbeck [Thomas Colbeck was steward of the Haworth Round, and a devoted class-leader and local preacher. See Laycock’s Great Haworth Round, pp. 139-42; and letter of Nov. 25.] of Keighley, and one more [William Batty, one of Ingham’s preachers. See Journal, ii. 294n.] to be with me, promising none should hurt them. Soon after, you and your friends came in and required me to promise ’I would come to Roughlee no more.’ I told you ’I would cut off my hand rather than make any such promise.’ Neither would I promise that none of my friends should come. After abundance of rambling discourse (for I could keep none of you long to one point) from about one o’clock till between three and four, in which one of you justly said, ’No, we will not be like Gamaliel, we will proceed like the Jews,’ you seemed a little satisfied with my saying, ’I will not preach at Roughlee this time, nor shall I be here again till August next; then I will show you the authority by which I preach.’ You then undertook to quiet the mob; to whom you went and spoke a few words, and their noise immediately ceased, while I walked out with you at the back door. I should have mentioned that I had desired you to let me go several times before, but could not prevail; and that, when I attempted to go with Richard Bocock, the mob came immediately to me, cursing and swearing and throwing whatever came to hand. One of them beat me down to the ground; and when I rose again, the rest came about me like lions and forced me back into the house. While you and I went out at one door, Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Colbeck went out at the other. The mob immediately closed them in, and tossed them to and fro with the utmost violence, threw Mr. Grimshaw down, and loaded them both with dirt and mire; not one of your friends offering to assist them or call off the blood-hounds from the pursuit. The other quiet, harmless people which followed me at a distance to see what the end would be they treated still worse, not only by your connivance, but by the express order of your deputy. They made them flee for their lives amidst showers of dirt and stones, without any regard to age or sex. Some of them they trampled in the mire, and dragged by the hair, particularly a young man who came with me from Newcastle.[This was William Mackford, a highly respected trustee of the Orphan House at Newcastle. He had come with Wesley from Newcastle, and under his preaching was ’set at liberty’ the day this letter was written. See Journal, iii. 372; Stamp’s Orphan House, p. 115.] Many they beat with their clubs without mercy. One they forced to leap down (or they would have cast him headlong) from a rock ten or twelve foot high into the river; and even when he crawled out, wet and bruised, they swore they would throw him in again, and he hardly escaped out of their hands. At this time you sat well pleased close to the scene of action, not attempting in the least to hinder them; and all this time you was talking of justice and law. Alas! Suppose we were Dissenters (which I utterly deny, consequently laws against Dissenting conventicles are nothing at all to us); suppose we were Turks or Jews;--still, are we not to have the benefit of the law of our country Proceed against us by law, if you can or dare; but not by lawless violence--not by making a drunken, cursing, swearing, riotous mob both judge, jury, and executioner. This is flat rebellion both against God and the King, as you may possibly find to your cost. But, before I take any farther step herein, I think myself obliged to make you a fair proposal. If you will promise me under your hand to suppress all mobs at Roughlee and the parts adjacent (as your duty both to God and the King require you to do, even at the hazard of your life); if you will promise to proceed only by law against those you apprehend to act contrary to law (which, indeed, I absolutely deny you to do), nor can it be supposed that none of the lawyers in Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, or London should find it out (if it were so), but only the Solomons in Pendle Forest;--if I accordingly find a letter from you to this effect when I come to London, directed to the Foundery, near Moorfields, I shall be satisfied and proceed no farther. If not, I shall try another course. Only one piece of advice permit me to give. Do not consult herein with some petty attorney (who will certainly say your cause is good), but with some able barrister-at-law. This is the course I take. The counsel to whom I applied on this very Act of Parliament before I left London were Counsellor Glanville, a barrister of Gray’s Inn, [See the next two letters.] and Sir Dudley Rider, the King’s Attorney-General.--I am Your real friend. To James Hargrave, Near Colne, In Lancashire. To William Grimshaw LONDON, November 2, 1748. So far as I can judge, the whole costs of information in the King’s Bench will be between thirty and forty pounds: part of which should be speedily advanced; because, from the time the cause is first moved here, the counsellors should have their fees paid regularly. ’Tis miserable bad husbandry to starve a cause. Indeed, Mr. Glanville (I apprehend) will return his fees. However, they must be paid (for the present) as duly as those of Sir John Strange. In the end ’tis probable all the costs of suit will fall upon the rioters. The affidavits should be taken and sent without losing one day. The Judges often put off a cause which comes before them at the latter end of a term. Therefore you should not delay; near a fortnight of the term is gone already. To John Bennet LONDON, November 17, 1748. I will make affidavit, if Mr. Glanville think it needful. He will want Sir John Strange to assist him, and will move the Court to-morrow, if he has not done it this morning. If we leave out Mr. White,[See heading to letter of Aug. 26.] he must promise under his hand neither to persecute the Methodists directly nor indirectly. I would not leave him at liberty now (nor any of them) to do it ’according to law,’ as they might term it. Our demand now rises higher--namely, that they ’wholly refrain from these men and let them alone.’ I would express it in those very terms. Only let them print and welcome. By all means mention the expense to the leaders where you are. And the thing requires haste. I do not believe the Bishop’s Court has anything to do with such matters. Let our brother tell them so in modest and proper terms. If they proceed, you must immediately remove the cause into the King’s Bench, which will tear them all to pieces. Let them send him to prison if they see good. Wherever faith and love takes place, be sure enthusiasm will follow. The Thoughts upon Marriage [See letter of June 25, 1746, sect. 5n.] are full upon that point. The publishing them stopped the delusion here. You can only warn all the Societies against it with great plainness and gentleness. And be in nothing terrified. All will end well. To John Bennet LONDON, November 25, 1748. I have received a bill for ten pounds from T. Colbeck, which will defray the present expense of the prosecution. [See the previous three letters.] You do extremely well in receiving subscriptions for paying that debt at Birstall. It will lay such an obligation on the Society as will make them much readier to submit to discipline. You see how needful it is for you to step over into Yorkshire at least once in a quarter. It would be well if you could reach Lincolnshire too, though but for one week. I beg you would largely show them at Halifax how absurd it is to expect I should be at a shilling expense for their lawsuit. They must not begin if they cannot carry it on. If Webster’s spirit be not altered, and that speedily, I shall send him back to Plymouth Dock.[Eleazer Webster was evidently a troublesome preacher. See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] I trust your own soul is not neglected in the multiplicity of business which comes upon you from other men. O be much in prayer! I am often concerned for you. The Spirit of God be your Guide, and His love your portion for ever. To a Friend NEWINGTON, December 10, 1748. DEAR SIR,--1. I have read your letter with attention, and much approve of the spirit with which it is wrote. You speak in love. I desire to do so too; and then no harm can be done on either side. You appear not to be wedded to your own opinion, but open to farther conviction. I would willingly be of the same temper; not obstinately attached to either side of the question. I am clearly satisfied of the necessity of this--a willingness to see what as yet I see not. For I know an unwillingness to be convinced would utterly blind either you or me; and that if we are resolved to retain our present opinion, reason and argument signify nothing. 2. I shall not therefore think it is time or pains misemployed, to give the whole cause a second hearing; to recite the occasion of every step I have taken, and the motives inducing me so to do; and then to consider whatsoever either you or others have urged on the contrary side of the question. 3. Twenty-nine years since, when I had spent a few months at Oxford, having, as I apprehended, an exceeding good constitution, and being otherwise in health, I was a little surprised at some symptoms of a paralytic disorder. I could not imagine what should occasion the shaking of my hand, till I observed it was always worst after breakfast, and that, if I intermitted drinking tea for two or three days, it did not shake at all. Upon inquiry, I found tea had the same effect upon others also of my acquaintance; and therefore saw that this was one of its natural effects (as several physicians have often remarked), especially when it is largely and frequently drank; and most of all on persons of weak nerves. Upon this I lessened the quantity, drank it weaker, and added more milk and sugar. But still for above six-and-twenty years I was more or less subject to the same disorder. 4. July was two years I began to observe that abundance of the people in London with whom I conversed laboured under the same and many other paralytic disorders, and that in a much higher degree; insomuch that some of their nerves were quite unstrung, their bodily strength quite decayed, and they could not go through their daily labour. I inquired, ’Are you not an hard drinker’ and was answered by one and another and another, ’No, indeed, sir, not I; I drink scarce anything but a little tea, morning and night.’ I immediately remembered my own case; and, after weighing the matter throughly, easily gathered from many concurring circumstances that it was the same case with them. 5. I considered: ’What an advantage would it be to these poor enfeebled people, if they would leave off what so manifestly impairs their health, and thereby hurts their business also! Is there nothing equally cheap which they could use Yes, surely; and cheaper too. If they used English herbs in its stead (which would cost either nothing, or what is next to nothing), with the same bread, butter, and milk, they would save just the price of the tea. And hereby they might not only lessen their pain, but in some degree their poverty too; for they would be able to work (as well as to save) considerably more than they can do now. And by this means, if they are in debt, they might be more just, paying away what they either earned or saved. If they are not in debt, they might be more merciful, giving it away to them that want.’ 6. I considered farther: ’What an advantage might this be, particularly in such a body of men as those are who are united together in these Societies, who are both so numerous and so poor! How much might be saved in so numerous a body, even in this single article of expense! And how greatly is all that can possibly be saved in every article wanted daily by those who have not even food convenient for them! ’ 7. I soon perceived that this latter consideration was of a more general nature than the former, and that it affected many of those whom the other did not so immediately concern; seeing it was as needful for all to save needless expenses, as for some to regain the health they had impaired--especially, considered as members of a Society, the wants of which they could not be unapprised of. They knew, of those to whom they were so peculiarly united, some had not food to sustain nature, some were destitute of even necessary clothing, some had not where to lay their head. They knew, or might know, that the little contributions made weekly did in no wise suffice to remove these wants, being barely sufficient to relieve the sick; and even that in so scanty a manner, that I know not if some of them have not with their allowance pined away, and at length died for want. If you and I have not saved all we could to relieve these, how shall we face them at the throne of God 8. I reflected: ’If one only would save all that he could in this single instance, he might surely feed or clothe one of his brethren, and perhaps save one life. What, then, might be done, if ten thousand, or one thousand, or only five hundred, would do it--yea, if half that number should say, "I will compute this day what I have expended in tea, weekly or yearly; I will immediately enter on cheaper food; and whatever is saved hereby I will put into that poor-box weekly, to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked "! I am mistaken, if any among us need want either food or raiment from that hour.’ 9. I thought farther: ’It is said--nay, many tell me to my face--I can persuade this people to anything. I will make a fair trial. If I cannot persuade them, there may be some good effect. All who do not wilfully shut their eyes will see that I have no such influence as they supposed. If I can persuade any number, many who are now weak or sick will be restored to health and strength; many will pay those debts which others, perhaps equally poor, can but ill afford to lose; many will be less straitened in their own families; many, by helping their neighbour, will lay up for themselves treasures in heaven.’ 10. Immediately it struck into my mind, ’But example must go before precept; therefore I must not plead an exemption for myself from a daily practice of twenty-seven years. I must begin.’ I did so. I left it off myself in August 1746. And I have now had sufficient time to try the effects, which have fully answered my expectation. My paralytic complaints are all gone; my hand is steady as it was at fifteen, although I must expect that or other weaknesses soon, as I decline into the vale of years. And so considerable a difference do I find in my expense, that I can make it appear, from the accounts now in being, in only those four families at London, Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle, I save upwards of fifty pounds a year. 11. The first to whom I explained these things at large, and whom I advised to set the same example to their brethren, were a few of those who rejoice to assist my brother and me as our sons in the gospel. A week after, I proposed it to about forty of those whom I believed to be strong in faith; and the next morning to about sixty more, entreating them all to speak their minds freely. They did so; and in the end saw the good which might ensue, yielded to the force of Scripture and reason, and resolved (all but two or three) by the grace of God to make the trial without delay. 12. In a short time I proposed it, but with all the tenderness I could, first to the body of those who are supposed to have living faith, and, after staying a few days (that I might judge the better how to speak), to the whole Society. It soon appeared (as I doubted not but it would) how far these were from calling me Rabbi, from implicitly submitting to my judgement, or implicitly following my example. Objections rose in abundance from all sides. These I now proceed to consider; whether they are advanced by you or by others, and whether pointed at the premises or directly at the conclusion. 13. 1. Some objected: ’Tea is not unwholesome at all; not in any kind prejudicial to health.’ To these I reply: (1) You should not be so sure of this. Even that casual circumstance, related in Dr. Short’s history [Discourses on Tea, &c. (1750, pp. 4, 17), by Thomas Short, M.D. (1690 -1772), a medical writer, who practiced at Sheffield.] of it, might incline you to doubt--namely, that ’while the Chinese dry the leaves, and turn it with their hands upon the tin plates, the moisture of them is so extremely corrosive, that it eats into the flesh, if not wiped off immediately.’ It is not probable, then, that what remains in the leaves is quite friendly to the human body. (2) Many eminent physicians have declared their judgement that it is prejudicial in several respects; that it gives rise to numberless disorders, particularly those of the nervous kind; and that, if frequently used by those of weak nerves, it is no other than a slow poison (3) If all physicians were silent in the case, yet plain fact is against you. And this speaks loud enough. It was prejudicial to my health; it is so to many at this day. 14. ’But it is not so to me,’ says the objector. ’Why, then should I leave it off’ I answer: (1) To give an example to those to whom it is undeniably prejudicial. (2) That you may have the more wherewith to give bread to the hungry end raiment to the naked. 15. ’But I cannot leave it off; for it helps my health. Nothing else will agree with me.’ I answer: (1) Will nothing else agree with you I know not how to believe that. I suppose your body is much of the same kind with that of your great-grandmother. And do you think nothing else agreed with her or with any of her progenitors What poor, puling, sickly things must all the English then have been, till within these hundred years! But you know they were not so. Other things agreed with them; and why not with you (2) If, in fact, nothing else will, if tea has already weakened your stomach and impaired your digestion to such a degree, it has hurt you more than you are aware. It has prejudiced your health extremely. You have need to abhor it as deadly poison and to renounce it from this very hour. So says a drinker of drams: ’Nothing else will agree with me. Nothing else will raise my spirits. I can digest nothing without them.’ Indeed! Is it so Then touch no more, if you love your life. (3) Suppose nothing else agrees with you at first; yet in a while many things will. When I first left off tea, I was half asleep all day long; my head ached from morning to night; I could not remember a question asked, even till I could return an answer. But in a week’s time all these inconveniences were gone, and have never returned since. (4) I have not found one single exception yet; not one person in all England, with whom, after sufficient trial made, nothing else would agree. It is therefore well worth while for you to try again, if you have any true regard for your own health, or any compassion for those who are perishing all around you for want of the common necessaries of life. 16. If you are sincere in this plea, if you do not talk of your health while the real objection is your inclination, make a fair trial thus: (1) Take half a pint of milk every morning, with a little bread, not boiled, but warmed only; a man in tolerable health might double the quantity. (2) If this is too heavy, add as much water, and boil it together, with a spoonful of oatmeal. (3) If this agrees not, try half a pint, or a little more, of water-gruel, neither thick nor thin; not sweetened, for that may be apt to make him sick, but with a very little butter, salt, and bread. (4) If this disagrees, try sage, green balm, mint, or pennyroyal tea, infusing only so much of the herb as just to change the colour of the water. (5) Try two or three of these mixed in various proportions. (6) Try ten or twelve other English herbs. (7) Try foltron, a mixture of herbs to be had at many grocers’, far healthier as well as cheaper than tea. (8) Try cocoa. If, after having tried each of these for a week or ten days, you find none of them will agree with your constitution, then use (weak green) tea again; but at the same time know that your having used it so long has brought you near the chambers of death. 17. II. ’I do not know,’ says another, ’but tea may hurt me: but there is nothing saved by leaving it off; for I am sure other things cost full as much.’ I pray, what other things Sack and sugar costs more; and so do ragouts, or pheasants, or ortolans. But what is this to the point We do not say all things are cheaper; but any of the things above mentioned are--at least, if prudently managed. Therefore, if you really desire to save what you can, you will drink tea no more. 18. ’Well, I do not design to buy any more myself; but where others drink it, there is nothing saved by my abstaining.’ I answer: (1) Yes, something is saved, though but little; especially if you tell them before, ’I shall not drink tea.’ And many a little, you know, put together will make a great sum. (2) If the whole saved were ever so little, if it were but two mites, when you save this for God and your brethren’s sake, it is much. (3) Your example in saving a little now may occasion the saving of more by-and-by. (4) It is not a little advantage which you may reap even now to your own soul, by habituating yourself not to be ashamed of being singular in a good thing; by taking up your cross, and denying yourself even in so small an instance; and by accustoming yourself to act on rational grounds, whether in a little matter or a great. 19. ’But what is saved will be no better employed.’ Do you say this with regard to yourself or others If with regard to yourself, it will be your fault if you do not employ it better. I do not say you will, but I am sure you may; and if you do not, it is your own sin and your own shame. If with regard to others, how do you know that it will not be employed better I trust it will. It cannot be denied that it often has and that it always may be. And it is highly probable all who save anything from the best motive will lay it out to the best purpose. 20. ’As to example,’ you say, ’I have lately been without hopes of doing any good by it.’ I suppose you mean, because so exceeding few will follow either your example or mine. I am sorry for it. This only gives me a fresh objection to this unwholesome, expensive food--viz. that it has too much hold on the hearts of them that use it; that, to use a scriptural phrase, they are ’under the power of’ this trifle. If it be so, were there no other reason than this, they ought to throw it away at once; else they no more regard St. Paul than they do you or me: for his rule is home to the point,--’All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.’ Away with it, then, however lawful (that is, though it were wholesome as well as cheap), if you are already brought ’under the power of’ it. And the fewer they are who follow this rule the greater reason there is that you should add one example more to those few. Though (blessed be God) they are not so few as you suppose. I have met with very many in London who use less of it than they had done for many years, and above an hundred who have plucked out the right eye and cast it from them, who wholly abstain from it. 21. You add, ’But I am equally, yea abundantly, more concerned to set an example in all Christian behaviour.’ I grant it: this, therefore, ’ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone.’ 22. But ’one day,’ you add, ’I saw your brother drink tea, which he said was for fear of giving offence.’ I answer: (1) Learn from hence to follow neither his nor my practice implicitly; but weigh the reason of each, and then follow reason, wheresoever it stands. But (2) Examine your heart, and beware inclination does not put on the shape of reason. (3) You see with your own eyes I do not drink it at all, and yet I seldom give offence thereby. It is not, then, the bare abstaining, but the manner of doing it, which usually gives the offence. (4) There is therefore a manner wherein you may do it too, and yet give no more offence than I. For instance: If any ask you, simply reply, ’I do not drink tea; I never use it.’ If they say, ’Why, you did drink it’; answer, ’I did so; but I have left it off a considerable time.’ Those who have either good nature or good manners will say no more. But if any should impertinently add, ’Oh, but why did you leave it off’ answer mildly, ’Because I thought watergruel (suppose) was wholesomer as well as cheaper.’ If they, with still greater ill-manners and impertinence, go on, ’What, you do it because Mr. Wesley bids you’; reply calmly, ’True; I do it because Mr. Wesley, on good reasons, advises me so to do.’ If they add the trite cant phrase, ’What, you follow man!’ reply, without any emotion, ’Yes, I follow any man, you or him or any other, who gives me good reason for so doing.’ If they persist in cavilling, close the whole matter with, ’I neither drink it nor dispute about it.’ 23. If you proceed in this manner, with mildness and love, exceeding few will be offended. ’But you ought,’ say some, ’to give up an indifferent thing, rather than give an offence to any. So St. Paul: "I will eat no flesh whilst the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."’ I reply: This is not an indifferent thing, if it affects the health either of myself or my brethren. Therefore that rule relating wholly to things indifferent is not applicable to this case. Would St. Paul have said, ’I will drink drams while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend’ ’But tea is not so hurtful as drams.’ I do not believe it is. But it is hurtful; and that is enough. The question does not turn on the degree of hurtfulness. ’However, it is but a small thing.’ Nay, nothing is small if it touches conscience; much less is it a small thing to preserve my own or my brother’s health, or to be a faithful steward even of the mammon of unrighteousness. O think it not a small thing whether only one for whom Christ died be fed or hungry, clothed or naked! To conclude the head of offence: You must at least allow that all this is no plea at all for your drinking tea at home. ’Yes, it is; for my husband or parents are offended if I do not drink it.’ I answer: (1) Perhaps this in some rare cases may be a sufficient reason why a wife or a child should use this food--that is, with them, but nowhere else. But (2) Try, and not once or twice only, if you cannot overcome that offence by reason, softness, love, patience, longsuffering, joined with constant and fervent prayer. 24. Your next objection is, ’I cannot bear to give trouble; therefore I drink whatever others drink where I come, else there is so much hurry about insignificant me.’ I answer: (1) This is no plea at all for your drinking tea at home. Therefore touch it not there, whatever you do abroad. (2) Where is the trouble given, even when you are abroad, if they drink tea, and you fill your cup with milk and water (3) Whatever trouble is taken is not for ’insignificant me,’ but for that poor man who is half starved with cold and hunger; for that miserable woman who, while she is poisoning herself, wipes her mouth and says she does no evil--who will not believe the poison will hurt her, because it does not (sensibly at least) hurt you. O throw it away! Let her have one plea less for destroying her body, if not her soul, before the time! 25. You object farther, ’It is my desire to be unknown for any particularity, unless a peculiar love to the souls of those who are present.’ And, I hope, to the souls of the absent too; yea, and to their bodies also, in a due proportion, that they may be healthy, and fed, and clothed, and warm, and may praise God for the consolation. 26. You subjoin: ’When I had left it off for some months, I was continually puzzled with, Why, What, &c.; and I have seen no good effects, but impertinent questions and answers and unedifying conversation about eating and drinking.’ I answer: (1) Those who were so uneasy about it plainly showed that you touched the apple of their eye. Consequently these, of all others, ought to leave it off; for they are evidently brought ’under the power of’ it. (2) Those impertinent questions might have been cut short by a very little steadiness and common sense. You need only have taken the method mentioned above, and they would have dropped in the midst. (3) It is not strange you saw no good effects of leaving it off where it was not left off at all. But you saw very bad effects of not leaving it off--viz. the adding sin to sin; the joining much unedifying conversation to wasteful, unhealthy self-indulgence. (4) You need not go far to see many good effects of leaving it off. You may see them in me. I have recovered thereby that healthy state of the whole nervous system, which I had in a great degree, and I almost thought irrecoverably, lost for considerably more than twenty years. I have been enabled hereby to assist in one year above fifty poor with food or raiment, whom I must otherwise have left (for I had before begged for them all I could) as hungry and naked as I found them. You may see the good effects in above thirty poor people just now before you, who have been restored to health through the medicines bought by that money which a single person has saved in this article. And a thousand more good effects you will not fail to see, when her example is more generally followed. 27. Neither is there any need that conversation should be unedifying, even when it turns upon eating and drinking. Nay, from such a conversation, if duly improved, numberless good effects may flow. For how few understand, ’Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God’! And how glad ought you to be of a fair occasion to observe that, though the kingdom of God does not consist in ’meats and drinks,’ yet, without exact temperance in these, we cannot have either ’righteousness or peace or joy in the Holy Ghost’! It may therefore have a very happy effect if, whenever people introduce the subject, you directly close in, and push it home, that they may understand a little more of this important truth. 28. But ’I find at present very little desire to change either my thoughts or practice.’ Shall I speak plain I fear, by not standing your ground, by easiness, cowardice, and false shame, you have grieved the Spirit of God, and thereby lost your conviction and desire at once. Yet you add: ’I advise every one to leave off tea, if it hurts their health or is inconsistent with frugality; as I advise every one to avoid dainties in meat and vanity in dress from the same principle.’ Enough, enough! Let this only be well pursued, and it will secure all that I contend for. I advise no persons living to leave it off, if it does not hurt the health either of them or their brethren, and if it is not inconsistent with the Christian frugality of cutting off every needless expense. 29. But ’to be subject to the consequences of leaving it off again! This I cannot bear.’ I answer: (1) It may be so. You cannot easily bear it. For, by your giving up the point once, you have made it much harder to stand your ground now than it was at first. Yet still it is worth all your courage and labour; since the reasons for it are as strong as at the beginning. (2) As to the consequences you fear, they are shadowy all; they are a mere lion in the streets. ’Much trouble to others.’ Absolutely none at all, if you take the tea-kettle and fill your cup with water. ’Much foolish discourse.’ Take the preceding advice, and it will be just the reverse. ’Nothing helpful toward the renewal of my soul in the image of Jesus Christ.’ What a deep mistake is this! Is it not helpful to speak closely of the nature of His inward kingdom to encourage one another in casting off every weight, in removing every hindrance of it to inure ourselves to the bearing His cross to bring Christianity into common life, and accustom ourselves to conduct even our minutest actions by the great rules of reason and religion 30. Is it ’not of any importance’ to do this I think it is of vast importance. However, ’it is a very small circumstance in self-denial.’ It is well if you find it so. I am sure I did not. And I believe the case is the same with many others at this day. But you say, ’I have so many other assaults of self-indulgence, that this is nothing.’ ’It is nothing,’ said one to a young woman, ’to fast once or twice a week, to deny yourself a little food. Why do not you deny yourself as to anger and fretfulness, as to peevishness and discontent’ She replied, ’That I want; so I deny myself in little things first, till I am able to do it in greater.’ Neither you nor I can mend her reply. Go thou and do likewise. 31. I have done what I proposed; and, indeed, in many more words than I at first intended. I have told you the occasions of every step I have taken, and the motives inducing me thereto; and have considered what either you or others have urged on the contrary side of the question. And now, the advice I would give upon the whole is this: First, pray earnestly to God for clear light; for a full, piercing, and steady conviction that this is the more excellent way. Pray for a spirit of universal self-denial, of cheerful temperance, of wise frugality; for bowels of mercies; for a kind, compassionate spirit, tenderly sensible of the various wants of your brethren; and for firmness of mind, for a mild, even courage, without fear, anger, or shame. Then you will once more, with all readiness of heart, make this little (or great) sacrifice to God; and withal present your soul and body a living sacrifice, acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ. To Mrs. Jones, of Fonmon Castle LONDON, December 22, 1748. For the time to come, I purpose going from Bristol to Cork, if I can procure a convenient passage; and returning from Dublin to Holyhead, and so through North and South Wales. So that once a year (as long as my life is prolonged) I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you at Fonmon. When I leave London next (probably about a month hence), I am to spend some time at Kingswood, and then embark for Ireland. I am glad Mr. Meriton [Wesley’s estimate of his ability is not flattering. See letter of March 28, 1749.] is of use. He should have told me whither he was going. We must always use openness toward each other. If I find any one using cunning or subtlety with me, I set a mark upon that man. There was no guile found in our Lord’s mouth; nor can it be in the mouth of any true Christian. Shall not all our afflictions work together for good They must, if God is true. To His care I commit you; and am Your affectionate brother and servant. To Vincent Perronet TO VINCENT PERRONET {December} 1748. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--1. Some time since, you desired an account of the whole economy of the people commonly called Methodists. And you received a true (as far as it went) but not a full account. To supply what I think was wanting in that I send you this account, that you may know, not only their practice on every head, but likewise the reasons whereon it is grounded, the occasion of every step they have taken, and the advantages reaped thereby. 2. But I must premise that, as they had not the least expectation at first of anything like what has since followed, so they had no previous design or plan at all; but everything arose just as the occasion offered. They saw or felt some impending or pressing evil or some good end necessary to be pursued. And many times they fell unawares on the very thing which secured the good or removed the evil. At other times they consulted on the most probable means, following only common sense and Scripture; though they generally found, in looking back, something in Christian antiquity likewise, very nearly parallel thereto. I. 1. About ten years ago my brother and I were desired to preach in many parts of London. We had no view therein but, so far as we were able (and we knew God could work by whomsoever it pleased Him), to convince those who would hear what true Christianity was and to persuade them to embrace it. 2. The points we chiefly insisted upon were four. First, that orthodoxy, or right opinions, is at best but a very slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part of it at all; that neither does religion consist in negatives, in bare harmlessness of any kind; nor merely in externals, in doing good, or using the means of grace, in works of piety (so called) or of charity: that it is nothing short of or different from ’the mind that was in Christ’; the image of God stamped upon the heart; inward righteousness, attended with the peace of God and ’joy in the Holy Ghost.’ Secondly, that the only way under heaven to this religion is to ’repent and believe the gospel’; or (as the Apostle words it) ’repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Thirdly, that by this faith, ’he that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, is justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ.’ And, lastly, that ’being justified by faith,’ we taste of the heaven to which we are going, we are holy and happy, we tread down sin and fear, and ’sit in heavenly places with Christ Jesus.’ 3. Many of those who heard this began to cry out that we brought ’strange things to their ears’; that this was doctrine which they never heard before, or at least never regarded. They ’searched the Scriptures whether these things were so,’ and acknowledged ’the truth as it is in Jesus.’ Their hearts also were influenced as well as their understandings, and they determined to follow ’Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ 4. Immediately they were surrounded with difficulties: all the world rose up against them; neighbours, strangers, acquaintance, relations, friends, began to cry out amain,--’Be not righteous overmuch; why shouldest thou destroy thyself’ Let not ’much religion make thee mad.’ 5. One and another and another came to us, asking what they should do, being distressed on every side; as every one strove to weaken and none to strengthen their hands in God. We advised them: ’Strengthen you one another. Talk together as often as you can. And pray earnestly with and for one another, that you may " endure to the end and be saved."’ Against this advice we presumed there could be no objection; as being grounded on the plainest reason, and on so many scriptures, both of the Old Testament and New, that it would be tedious to recite them. 6. They said, ’But we want you likewise to talk with us often, to direct and quicken us in our way, to give us the advices which you well know we need, and to pray with us as well as for us.’ I asked, Which of you desire this Let me know your names and places of abode. They did so. But I soon found they were too many for me to talk with severally so often as they wanted it. So I told them, ’If you will all of you come together every Thursday in the evening, I will gladly spend some time with you in prayer and give you the best advice I can.’ 7. Thus arose, without any previous design on either side, what was afterwards called a Society; a very innocent name, and very common in London, for any number of people associating themselves together. The thing proposed in their associating themselves together was obvious to every one. They wanted to ’flee from the wrath to come’ and to assist each other in so doing. They therefore united themselves ’in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they might help each other to work out their salvation.’ 8. There is only one condition previously required in those who desire admission into this Society,--’a desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their sins.’ *[ See the Rules of the United Societies (Works, viii. 269-71).] They now likewise agreed that as many of them as had an opportunity would meet together every Friday, and spend the dinner hour in crying to God, both for each other and for all mankind. 9. It quickly appeared that their thus uniting together answered the end proposed therein. In a few months the far greater part of those who had begun to ’fear God and work righteousness,’ but were not united together, grew faint in their minds, and fell back into what they were before. Meanwhile the far greater part of those who were thus united together continued ’striving to enter in at the strait gate’ and to ’lay hold on eternal life.’ 10. Upon reflection, I could not but observe, This is the very thing which was from the beginning of Christianity. In the earliest times those whom God had sent forth ’preached the gospel to every creature.’ And the oiJ ajkroataiv ’the body of hearers,’ were mostly either Jews or heathens. But as soon as any of these were so convinced of the truth as to forsake sin and seek the gospel salvation, they immediately joined them together, took an account of their names, advised them to watch over each other, and met these kathcouvmenoi, ’catechumens’ (as they were then called), apart from the great congregation, that they might instruct, rebuke, exhort, and pray with them and for them according to their several necessities. 11. But it was not long before an objection was made to this, which had not once entered into my thought: ’Is not this making a schism Is not the joining these people together gathering Churches out of Churches’ It was easily answered: If you mean only gathering people out of buildings called churches, it is. But if you mean dividing Christians from Christians, and so destroying Christian fellowship, it is not. For (1) These were not Christians before they were thus joined. Most of them were barefaced heathens. (2) Neither are they Christians from whom you suppose them to be divided. You will not look me in the face and say they are. What! drunken Christians! cursing and swearing Christians! lying Christians! cheating Christians! If these are Christians at all, they are devil Christians, as the poor Malabarians term them. (3) Neither are they divided any more than they were before, even from these wretched devil Christians. They are as ready as ever to assist them and to perform every office of real kindness towards them. (4) If it be said, ’But there are some true Christians in the parish, and you destroy the Christian fellowship between these and them,’ I answer: That which never existed cannot be destroyed. But the fellowship you speak of never existed. Therefore it cannot be destroyed. Which of those true Christians had any such fellowship with these Who watched over them in love Who marked their growth in grace Who advised and exhorted them from time to time Who prayed with them and for them as they had need This, and this alone, is Christian fellowship; but, alas! where is it to be found Look east or west, north or south; name what parish you please: is this Christian fellowship there Rather, are not the bulk of the parishioners a mere rope of sand What Christian connexion is there between them What intercourse in spiritual things What watching over each other’s souls What bearing of one another’s burthens What a mere jest is it, then, to talk so gravely of destroying what never was! The real truth is just the reverse of this: we introduce Christian fellowship where it was utterly destroyed. And the fruits of it have been peace, joy, love, and zeal for every good word and work. II. 1. But as much as we endeavoured to watch over each other, we soon found some who did not live the gospel. I do not know that any hypocrites were crept in; for, indeed, there was no temptation: but several grew cold and gave way to the sins which had long easily beset them. We quickly perceived there were many ill consequences of suffering these to remain among us. It was dangerous to others; inasmuch as all sin is of an infectious nature. It brought such a scandal on their brethren as exposed them to what was not properly the reproach of Christ. It laid a stumbling-block in the way of others, and caused the truth to be evil spoken of. 2. We groaned under these inconveniences long before a remedy could be found. The people were scattered so wide in all parts of the town, from Wapping to Westminster, that I could not easily see what the behaviour of each person in his own neighbourhood was: so that several disorderly walkers did much hurt before I was apprised of it. 3. At length, while we were thinking of quite another thing, we struck upon a method for which we have cause to bless God ever since. I was talking with several of the Society in Bristol concerning the means of paying the debts there, when one [Captain Foy, on Feb. 15, 1742. See Journal, ii. 528; W.H.S. iii. 64-5.] stood up and said, ’Let every member of the Society give a penny a week till all are paid.’ Another answered, ’But many of them are poor, and cannot afford to do it.’ ’Then,’ said he, ’put eleven of the poorest with me; and if they can give anything, well: I will call on them weekly; and if they can give nothing, I will give for them as well as for myself. And each of you call on eleven of your neighbours weekly; receive what they give, and make up what is wanting.’ It was done. In a while, some of these informed me, they found such and such an one did not live as he ought. It struck me immediately, ’This is the thing; the very thing we have wanted so long.’ I called together all the Leaders of the classes (so we used to term them and their companies), and desired that each would make a particular inquiry into the behaviour of those whom he saw weekly. They did so. Many disorderly walkers were detected. Some turned from the evil of their ways. Some were put away from us. Many saw it with fear, and rejoiced unto God with reverence. 4. As soon as possible the same method was used in London and all other places. Evil men were detected and reproved. They were borne with for a season. If they forsook their sins, we received them gladly; if they obstinately persisted therein, it was openly declared that they were not of us. The rest mourned and prayed for them, and yet rejoiced that as far as in us lay the scandal was rolled away from the Society. 5. It is the business of a Leader (1) To see each person in his class, once a week at the least, in order to inquire how their souls prosper; to advise, reprove, comfort, or exhort, as occasion may require; to receive what they are willing to give toward the relief of the poor. (2) To meet the Minister and the Stewards of the Society, in order to inform the Minister of any that are sick, or of any that are disorderly and will not be reproved; to pay to the Stewards what they have received of their several classes in the week preceding. 6. At first they visited each person at his own house; but this was soon found not so expedient. And that on many accounts: (1) It took up more time than most of the Leaders had to spare. (2) Many persons lived with masters, mistresses, or relations, who would not suffer them to be thus visited. (3) At the houses of those who were not so averse, they often had no opportunity of speaking to them but in company. And this did not at all answer the end proposed, of exhorting, comforting, or reproving. (4) It frequently happened that one affirmed what another denied. And this could not be cleared up without seeing them together. (5) Little misunderstandings and quarrels of various kinds frequently arose among relations or neighbours; effectually to remove which, it was needful to see them all face to face. Upon all these considerations it was agreed that those of each class should meet all together. And by this means a more full inquiry was made into the behaviour of every person. Those who could not be visited at home or no otherwise than in company had the same advantage with others. Advice or reproof was given as need required, quarrels made up, misunderstandings removed; and after an hour or two spent in this labour of love, they concluded with prayer and thanksgiving. 7. It can scarce be conceived what advantages have been reaped from this little prudential regulation. Many now happily experienced that Christian fellowship of which they had not so much as an idea before. They began to ’bear one another’s burthens,’ and naturally to ’care for each other.’ As they had daily a more intimate acquaintance with, so they had a more endeared affection for, each other. And ’speaking the truth in love, they grew up into Him in all things, who is the Head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplied, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, increased unto the edifying itself in love.’ 8. But, notwithstanding all these advantages, many were at first extremely averse to meeting thus. Some, viewing it in a wrong point of light, not as a privilege (indeed an invaluable one) but rather a restraint, disliked it on that account, because they did not love to be restrained in anything. Some were ashamed to speak before company. Others honestly said, ’I do not know why, but I do not like it.’ 9. Some objected: ’There were no such meetings when I came into the Society first; and why should there now I do not understand these things, and this changing one thing after another continually.’ It was easily answered: It is a pity but they had been at first. But we knew not then either the need or the benefit of them. Why we use them, you will readily understand, if you read over the Rules of the Society. That with regard to these little prudential helps we are continually changing one thing after another is not a weakness or fault, as you imagine, but a peculiar advantage which we enjoy. By this means we declare them all to be merely prudential, not essential, not of divine institution. We prevent, so far as in us lies, their growing formal or dead. We are always open to instruction; willing to be wiser every day than we were before, and to change whatever we can change for the better. 10. Another objection was: ’There is no scripture for this, for classes and I know not what.’ I answer: (1) There is no scripture against it. You cannot show one text that forbids them. (2) There is much scripture for it, even all those texts which enjoin the substance of those various duties whereof this is only an indifferent circumstance, to be determined by reason and experience. (3) You seem not to have observed that the Scripture in most points gives only general rules, and leaves the particular circumstances to be adjusted by the common sense of mankind. The Scripture, for instance, gives that general rule, ’Let all things be done decently and in order.’ But common sense is to determine on particular occasions what order and decency require. So in another instance the Scripture lays it down as a general, standing direction: ’Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God.’ But it is common prudence which is to make the application of this in a thousand particular cases. 11. ’But these,’ said another, ’are all man’s inventions.’ This is but the same objection in another form. And the same answer will suffice for any reasonable person. These are man’s inventions. And what then That is, they are methods which men have found, by reason and common sense, for the more effectually applying several Scripture rules, couched in general terms, to particular occasions. 12. They spoke far more plausibly than these, who said: ’The thing is well enough in itself. But the Leaders are insufficient for the work; they have neither gifts nor graces for such an employment.’ I answer: (1) Yet, such Leaders as they are, it is plain God has blessed their labour. (2) If any of these is remarkably wanting in gifts or grace, he is soon taken notice of and removed. (3) If you know any such, tell it to me, not to others, and I will endeavour to exchange him for a better. (4) It may be hoped they will all be better than they are, both by experience and observation, and by the advices given them by the Minister every Tuesday night, and the prayers (then in particular) offered up for them. III. 1. About this time I was informed that several persons in Kingswood frequently met together at the school, and when they could spare the time spent the greater part of the night in prayer and praise and thanksgiving. Some advised me to put an end to this; but, upon weighing the thing throughly and comparing it with the practice of the ancient Christians, I could see no cause to forbid it. Rather I believed it might be made of more general use. So I sent them word I designed to watch with them on the Friday nearest the full moon, that we might have light thither and back again. I gave public notice of this the Sunday before, and withal that I intended to preach; desiring they, and they only, would meet me there who could do it without prejudice to their business or families. On Friday abundance of people came. I began preaching between eight and nine; and we continued till a little beyond the noon of night, singing, praying, and praising God. 2. This we have continued to do once a month ever since in Bristol, London, and Newcastle, as well as Kingswood; and exceeding great are the blessings we have found therein: it has generally been an extremely solemn season, when the word of God sunk deep into the heart even of those who till then knew Him not. If it be said, ’This was only owing to the novelty of the thing (the circumstance which still draws such multitudes together at those seasons) or perhaps to the awful silence of the night,’ I am not careful to answer in this matter. Be it so: however, the impression then made on many souls has never since been effaced. Now, allowing that God did make use either of the novelty or any other indifferent circumstance in order to bring sinners to repentance, yet they are brought. And herein let us rejoice together. 3. Nay, may I not put the case farther yet If I can probably conjecture that, either by the novelty of this ancient custom or by any other indifferent circumstance, it is in my power to ’save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins,’ am I clear before God if I do it not if I do not snatch that brand out of the burning IV. 1. As the Society increased, I found it required still greater care to separate the precious from the vile. In order to this I determined, at least once in three months, to talk with every member myself, and to inquire at their own mouths, as well as of their Leaders and neighbours, whether they grew in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. At these seasons I likewise particularly inquire whether there be any misunderstanding or difference among them, that every hindrance of peace and brotherly love may be taken out of the way. 2. To each of those of whose seriousness and good conversation I found no reason to doubt I gave a testimony under my own hand by writing their name on a ticket prepared for that purpose, every ticket implying as strong a recommendation of the person to whom it was given as if I had wrote at length, ’I believe the bearer hereof to be one that fears God and works righteousness.’ 3. Those who bore these tickets (these suvmbola or tesserae, as the ancients termed them, being of just the same force with the ejpistolaiV sustatikaiv ’commendatory letters,’ mentioned by the Apostle), wherever they came, were acknowledged by their brethren and received with all cheerfulness. These were likewise of use in other respects. By these it was easily distinguished, when the Society were to meet apart, who were members of it and who not. These also supplied us with a quiet and inoffensive method of removing any disorderly member. He has no new ticket at the quarterly visitation (for so often the tickets are changed), and hereby it is immediately known that he is no longer of the community. V. The thing which I was greatly afraid of all this time, and which I resolved to use every possible method of preventing, was a narrowness of spirit, a party zeal, a being straitened in our own bowels; that miserable bigotry which makes many so unready to believe that there is any work of God but among themselves. I thought it might be an help against this, frequently to read, to all who were willing to hear, the accounts I received from time to time of the work which God is carrying on in the earth, both in our own and other countries, not among us alone, but among those of various opinions and denominations. For this I allotted one evening in every month; and I find no cause to repent my labour. It is generally a time of strong consolation to those who love God, and all mankind for His sake; as well as of breaking down the partition-walls which either the craft of the devil or the folly of men has built up; and of encouraging every child of God to say (oh when shall it once be!), ’Whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother.’ VI. 1. By the blessing of God upon their endeavours to help one another, many found the pearl of great price. Being justified by faith, they had ’peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ These felt a more tender affection than before to those who were partakers of like precious faith; and hence arose such a confidence in each other, that they poured out their souls into each other’s bosom. Indeed, they had great need so to do; for the war was not over, as they had supposed; but they had still to wrestle both with flesh and blood and with principalities and powers: so that temptations were on every side; and often temptations of such a kind as they knew not how to speak in a class, in which persons of every sort, young and old, men and women, met together. 2. These, therefore, wanted some means of closer union; they wanted to pour out their hearts without reserve, particularly with regard to the sin which did still easily beset them and the temptations which were most apt to prevail over them. And they were the more desirous of this when they observed it was the express advice of an inspired writer: ’Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.’ 3. In compliance with their desire, I divided them into smaller companies; putting the married or single men and married or single women together. The chief rules of these bands (that is, little companies; so that old English word signifies) runs thus: ’In order to " confess our faults one to another," and pray one for another that we may be healed, we intend (1) To meet once a week at the least. (2) To come punctually at the hour appointed. (3) To begin with singing or prayer. (4) To speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our soul, with the faults we have committed in thought, word, or deed, and the temptations we have felt since our last meeting. (5) To desire some person among us (thence called a Leader) to speak his own state first, and then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations.’ 4. That their design in meeting might be the more effectually answered, I desired all the men bands to meet me together every Wednesday evening, and the women on Sunday, that they might receive such particular instructions and exhortations as from time to time might appear to be most needful for them, that such prayers might be offered up to God as their necessities should require, and praise returned to the Giver of every good gift for whatever mercies they had received. 5. In order to increase in them a grateful sense of all His mercies, I desired that, one evening in a quarter, all the men in band, on a second all the women, would meet, and on a third both men and women together; that we might together ’eat bread,’ as the ancient Christians did, ’with gladness and singleness of heart.’ At these lovefeasts (so we termed them, retaining the name as well as the thing which was in use from the beginning) our food is only a little plain cake and water. But we seldom return from them without being fed, not only with the ’meat which perisheth,’ but with ’that which endureth to everlasting life.’ 6. Great and many are the advantages which have ever since flowed from this closer union of the believers with each other. They prayed for one another, that they might be healed of the faults they had confessed; and it was so. The chains were broken, the bands were burst in sunder, and sin had no more dominion over them. Many were delivered from the temptations out of which till then they found no way to escape. They were built up in our most holy faith. They rejoiced in the Lord more abundantly. They were strengthened in love, and more effectually provoked to abound in every good work. 7. But it was soon objected to the bands (as to the classes before): ’These were not at first. There is no scripture for them. These are man’s works, man’s building, man’s invention.’ I reply, as before: These are also prudential helps, grounded on reason and experience, in order to apply the general rules given in Scripture according to particular circumstances. 8. An objection much more boldly and frequently urged is that ’all these bands are mere Popery.’ I hope I need not pass an harder censure on those (most of them at least) who affirm this than that they talk of they know not what; they betray in themselves the most gross and shameful ignorance. Do not they yet know that the only Popish confession is the confession made by a single person to a priest--and this itself is in no wise condemned by our Church; nay, she recommends it in some cases. Whereas that we practice is the confession of several persons conjointly, not to a priest, but to each other. Consequently it has no analogy at all to Popish confession. But the truth is, this is a stale objection, which many people make against anything they do not like. It is all Popery out of hand. VII. 1. And yet, while most of these who were thus intimately joined together went on daily from faith to faith, some fell from the faith, either all at once, by falling into known wilful sin, or gradually, and almost insensibly, by giving way in what they called little things, by sins of omission, by yielding to heart-sins, or by not watching unto prayer. The exhortations and prayers used among the believers did no longer profit these. They wanted advice and instructions suited to their case; which as soon as I observed, I separated them from the rest, and desired them to meet me apart on Saturday evenings. 2. At this hour all the hymns, exhortations, and prayers are adapted to their circumstances; being wholly suited to those who did see God, but have now lost sight of the light of His countenance, and who mourn after Him and refuse to be comforted till they know He has healed their backsliding. 3. By applying both the threats and promises of God to these real, not nominal, penitents, and by crying to God in their behalf, we endeavoured to bring them back to the great ’Shepherd and Bishop of their souls’; not by any of the fopperies of the Roman Church, although in some measure countenanced by antiquity. In prescribing hair shirts and bodily austerities we durst not follow even the ancient Church; although we had unawares, both in dividing oiJ pistoiv, the believers, from the rest of the Society, and in separating the penitents from them, and appointing a peculiar service for them. VIII. 1. Many of these soon recovered the ground they had lost. Yea, they rose higher than before; being more watchful than ever, and more meek and lowly, as well as stronger in the faith that worketh by love. They now outran the greater part of their brethren, continually walking in the light of God, and having fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 2. I saw it might be useful to give some advices to all those who continued in the light of God’s countenance, which the rest of their brethren did not want, and probably could not receive. So I desired a small number of such as appeared to be in this state to spend an hour with me every Monday morning. My design was, not only to direct them how to press after perfection, to exercise their every grace and improve every talent they had received, and to incite them to love one another more, and to watch more carefully over each other, but also to have a select company to whom I might unbosom myself on all occasions without reserve, and whom I could propose to all their brethren as a pattern of love, of holiness, and of good works. 3. They had no need of being encumbered with many rules, having the best rule of all in their hearts. No peculiar directions were therefore given to them, excepting only these three: (1) Let nothing spoken in this Society be spoken again. Hereby we had the more full confidence in each other. (2) Every member agrees to submit to his Minister in all indifferent things. (3) Every member will bring once a week all he can spare toward a common stock. 4. Every one here has an equal liberty of speaking, there being none greater or less than another. I could say freely to these when they were met together, ’Ye may all prophesy one by one’ (taking that word in its lowest sense), ’that all may learn and all may be comforted.’ And I often found the advantage of such a free conversation, and that ’in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.’ Any who is inclined so to do is likewise encouraged to pour out his soul to God. And here especially we have found that ’the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.’ IX. 1. This is the plainest and clearest account I can give of the people commonly called Methodists. It remains only to give you a short account of those who serve their brethren in love. These are Leaders of classes and bands (spoken of before), Assistants, Stewards, Visitors of the sick, and Schoolmasters. 2. In the Third Part of the Appeal [See Works, viii. 218-24.] I have mentioned how we were led to accept of Lay Assistants. Their office is, in the absence of the Minister,--(1) To expound every morning and evening. (2) To meet the United Society, the bands, the select society, and the penitents once a week. (3) To visit the classes once a quarter. (4) To hear and decide all differences. (5) To put the disorderly back on trial, and to receive on trial for the bands or Society. (6) To see that the Stewards, the Leaders, and the Schoolmasters faithfully discharge their several offices. (7) To meet the Leaders of the bands and classes weekly, and the Stewards, and to overlook their accounts. X. 1. But long before this I felt the weight of a far different care--namely, care of temporal things. The quarterly subscriptions amounted, at a mean computation, to above three hundred pounds a year. This was to be laid out, partly in repairs, partly in other necessary expenses, and partly in paying debts. The weekly contributions fell little short of eight pounds a week; which was to be distributed as every one had need. And I was expected to take thought for all these things: but it was a burthen I was not able to bear; so I chose out first one, then four, and after a time seven, as prudent men as I knew, and desired them to take charge of these things upon themselves, that I might have no encumbrance of this kind. 2. The business of these Stewards is,--To manage the temporal things of the Society. To receive the subscriptions and contributions. To expend what is needful from time to time. To send relief to the poor. To keep an exact account of all receipts and expenses. --To inform the Minister if any of the rules of the Society are not punctually observed. To tell the preachers in love if they think anything amiss either in their doctrine or life. 3. The rules of the Stewards are,--(1) Be frugal. Save everything that can be saved honestly. (2) Spend no more than you receive. Contract no debts. (3) Have no long accounts. Pay everything within the week. (4) Give none that asks relief either an ill word or an ill look. Do not hurt them, if you cannot help. (5) Expect no thanks from man. 4. They met together at six every Thursday morning, consulted on the business which came before them, sent relief to the sick as every one had need, and gave the remainder of what had been contributed each week to those who appeared to be in the most pressing want. So that all was concluded within the week; what was brought on Tuesday being constantly expended on Thursday. I soon had the pleasure to find that all these temporal things were done with the utmost faithfulness and exactness; so that my cares of this kind were at an end. I had only to revise the accounts, to tell them if I thought anything might be amended, and to consult how deficiencies might be supplied from time to time; for these were frequent and large (so far were we from abundance), the income by no means answering the expenses. But, that we might not faint, sometimes we had unforeseen helps in times of the greatest perplexity. At other times we borrowed larger or smaller sums; of which the greatest part has since been repaid. But I owe some hundred pounds to this day. So much have I gained by preaching the gospel! XI. 1. But it was not long before the Stewards found a great difficulty with regard to the sick. Some were ready to perish before they knew of their illness; and when they did know, it was not in their power (being persons generally employed in trade) to visit them so often as they desired. 2. When I was apprised of this, I laid the case at large before the whole Society; showed how impossible it was for the Stewards to attend all that were sick in all parts of the town; desired the Leaders of classes would more carefully inquire, and more constantly inform them, who were sick; and asked, ’Who among you is willing as well as able to supply this lack of service’ 3. The next morning many willingly offered themselves. I chose six-and-forty of them, whom I judged to be of the most tender, loving spirit, divided the town into twenty-three parts, and desired two of them to visit the sick in each division. 4. It is the business of a Visitor of the sick,--To see every sick person within his district thrice a week. To inquire into the state of their souls, and to advise them as occasion may require. To inquire into their disorders, and procure advice for them. To relieve them, if they are in want. To do anything for them which he (or she) can do. To bring in his accounts weekly to the Stewards. [The Leaders now do this.] Upon reflection, I saw how exactly in this also we had copied after the primitive Church. What were the ancient deacons What was Phebe the deaconess but such a visitor of the sick 5. I did not think it needful to give them any particular rules beside these that follow: (1) Be plain and open in dealing with souls. (2) Be mild, tender, patient. (3) Be cleanly in all you do for the sick. (4) Be not nice. 6. We have ever since had great reason to praise God for His continued blessing on this undertaking. Many lives have been saved, many sicknesses healed, much pain and want prevented or removed. Many heavy hearts have been made glad, many mourners comforted; and the Visitors have found from Him whom they serve a present reward for all their labour. XII. 1. But I was still in pain for many of the poor that were sick; there was so great expense, and so little profit. And first I resolved to try whether they might not receive more benefit in the hospitals. Upon the trial, we found there was indeed less expense, but no more good done than before. I then asked the advice of several physicians for them; but still it profited not. I saw the poor people pining away, and several families ruined, and that without remedy. 2. At length I thought of a kind of desperate expedient. ’I will prepare and give them physic myself.’ For six-or seven-and twenty years I had made anatomy and physic the diversion of my leisure hours; though I never properly studied them, unless for a few months when I was going to America, where I imagined I might be of some service to those who had no regular physician among them. I applied to it again. I took into my assistance an apothecary and an experienced surgeon; resolving at the same time not to go out of my depth, but to leave all difficult and complicated cases to such physicians as the patients should choose. 3. I gave notice of this to the Society; telling them that all who were ill of chronical distempers (for I did not care to venture upon acute) might, if they pleased, come to me at such a time, and I would give them the best advice I could and the best medicines I had. 4. Many came (and so every Friday since); among the rest was one William Kirkman, a weaver, near Old Nichol Street. I asked him, ’What complaint have you’ ’O sir,’ said he, ’a cough, a very sore cough. I can get no rest day nor night.’ I asked, ’How long have you had it’ He replied, ’About threescore years: it began when I was eleven years old.’ I was nothing glad that this man should come first, fearing our not curing him might discourage others. However, I looked up to God, and said, ’Take this three or four times a day. If it does you no good, it will do you no harm.’ He took it two or three days. His cough was cured, and has not returned to this day. 5. Now, let candid men judge, does humility require me to deny a notorious fact If not, which is vanity to say I by my own skill restored this man to health, or to say God did it by His own almighty power By what figure of speech this is called boasting I know not. But I will put no name to such a fact as this. I leave that to the Rev. Dr. Middleton. [See letter of May 27, 1749.] . 6. In five months medicines were occasionally given to above five hundred persons. Several of these I never saw before; for I did not regard whether they were of the Society or not. In that time seventy-one of these, regularly taking their medicines and following the regimen prescribed (which three in four would not do), were entirely cured of distempers long thought to be incurable. The whole expense of medicines during this time was nearly forty pounds. We continued this ever since, and by the blessing of God with more and more success. XIII. 1. But I had for some years observed many who, although not sick, were not able to provide for themselves, and had none who took care to provide for them: these were chiefly feeble, aged widows. I consulted with the Stewards how they might be relieved. They all agreed, if we could keep them in one house, it would not only be far less expensive to us, but also far more comfortable for them. Indeed, we had no money to begin; but we believed He would provide ’who defendeth the cause of the widow: so we took a lease of two little houses near; we fitted them up, so as to be warm and clean. We took in as many widows as we had room for, and provided them with things needful for the body; toward the expense of which I set aside first the weekly contributions of the bands, and then all that was collected at the Lord’s Supper. It is true this does not suffice; so that we are considerably in debt on this account also. But we are persuaded it will not always be so, seeing ’the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.’ 2. In this (commonly called the Poorhouse) we have now nine widows, one blind woman, two poor children, two upper servants, a maid and a man. I might add, four or five preachers; for I myself, as well as the other preachers who are in town, diet with the poor on the same food and at the same table; and we rejoice herein, as a comfortable earnest of our eating bread together in our Father’s kingdom. 3. I have blessed God for this house ever since it began; but lately much more than ever. I honour these widows; for they ’are widows indeed.’ So that it is not in vain that, without any design of so doing, we have copied after another of the institutions of the apostolic age. I can now say to all the world, ’Come and see how these Christians love one another!’ *[This has been since dropped for want of support.] XIV. 1. Another thing which had given me frequent concern was the case of abundance of children. Some their parents could not afford to put to school; so they remained like ’a wild ass’s colt.’ Others were sent to school, and learned at least to read and write; but they reamed all kind of vice at the same time: so that it had been better for them to have been without their knowledge than to have bought it at so dear a price. 2. At length I determined to have them taught in my own house, that they might have an opportunity of learning to read, write, and cast accounts (if no more), without being under almost a necessity of learning heathenism at the same time: and after several unsuccessful trials, I found two such Schoolmasters as I wanted; men of honesty and of sufficient knowledge, who had talents for and their hearts in the work. 3. They have now under their care near sixty children: the parents of some pay for their schooling; but the greater part, being very poor, do not; so that the expense is chiefly defrayed by voluntary contributions. We have of late clothed them too, as many as wanted. The rules of the school are these that follow *[This also has been dropped for some time. 1772.]: (1) No child is admitted under six years of age. (2) All the children are to be present at the morning sermon. (3) They are at school from six to twelve, and from one to five. (4) They have no playdays. (5) No child is to speak in school but to the masters. (6) The child who misses two days in one week without leave is excluded the school. 4. We appointed two Stewards for the school also. The business of these is,--To receive the school subscriptions, and expend what is needful; to talk with each of the masters weekly; to pray with and exhort the children twice a week; to inquire diligently whether they grow in grace and in learning, and whether the rules are punctually observed; every Tuesday morning, in conjunction with the masters, to exclude those children that do not observe the rules; every Wednesday morning to meet with and exhort their parents to train them up at home in the ways of God. 5. A happy change was soon observed in the children, both with regard to their tempers and behaviour. They learned reading, writing, and arithmetic swiftly; and at the same time they were diligently instructed in the sound principles of religion, and earnestly exhorted to fear God and work out their own salvation. XV. 1. A year or two ago I observed among many a distress of another kind. They frequently wanted, perhaps in order to carry on their business, a present supply of money. They scrupled to make use of a pawnbroker; but where to borrow it they knew not. I resolved to try if we could not find a remedy for this also. I went, in a few days, from one end of the town to the other, and exhorted those who had this world’s goods to assist their needy brethren. Fifty pounds were contributed. This was immediately lodged in the hands of two Stewards; who attended every Tuesday morning, in order to lend to those who wanted any small sum, not exceeding twenty shillings, to be repaid within three months. *[We now (1772) lend any sum not exceeding five pounds.] 2. It is almost incredible, but it manifestly appears from their accounts that with this inconsiderable sum two hundred and fifty have been assisted within the space of one year. Will not God put it into the heart of some lover of mankind to increase this little stock If this is not ’lending unto the Lord,’ what is O confer not with flesh and blood, but immediately Join hands with God, to make a poor man live! 3. I think, sir, now you know all that I know of this people. You see the nature, occasion, and design of whatever is practiced among them. And, I trust, you may be pretty well able to answer any questions which may be asked concerning them, particularly by those who inquire concerning my revenue and what I do with it all. 4. Some have supposed this was no greater than that of the Bishop of London. But others computed that I received eight hundred a year from Yorkshire only. Now, if so, it cannot be so little as ten thousand pounds a year which I receive out of all England! 5. Accordingly a gentleman in Cornwall (the Rector of Redruth) extends the calculation pretty considerably. ’Let me see,’ said he. ’Two millions of Methodists; and each of these paying twopence a week.’ If so, I must have eight hundred and sixty thousand pounds, with some odd shillings and pence, a year. 6. A tolerable competence! But be it more or less, it is nothing at all to me. All that is contributed or collected in every place is both received and expended by others; nor have I so much as the ’beholding thereof with my eyes.’ And so it will be till I turn Turk or Pagan. For I look upon all this revenue, be it what it may, as sacred to God and the poor; out of which, if I want anything, I am relieved, even as another poor man. So were originally all ecclesiastical revenues, as every man of learning knows; and the bishops and priests used them only as such. If any use them otherwise now, God help them! 7. I doubt not but, if I err in this or any other point, you will pray God to show me His truth. To have a ’conscience void of offence toward God and toward man’ is the desire of, reverend and dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. [Edited by Jerry James (Pastor), and converted to HTML by Trent Friberg for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College (Nampa, ID).] ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: 33. 1749 ======================================================================== 1749 To Dr. Conyers Middleton TO DR. CONYERS MIDDLETON [1b] LONDON, January 4, 1749. REVEREND SIR,--1. In your late Inquiry you endeavour to prove (1) that there were no miracles wrought in the primitive Church; (2) that all the primitive Fathers were fools or knaves, and most of them both one and the other: and it is easy to observe the whole tenor of your argument tends to prove (3) that no miracles were wrought by Christ or His Apostles; and (4) that these too were fools or knaves, or both. 2. I am not agreed with you on any of these heads. My reasons I shall lay before you in as free a manner, though not in so smooth or laboured language, as you have laid yours before the world. 3. But I have neither inclination nor leisure to follow you step by step through three hundred and seventy-three quarto pages. I shall therefore set aside all I find in your work which does not touch the merits of the cause, and likewise contract the question itself to the first three centuries; for I have no more to do with the writers or miracles of the fourth than with those of the fourteenth century. 4. You will naturally ask: ’Why do you stop there What reason can you give for this If you allow miracles before the empire became Christian, why not afterwards too’ I answer: Because, ’after the empire became Christian’ (they are your own words), ’a general corruption both of faith and morals infected the Christian Church; which by that revolution, as St. Jerome says, " lost as much of her virtue as it had gained of wealth and power "’ (page 123). And this very reason St. Chrysostom himself gave in the words you have afterwards cited: ’There are some who ask, Why are not miracles performed still Why are there no persons who raise the dead and cure diseases’ To which he replies, that it was owing to the want of faith and virtue and piety in those times. 1. You begin your Preface by observing that the Inquiry was intended to have been published some time ago; but, upon reflection, you resolved to ’give out first some sketch of what you was projecting’ (page 1), and accordingly ’published the Introductory Discourse’ by itself, though ’foreseeing it would encounter all the opposition that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition are ever prepared to give to all inquiries’ of this nature (page 2). But it was your ’comfort that this would excite candid inquirers to weigh the merit and consequences of it’ (page 3). 2. The consequences of it are tolerably plain, even to free the good people of England from all that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition vulgarly called Christianity. But it is not so plain that ’this is the sole expedient which can secure the Protestant religion against the efforts of Rome’ (ibid.). It may be doubted whether Deism is the sole expedient to secure us against Popery; for some are of opinion there are persons in the world who are neither Deists, nor Papists. 3. You open the cause artfully enough by a quotation from Mr. Locke (page 4). But we are agreed to build our faith on no man’s authority. His reasons will be considered in their place. ’Those who have written against his and your opinion,’ you say, ’have shown great eagerness, but little knowledge of the question; urged by the hopes of honours, and prepared to fight for every establishment that offers such pay to its defenders’ (page 5). I have not read one of these; yet I would fain believe that neither the hope of honour nor the desire of pay was the sole, or indeed the main, motive that urged either them or you to engage in writing. But I grant they are overseen, if they argue against you by citing ’the testimonies of the ancient Fathers’ (page 6), seeing they might easily perceive you pay no more regard to these than to the Evangelists or Apostles. Neither do I commend them if they ’insinuate jealousies of consequences dangerous to Christianity’ (ibid.). Why they should insinuate these I cannot conceive: I need not insinuate that the sun shines at noonday. You have ’opened too great a glare to the public’ (page 7) to leave them any room for such insinuation. Though, to save appearances, you gravely declare still, ’Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the Gospel miracles could not in any. degree be shaken by it’ (page 6). 4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point. ’The present question,’ you say, ’depends on the joint credibility of the facts and of the witnesses who attest them, especially’ on the former. For ’if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things’ (page 9). All this is most true. You go on: ’The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses, But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known.’ (Page 10.) Sir, will you retract this, or defend it If you defend, and can prove as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If ’the credibility of witnesses’ (of all witnesses, for you make no distinction) depends, as you peremptorily affirm, ’on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us’; and consequently, ’though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none,’--then it is plain all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain; then I may indeed presume, but cannot certainly know, that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born, much less that He healed the sick and raised either Lazarus or Himself from the dead. Now, sir, go and declare again how careful you are for ’the credit of the Gospel miracles’! 5. But, for fear any--considering how ’frank and open’ your nature is, and how ’warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true’ (page 7)--should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: ’The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously’--to what to the Jewish or Christian revelation No; but ’to that revelation which He made of Himself from the beginning in the beautiful fabric of this visible world.’ (Page 22.) 6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you either with that passage from St. Mark or any other from Scripture--at least I will not, unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, ’Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers which are the subject of it as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel’ (page 10). Very true; ’this should be our first care.’ I was therefore all attention to hear your account of ’the nature of those powers as they are represented to us in the Gospel,’ But, alas! you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those ’zealous champions who have attempted’ (bold men as they are) ’to refute the Introductory Discourse’ (page 11). Perhaps you will say, ’Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.’ You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers, but only to open the way to ’one of your antagonists’ (page 12); of whom you yourself affirm that ’not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament’ (page 11). Consequently the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have ’spent one thought upon the subject.’ 7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: ’It being agreed, then, that in the original promise there is no intimation of any particular period to which their continuance was limited’ (pages 13-14). Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. ’For, till we have learned from those sacred records’ (I use your own words) ’what they were and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgement of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us’ (page 11). Now, sir, if this be true (as without doubt it is), then it necessarily follows that--seeing, from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers ’as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel’--you dispute throughout the whole ’at random, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.’ 8. Your reply to ’the adversaries of your scheme’ (pages 15-27) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again. Only I would here take notice of one assertion--’that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served’ (page 23). You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. ’This, I say, is evident’ (ibid.) is not a sufficient proof; nor ’A treatise is prepared on that subject’ (page 24). Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord’s promise, [’Non omnibus omnia-ita tamen cuilibet credenti tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quae se, non semper quidem, sed data occasione explicaret’ (Grotius in Marcum xvi. 17). ] which, literally translated, runs thus: ’To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.’ 9. But, waiving this, I grant ’the single point in dispute is, whether the testimony of the Fathers be a sufficient ground to believe that miraculous gifts subsisted at all after the days of the Apostles’ (page 27). But with this you interweave another question--whether the Fathers were not all fools or knaves: in treating of which you strongly intimate (1) that such gifts did never subsist, and (2) that the Apostles were equally wise and good with the ’wonder-workers’ (your favourite term) that followed them. When, therefore, you add, ’My opinion is this--that, after our Lord’s ascension, the extraordinary gifts He had promised were poured out on the Apostles, and the other primary instruments of planting the gospel, in order to enable them to overrule the inveterate prejudices both of the Jews and Gentiles, and to bear up against the discouraging shocks of popular rage and persecution’ (page 28)--I look upon all this to be mere grimace. You believe not one word of what you say; you cannot possibly, if you believe what you said before: for who can believe both the sides of a contradiction 10. However, I will suppose you do believe it, and will argue with you from your own words. But first let us have a few more of them: ’In process of time, as miraculous powers began to be less and less wanted, so they began gradually to decline, till they were finally withdrawn’ (page 29); ’And this may probably be thought to have happened while some of the Apostles were still living.’ These were given, you say, to the first planters of the gospel, ’in order to enable them to overrule the inveterate prejudices both of Jews and Gentiles and to bear up against the shocks of persecution.’ Thus far we are agreed. They were given for these ends. But if you allow this, you cannot suppose, consistently with yourself, that they were withdrawn till these ends were fully answered. So long, therefore, as those prejudices subsisted, and Christians were exposed to the shocks of persecution, you cannot deny but there was the same occasion for those powers to be continued as there was for their being given at first. And this, you say, is ’a postulatum which all people will grant, that they continued as long as they were necessary to the Church’ (page II). 11. Now, did those prejudices cease or was persecution at an end while some of the Apostles were still living You have yourself abundantly shown they did not. You know there was as sharp persecution in the third century as there was in the first, while all the Apostles were living. And with regard to prejudices, you have industriously remarked that ’the principal writers of Rome, who make any mention of the Christians about the time of Trajan, speak of them as a set of despicable, stubborn, and even wicked enthusiasts’ (page 193); that ’Suetonius calls them " a race of men of a new and mischievous superstition "’ (page 194); and that ’Tacitus, describing the horrible tortures which they suffered under Nero, says, " They were detested for their flagitious practices; possessed with an abominable superstition; and condemned, not so much for their supposed crime of firing the city, as from the hatred of all mankind "’ (ibid.). And ’their condition,’ you say, ’continued much the same till they were established by the civil power; during all which time they were constantly insulted and calumniated by their heathen adversaries as a stupid, credulous, impious sect, the very scum of mankind’ (page 195). In a word, both with regard to prejudice and persecution, I read in your following page: ’The heathen magistrates would not give themselves the trouble to make the least inquiry into their manners or doctrines, but condemned them for the mere name without examination or trial; treating a Christian of course as guilty of every crime, as an enemy of the gods, emperors, laws, and of nature itself’ (page 196). 12. If, then, the end of those miraculous powers was ’to overcome inveterate prejudices and to enable the Christians to bear up against the shocks of persecution,’ how can you possibly conceive that those powers should cease while some of the Apostles were living With what colour can you assert that they were less wanted for these ends in the second and third than in the apostolic age With what shadow of reason can you maintain that (if they ever subsisted at all) they were finally withdrawn before Christianity was established by the civil power Then, indeed, these ends did manifestly cease, persecution was at an end, and the inveterate prejudices which had so long obtained were in great measure rooted up--another plain reason why the powers which were to balance these should remain in the Church so long, and no longer. 13. You go on to acquaint us with the excellences of your performance. ’The reader,’ you say, ’will find in these sheets none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to perplex a good cause or to palliate a bad one; no subtile refinements, forced constructions, or evasive distinctions; but plain reasoning, grounded on plain facts, and published with an honest and disinterested view to free the minds of men from an inveterate imposture. I have shown that the ancient Fathers, by whom that delusion was imposed, were extremely credulous and superstitious, possessed with strong prejudices, and scrupling no art or means by which they might propagate the same.’ (Page 31.) Surely, sir, you add the latter part of this paragraph on purpose to confute the former; for just here you use one of the unfairest arts which the most dishonest disputant can employ, in endeavouring to forestall the judgement of the reader, and to prejudice him against those men on whom he ought not to pass any sentence before he has heard the evidence. 1. In the beginning of your Introductory Discourse you declare the reasons which moved you to publish it. One of these, you say, was the late increase of Popery in this kingdom (page 41); chiefly occasioned, as you suppose, by the confident assertions of the Romish emissaries that there has been a succession of miracles in their Church from the apostolic to the present age. To obviate this plea you would ’settle some rule of discerning the true from the false, so as to give a reason for admitting the miracles of one age and rejecting those of another’ (page 44). 2. This has a pleasing sound, and is extremely well imagined to prejudice a Protestant reader in your favour. You then slide with great art into your subject: ’This claim of a miraculous power, now peculiar to the Church of Rome, was asserted in all Christian countries till the Reformation’ (ibid.). But then ’the cheat was detected’ (page 45)--nay, and men began to ’suspect that the Church had long been governed by the same arts.’ ’For it was easy to trace them up to the primitive Church, though not to fix the time when the cheat began; to show how long after the days of the Apostles the miraculous gifts continued in the Church’ (page 46). However, it is commonly believed that they continued till Christianity was the established religion. Some, indeed, extend them to the fourth and fifth centuries (page 50); but these, you say, betray the Protestant cause (page 51). ’For in the third, fourth, and fifth the chief corruptions of Popery were introduced, or at least the seeds of them sown. By these I mean monkery; the worship of relics; invocation of saints; prayers for the dead; the superstitious use of images, of the sacraments, of the sign of the cross, and of the consecrated oil.’ (Page 52.) 3. I have nothing to do with the fourth or fifth century. But to what you allege in support of this charge, so far as it relates to the third century, I have a few things to reply. And, first, you quote not one line from any Father in the third century in favour of monkery, the worship of relics, the invocation of saints, or the superstitious use either of images or consecrated oil. How is this, sir You brought eight accusations at once against the Fathers of the third as well as the following centuries; and as to five of the eight, when we call for the proof you have not one word to say! As to the sixth, you say, ’In the sacrament of the eucharist several abuses were introduced’ (page 57). You instance, first, in mixing the wine with water. But how does it appear that this was any abuse at all or that ’Irenaeus declared it to have been taught as well as practiced by our Saviour’ (Ibid.) The words you quote to prove this do not prove it at all; they simply relate a matter of fact--’Taking the bread, He confessed it to be His body; and the mixed cup, He affirmed it was His blood.[’Accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur; et temperamentum calicis, suum sanguinem confirmavit’ (Adversus omnes haereses).] You cannot be ignorant of this fact--that the cup used after the paschal supper was always mixed with water. But ’Cyprian declared this mixture to have been enjoined to himself by a divine revelation’ (page 58). If he did, that will not prove it to be an abuse; so that you are wide of the point still. You instance next in their sending the bread to the sick; which (as well as the mixture) is mentioned by Justin Martyr. This fact likewise we allow; but you have not proved it to be an abuse. I grant that, near an hundred years after, some began to have a superstitious regard for this bread. But that in ’Tertullian’s days it was carried home and locked up as a divine treasure’ I call upon you to prove; as also that infant communion was an abuse, or the styling it ’the sacrifice of the body of Christ’ (page 59). I believe the offering it up for the martyrs was an abuse; and that this, with the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, were, if not the earliest of all, yet as early as any which crept into the Christian Church. 4. It is certain ’praying for the dead was common in the second century’ (page 60). You might have said, ’And in the first also’; seeing that petition, ’Thy kingdom come,’ manifestly concerns the saints in paradise as well as those upon earth. But it is far from certain that ’the purpose of this was to procure relief and refreshment to the departed souls in some intermediate state of expiatory pains,’ or that ’this was the general opinion of those times.’ 5. As to the ’consecrated oil’ (page 63), you seem entirely to forget that it was neither St. Jerome nor St. Chrysostom, but St. James, who said, ’Is any sick among you let him send for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up’ (v. 14-15). The sum is: you have charged the Fathers of the third century with eight of the chief corruptions of Popery--(1) monkery; (2) the worship of relics; (3) invocation of saints; (4) the superstitious use of images; (5) of the consecrated oil; (6) of the sacraments; (7) of the sign of the cross; (8) praying for the dead. And what is all this heavy charge come to at last Why, just thus much: some of them in the beginning of the third century did superstitiously use the sign of the cross; and others in the middle of that century offered up the eucharist for the martyrs on their annual festivals; though how you make this ’the superstitious use of the sacraments’ I know not, or how these come to be the ’chief corruptions of Popery.’ Praying thus far for the dead, ’that God would shortly accomplish the number of His elect and hasten His kingdom,’ and anointing the sick with oil, you will not easily prove to be any corruptions at all. As to monkery, the worship of relics, invocation of saints, and the superstitious use of images, you have not even attempted to prove that these Fathers were guilty; so that, for aught appears, you might as well have charged them on the Apostles. ’Yet it is no more,’ you solemnly assure us, ’than what fact and truth oblige you to say’! (Page 65.) When I meet with any of these assurances for the time to come, I shall remember to stand upon my guard. 6. In the following pages you are arguing against the miracles of the fourth and fifth century. After which you add: ’But if these must be rejected, where, then, are we to stop And to what period must we confine ourselves This, indeed, is the grand difficulty, and what has puzzled all the other doctors who have considered the same question before me.’ (Page 71.) Sir, your memory is short. In this very discourse you yourself said just the contrary. You told us awhile ago that not only Dr. Marshall, [Thomas Marshall, D.D., Rector of Lincoln College 1672.] Dr. Dodwell, and Archbishop Tillotson, but the generality of the Protestant doctors were agreed to what period they should confine themselves, believing that miracles subsisted through the first three centuries and ceased in the beginning of the fourth (page 46 et seq.). 7. However, that none of them may ever be puzzled any more, you will ’lay down some general principles, which may lead us to a more rational solution of the matter than any that has hitherto been offered’ (ibid.). Here again I was all attention. And what did the mountain bring forth What are these general principles, preceded by so solemn a declaration, and laid down for thirteen pages together (Pages 71-84.) Why, they are dwindled down into one--’that the forged miracles of the fourth century taint the credit of all the later miracles’! I should desire you to prove that the miracles of the fourth century were all forged, but that it is not material to our question. 8. But you endeavour to show it is, ’For that surprising confidence,’ you say, ’with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged’ (a little more proof of that), ’makes us suspect that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times’ (page 84). It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, secondly: ’This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.’ (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally ’begin to forge miracles’ at that time when real miracles were no more. 10. You say, thirdly: ’The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.’ (Page 85.) I answer: (1) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier. Nor (2) That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more: witness Hilarion’s camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could ’smell an heretic at a mile’s distance.’ (Free Inquiry, pp. 89-90.) But if (3) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato’s supposition) to be deluded themselves; for they would have more assistance from God. 11. But you say, fourthly: ’The earlier ages of the Church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse: for there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and His Apostles; several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but those who would forge or make use of forged books would make use of forged miracles.’ (Introductory Discourse, pp. 8-7.) I answer: (1) It is allowed that before the end of the third century the Church was greatly degenerated from its first purity. Yet I doubt not (2) But abundantly more rank heresies have been publicly professed in many later ages; but they were not publicly protested against, and therefore historians did not record them. (3) You cannot but know it has always been the judgement of learned men (which you are at liberty to refute if you are able) that the far greater part of those spurious books have been forged by heretics, and that many more were compiled by weak, well meaning men from what had been orally delivered down from the Apostles. But (4) There have been in the Church from the beginning men who had only the name of Christians. And these doubtless were capable of pious frauds (so called). But this ought not to be charged upon the whole body. Add to this (5) What is observed by Mr. Daille,--’I impute a great part of this mischief to those men who before the invention of printing were the transcribers and copiers out of manuscripts. We may well presume that these men took the same liberty in forging as St. Jerome complains they did in corrupting books, especially since this course was beneficial to them, which the other was not.’Much more to the same effect we have in his treatise Of the Right Use of the Fathers, Part I. chap. iii. N.B. These transcribers were not all Christians--no, not in name; perhaps few, if any of them, in the first century. (6) By what evidences do you prove that these spurious books ’are frequently cited by the most eminent Fathers as not only genuine but of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves’ Or, lastly, that they either forged these books themselves or made use of what they knew to be forged These things also you are not to take for granted but to prove before your argument can be of force. 12. We are come at last to your general conclusion: ’There is no sufficient reason to believe that any miraculous powers subsisted in any age of the Church after the times of the Apostles’ (page 91). But pretended miracles, you say, arose thus: ’As the high authority of the apostolic writings excited some of the most learned Christians’ (prove that!) ’to forge books under their names; so the great fame of the apostolic miracles would naturally excite some of the most crafty when the Apostles were dead to attempt some juggling tricks in imitation of them. And when these artful pretenders had maintained their ground through the first three centuries, the leading clergy of the fourth understood their interest too well to part with the old plea of miraculous gifts.’ (Page 92.) Round assertions indeed! But surely, sir, you do not think that reasonable men will take these for proofs! You are here advancing a charge of the blackest nature. But where are your vouchers Where are the witnesses to support it Hitherto you have not been able to produce one through a course of three hundred years; unless you bring in those heathen, of whose senseless, shameless prejudices you have yourself given so clear an account. But you designed to produce your witnesses in the Free Inquiry a year or two after the Introductory Discourse was published. So you condemn them first, and try them afterwards; you will pass sentence now, and hear the evidence by-and-by! A genuine specimen of that ’impartial regard to truth’ which you profess upon all occasions. 13. Another instance of this is in your marginal note: ’The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity.’ They were; but by whom Why, by Jews and heathens. Accordingly the two witnesses you produce here are Celsus the Jew and Julian the apostate. But, lest this should not suffice, you make them confess the charge. ’The Fathers,’ your words are, ’defend themselves by saying that they did no more than the philosophers had always done; that Pythagoras’s precepts were inculcated with an ipse dixit, and they found the same method useful with the vulgar’ (page 93). And is this their whole defence Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem Stand this as another genuine proof of Dr. Middleton’s candour and impartiality! 14. A farther proof of your ’frank and open nature,’ and of your ’contenting yourself with the discharge of your own conscience by a free declaration of your real sentiments’ (page 40), I find in the very next page. Here you solemnly declare: ’Christianity is confirmed by the evidence of such miracles as, of all others on record, are the least liable to exception, and carry the clearest marks of their sincerity; being wrought by Christ and His Apostles for an end so great, so important, as to be highly worthy the interposition of the Deity; wrought by mean and simple men, and delivered by eye-witnesses, whose characters exclude the suspicion of fraud’ (page 94). Sir, do you believe one word of what you so solemnly declare You have yourself declared the contrary. But if you do not, where shall we have you Or how can we believe you another time How shall we know, I will not say, when you speak truth, but when you would have us think you do By what criterion shall we distinguish between what is spoken in your real and what in your personated character how discern when you speak as Dr. Middleton and when as the public librarian 14. You go on: ’By granting the Romanists but a single age of miracles after the Apostles, we shall be entangled in difficulties, whence we can never extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age’ (page 96). I will allow them, however, three ages of miracles, and let them make what advantage of it they can. You proceed: ’If the Scriptures are a complete rule (I reject the word ’sufficient,’ because it is ambiguous), we do not want the Fathers as guides, or, if clear, as interpreters. An esteem for them has carried many into dangerous errors: the neglect of them can have no ill consequences.’ (Page 97.) I answer: (1) The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points. And yet their clearness does not prove that they need not be explained, nor their completeness that they need not be enforced. (2) The esteeming the writings of the first three centuries not equally with but next to the Scriptures never carried any man yet into dangerous errors, nor probably ever will. But it has brought many out of dangerous errors, and particularly out of the errors of Popery. (3) The neglect in your sense of the primitive Fathers--that is, the thinking they were all fools and knaves--has this natural consequence (which ,I grant is no ill one, according to your principles), to make all who are not real Christians think Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles just as honest and wise as them. 16. You afterwards endeavour to show how the Church of England came to have such an esteem for the ancient Fathers. There are several particulars in this account which are liable to exception. But I let them pass, as they have little connexion with the point in question. 17. You conclude your Introductory Discourse thus: ’The design of the present treatise is to fix the religion of the Protestants on its proper basis--that is, on the Sacred Scriptures’ (page 111). Here again you speak in your personated character; as also when you ’freely own the primitive writers to be of use in attesting and transmitting to us the genuine books of the Holy Scriptures’! (Page 112.) Books for the full attestation as well as safe transmission whereof you have doubtless the deepest concern! 18. I cannot dismiss this Discourse without observing that the uncommon artfulness and disingenuity which glare through the whole must needs give disgust to every honest and upright heart; nor is it any credit at all to the cause you have espoused. Nay, I am persuaded there are many in these kingdoms who, though they think as you do concerning the Christian system, yet could not endure the thought of writing against it in the manner that you have done; of combating fraud (if it were so) with fraud, and practicing the very thing which they professed to expose and abhor. In your Free Inquiry itself you propose,-- ’I. To draw out in order all the principal testimonies which relate to miraculous gifts as they are found in the writings of the Fathers from the earliest ages after the Apostles; whence we shall see at one view the whole evidence by which they have hitherto been supported. ’II. To throw together all which those Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with those gifts.’ (Page 1.) ’III. To illustrate the particular characters and opinions of the Fathers who attest those miracles. ’IV. To review all the several kinds of miracles which are pretended to have been wrought, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected. ’V. To refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.’ (Page 2.) I was in hopes you would have given, at least in entering upon your main work, what you promised so long ago, an account of ’the proper nature and condition of those miraculous powers which are the subject of the whole dispute as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel’ (Preface, p. 10). But as you do not appear to have any thought of doing it at all, you will give me leave at length to do it for you. The original promise of these runs thus: ’These signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover’ (Mark xvi.17-18). A farther account is given of them by St. Peter on the very day whereon that promise was fulfilled: ’This is that which was spoken of by the Prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, . . . your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams’ (Acts ii. 16-17). The account given by St. Paul is a little fuller than this: ’There are diversities of gifts’ (carismavtwn, the usual scriptural term for the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost), ’but the same Spirit. For to one is given the word of wisdom; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of’ other ’miracles; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: all these worketh that one and the same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.’ (1 Cor. xii. 4-11.) Hence we may observe that the chief carivsmata, ’spiritual gifts,’ conferred on the apostolical Church were (1) casting out devils; (2) speaking with new tongues; (3) escaping dangers, in which otherwise they must have perished; (4) healing the sick; (5) prophecy, foretelling things to come; (6) visions; (7) divine dreams; and (8) discerning of spirits. Some of these appear to have been chiefly designed for the conviction of Jews and heathens, as the casting out devils and speaking with new tongues; some chiefly for the benefit of their fellow Christians, as healing the sick, foretelling things to come, and the discernment of spirits; and all in order to enable those who either wrought or saw them to ’run with patience the race set before them,’ through all the storms of persecution which the most inveterate prejudice, rage, and malice could raise against them. I. 1. You are, first, ’to draw out in order all the principal testimonies which relate to miraculous gifts as they are found in the writings of the Fathers from the earliest ages after the Apostles.’ You begin with the apostolic Fathers--that is, those who lived and conversed with the Apostles. ’There are several,’ you say, ’of this character, whose writings still remain to us: St. Barnabas, St. Clemens, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Hermas. Now, if those gifts had subsisted after the days of the Apostles, these must have possessed a large share of them. But if any of them had, he would have mentioned it in his writings, which not one of them has done.’ (Page 3.) The argument, fully proposed, runs thus: If any such gifts had subsisted in them or in their days, they must have mentioned them in their circular Epistles to the Churches (for so their predecessors, the Apostles, did); but they did not mention any such gifts therein. Sir, your consequence is not of any force; as will easily appear by a parallel argument: If such gifts had subsisted in St. Peter or in his days, he must have mentioned them in his circular Epistles to the Churches. But he does not mention any such gifts therein; therefore they did not subsist in him or in his days. Your argument, therefore, proves too much; nor can it conclude against an apostolic Father without concluding against the Apostle too. If, therefore, the apostolic Fathers had not mentioned any miraculous gifts in their circular Epistles to the Churches, you could not have inferred that they possessed none; since neither does he mention them in his circular Epistles whom you allow to have possessed them. Of all the Apostles you can produce but one, St. Paul, who makes mention of these gifts: and that not in his circular Epistles to the Churches; for I know not that he wrote any such. 2. All this time I have been arguing on your own suppositions that these five apostolic Fathers all wrote circular Epistles to the Churches, and yet never mentioned these gifts therein. But neither of these suppositions is true. For (1) Hermas wrote no Epistle at all. (2) Although the rest wrote Epistles to particular Churches (Clemens to the Corinthians, Ignatius to the Romans, &c.), yet not one of them wrote any circular Epistle to the Churches, like those of St. James and St. Peter; unless we allow that to be a genuine Epistle which bears the name of St. Barnabas. (3) You own they all ’speak of spiritual gifts as abounding among the Christians of that age’; but assert, ’These cannot mean anything more than faith, hope, and charity’ (ibid.). You assert: but the proof, sir I I want the proof. Though I am but one of the vulgar, yet I am not half so credulous as you apprehend the first Christians to have been. Ipse dixi will not satisfy me: I want plain, clear, logical proof; especially when I consider how much you build upon this--that it is the main foundation whereon your hypothesis stands. You yourself must allow that in the Epistles of St. Paul pneumatikaV carivsmata, ’spiritual gifts,’ does always mean more than faith, hope, and charity; that it constantly means ’miraculous gifts.’ How, then, do you prove that in the Epistles of St. Ignatius it means quite another thing not miraculous gifts, but only the ordinary gifts and graces of the gospel I thought ’the reader’ was to ’find no evasive distinctions in the following sheets’ (Preface, p. 31). Prove, then, that this distinction is not evasive, that the same words mean absolutely different things. Till this is clearly and solidly done, reasonable men must believe that this and the like expressions mean the same thing in the writings of the apostolical Fathers as they do in the writings of the Apostles--namely, not the ordinary graces of the gospel, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. 3. You aim, indeed, at a proof, which would be home to the point if you were but able to make it out. ’These Fathers themselves seem to disclaim all gifts of a more extraordinary kind. Thus Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians says, " Neither I, nor any other such as I am, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed Paul." And in the same Epistle he declares, " It was not granted to him to practice that’ Be ye angry, and sin not.’ " St. Ignatius also in his Epistle to the Ephesians says, "These things I prescribe to you, not as if I were somebody extraordinary; for though I am bound for His name, I am not yet perfect in Christ Jesus."’ (Pages 7-8.) I think verily these extraordinary proofs may stand without any reply. 4. Yet you courteously add: ’If from the passages referred to above or any other it should appear probable to any that they were favoured on some occasions with some extraordinary illuminations, visions, or divine impressions, I shall not dispute that point; but remind them only that these gifts were granted for their particular comfort, and do not therefore in any manner affect or relate to the question now before us’ (page 10). I ask pardon, sir. These do so deeply affect, so nearly relate to, the question now before us, even as stated by yourself (Preface, p. 28), that, in allowing these, you give up the substance of the question. You yourself have declared that one great end of the extraordinary gifts conferred on the Apostles was ’to enable them to bear up against the shocks of popular rage and persecution.’ Now, were not ’extraordinary illuminations, visions, and impressions,’ if given at all, given for this very end--’for their particular comfort,’ as you now word it Therefore, in allowing these to the apostolic Fathers, you allow extraordinary gifts, which had been formerly granted to the Apostles, to have subsisted in the Church after the days of the Apostles, and for the same end as they did before. 5. Therefore the apostolic writers have not left us in the dark with regard to our present argument, and consequently your triumph comes too soon: ’Here, then, we have an interval of half a century in which we have the strongest reason to presume that the extraordinary gifts of the apostolic age were withdrawn’ (page 9). No: not if all the apostolic Fathers speak of spiritual gifts as abounding among the Christians of that age; not if ’extraordinary illuminations, visions, and divine impressions still subsisted among them.’ For, as to your now putting in, ’as exerted openly in the Church for the conviction of unbelievers,’ I must desire you to put it out again; it comes a great deal too late. The question between you and me was stated without it above an hundred pages back. Although, if it be admitted, it will do you no service; seeing your proposition is overthrown if there were ’miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles,’ whether they were ’openly exerted for the conviction of unbelievers’ or not. 6. I was a little surprised that you should take your leave of the apostolic Fathers so soon. But, upon looking forward, my surprise was at an end: I found you was not guilty of any design to spare them; but only delayed your remarks till the reader should be prepared for what might have shocked him had it stood in its proper place. I do not find, indeed, that you make any objection to any part of the Epistles of Ignatius; no, nor of the Catholic Epistle, as it is called, which is inscribed with the name of Barnabas. This clearly convinces me you have not read it--I am apt to think not one page of it; seeing, if you had, you would never have let slip such an opportunity of exposing one that was called an apostolic Father. 7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking concerning it that ’he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix as a type and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable I know not.’ (Page 55.) But that it is so is certain, and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow either that Clemens was a wicked man or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. 8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season--namely, ’that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice’ (page 60). And it is not improbable that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves, some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof either that Polycarp was not an holy man or that he was not favoured with the extraordinary as well as ordinary gifts of the Spirit. 9. With regard to the narrative of his martyrdom, you affirm, ’It is one of the most authentic pieces in all primitive antiquity’ (page 124). I will not vouch for its authenticity; nor, therefore, for the story of the dove, the flame forming an arch, the fragrant smell, or the revelation to Pionius. But your attempt to account for these things is truly curious. You say: ’An arch of flame round his body is an appearance which might easily happen from the common effects of wind. And the dove said to fly out of him might be conveyed into the wood which was prepared to consume him.’ (Page 229.) How much more naturally may we account for both by supposing the whole to be a modern fiction, wrote on occasion of that account mentioned by Eusebius, but lost many ages ago!But, whatever may be thought of this account of his death, neither does this affect the question whether during his life he was endued with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. 10. There is one of those whom you style apostolic Fathers yet behind, of whom you talk full as familiarly as of the rest; I mean Hermas: ’to whom,’ you say, ’some impute the fraud of forging the Sibylline books’ (page 37). It would not have been amiss if you had told us which of the ancients, whether Christian, Jew, or heathen, ever accused him of this. If none ever did, some will be apt to think it is giving a person but hard measure to bring an accusation against him which never was heard of till sixteen hundred years after his death. But I can the more easily excuse you, because he is a person whom you are wholly unacquainted with. Though it is much, curiosity did not lead you, when you had Archbishop Wake’s translation in your hand, to read over if it were but half a dozen pages of his famous Shepherd. But charity obliges me to believe you never did. Otherwise I cannot conceive you would so peremptorily affirm of him and the rest together, ’There is not the least claim or pretension in all their several pieces to any of these extraordinary gifts which are the subject of this inquiry’ (page 3). I am amazed I Sir, have you never a friend in the world If you was yourself ignorant of the whole affair, would no one inform you that all the three books of Hermas from the first page to the last are nothing else than a recital of his extraordinary gifts, his visions, prophecies, and revelations Can you expect after this that any man in his senses should take your word for anything under heaven that any one should credit anything which you affirm or believe you any farther than he can see you Jesus, whom you persecute, can forgive you this; but how can you forgive yourself One would think you should be crying out day and night, ’The Shepherd of Hermas will not let me sleep!’ 11. You proceed to the testimony of Justin Martyr, who wrote about fifty years after the Apostles: ’He says (I translate his words literally), " There are prophetic gifts among us even until now. You may see with us both women and men having gifts from the Spirit of God." He particularly insists on that of " casting out devils, as what every one might see with his own eyes."’ (Page 10.) ’Irenaeus, who wrote somewhat later, affirms " that all who were truly disciples of Jesus wrought miracles in His name: some cast out devils; others had visions, or the knowledge of future events; others healed the sick." And as to raising the dead, he declares it to have been frequently performed on necessary occasions by great fasting and the joint supplication of the Church. " And we hear many," says he, " speaking with all kinds of tongues, and expounding the mysteries of God."’ (Pages 11-12.) ’Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the same age, speaks of casting out devils as then common in the Church’ (ibid.). 12. ’Tertullian, who flourished toward the end of the second century, challenges the heathen magistrates to ’call before their tribunals any person possessed with a devil. And if the evil spirit, when commanded by any Christian, did not confess himself to be a devil, who elsewhere called himself a god, they should take the life of that Christian."’ (Ibid.) ’Minutius Felix, supposed to have wrote in the beginning of the third century, addressing himself to his heathen friend, says, " The greatest part of you know what confessions the demons make concerning themselves, when we expel them out of the bodies of men"’ (page 13). 13. ’Origen, something younger than Minutius, declares that there remained still the manifest indications of the Holy Spirit. " For the Christians," says he, " cast out devils, perform many cures, foretell things to come. And many have been converted to Christianity by visions. I have seen many examples of this sort."’ (Page 14.) In another place he says: ’Signs of the Holy Ghost were shown at the beginning of the teaching of Jesus’ (not, as you translate it, ’miracles began with the preaching of Jesus’; that is quite a different thing); ’ more were shown after His ascension, but afterwards fewer. However, even now there are still some remains of them with a few, whose souls are cleansed by the word and a life conformable to it.’(Page 15.) Again: ’Some,’says he, ’heal the sick. I myself have seen many so healed, of loss of senses, madness, and innumerable other evils which neither men nor devils can cure.’(Ibid.)’ And this is done, not by magical arts, but by prayer and certain plain adjurations such as any common Christian may use; for generally common men do things of this kind’ (page 16). 14. ’Cyprian, who wrote about the middle of the third century, says, " Beside the visions of the night, even in the daytime innocent children among us are filled with the Holy Spirit, and in ecstasies see and hear and speak those things by which God is pleased to admonish and instruct us"’ (ibid.). Elsewhere he particularly mentions the casting out of devils: ’which,’says he, ’either depart immediately or by degrees, according to the faith of the patient or the grace of him that works the cure’(page 17). ’Arnobius, who is supposed to have wrote in the year of Christ 303, tells us, " Christ appears even now to men unpolluted and eminently holy who love Him; whose very name puts evil spirits to flight, strikes their prophets dumb, deprives the soothsayers of the power of answering, and frustrates the acts of arrogant magicians"’ (page 18). ’Lactantius, who wrote about the same time, speaking of evil spirits, says, " Being adjured by Christians, they retire out of the bodies of men, confess themselves to be demons, and tell their names, even the same which are adored in the temples "’ (ibid.). 15. ’These,’ you say, ’are the principal testimonies which assert miraculous gifts through the first three centuries; which might be supported by many more of the same kind from the same as well as different writers. But none will scruple to risk the fate of the cause upon these.’ (Page 19.) Thus far I do not scruple it. I do not doubt but the testimonies of these nine witnesses, added to the evidence of the apostolic Fathers, will satisfy every impartial man with regard to the point in question. Yet I see no cause, if there are nine witnesses more, to give up their evidence; seeing you may possibly raise objections against these which the others are unconcerned in. If, then, you should invalidate what I have to reply in behalf of the witnesses now produced, you will have done but half your work. I shall afterwards require a fair hearing for the others also. 16. You close this head with remarking (1) ’That the silence of all the apostolic writers on the subject of these gifts must dispose us to conclude they were then withdrawn’ (ibid.). O sir, mention this no more! I entreat you never name their silence again. They speak loud enough to shame you as long as you live. You cannot therefore talk with any grace of ’the pretended revival of them after a cessation of forty or fifty years,’ or draw conclusions from that which never was. Your second remark is perfectly new: I dare say none ever observed before yourself that this particular circumstance of the primitive Christians ’carried with it an air of imposture’--namely, their ’challenging all the world to come and see the miracles which they wrought’! (Page 21.) To complete the argument, you should have added, ’and their staking their lives upon the performance of them.’ 17. I doubt you have not gone one step forward yet. You have, indeed, advanced many bold assertions; but you have not fairly proved one single conclusion with regard to the point in hand. But a natural effect of your lively imagination is that from this time you argue more and more weakly; inasmuch, as the farther you go, the more things you imagine (and only imagine) yourself to have proved. Consequently, as you gather up more mistakes every step you take, every page is more precarious than the former. II. 1. The second thing you proposed was ’to throw together all which those Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit’ (ibid.). ’Now, whenever we think or speak with reverence,’say you, ’of those primitive times, it is always with regard to these very Fathers whose testimonies I have been collecting. And they were, indeed, the chief persons and champions of the Christian cause, the pastors, bishops, and martyrs of the primitive Church--namely, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius.’ Sir, you stumble at the threshold. A common dictionary may inform you that these were not all either pastors, bishops, or martyrs. 2. You go on as you set out: ’Yet none of these have anywhere affirmed that they themselves were endued with any power of working miracles’ (page 22). You should say, ’with any of those extraordinary gifts promised by our Lord and conferred on His Apostles.’ No! Have ’none of these anywhere affirmed that they themselves were endued’ with any extraordinary gifts What think you of the very first of them, Justin Martyr Either you are quite mistaken in the account you give of him elsewhere (pages 27, 30), or he affirmed this of himself over and over. And as to Cyprian, you will by-and-by spend several pages together (pages 101, &c.) on the extraordinary gifts he affirmed himself to be endued with. But suppose they had not anywhere affirmed this of themselves, what would you infer therefrom that they were not endued with any extraordinary gifts Then, by the very same method of arguing, you might prove that neither St. Peter, nor James, nor John were endued with any such; for neither do they anywhere affirm this of themselves in any of the writings which they have left behind them. 3. Your argument concerning the apostolic Fathers is just as conclusive as this, For if you say, ’The writers following the apostolic Fathers do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts, therefore they had none,’ by a parity of reason you must say, ’The writers following the Apostles do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts, therefore the Apostles had none.’ 4. Your next argument against the existence of those gifts is ’that the Fathers do not tell us the names of them which had them.’ This is not altogether true. The names of Justin Martyr and Cyprian are pretty well known; as is, among the learned, that of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. (Pages 106, 212.) 5. But what if they did not Supposing miraculous powers were openly exerted in the Church, and that not only they themselves but every one else might see this whenever they pleased--if any heathen might come and see whenever he pleased,--what could a reasonable man desire more What did it signify to him to know the names of those whom he heard prophesying or saw working miracles Though, without doubt, whoever saw the miracles wrought might easily learn the names of those that wrought them; which, nevertheless, the Christians had no need to publish abroad, to expose them so much the more to the rage and malice of their persecutors. 6. Your third argument is: ’The Christian workers of miracles were always charged with imposture by their adversaries. Lucian tells us, " Whenever any crafty juggler went to the Christians, he grew rich immediately." And Celsus represents the Christian wonder-workers as mere vagabonds and common cheats who rambled about to fairs and markets.’ (Page 23.) And is it any wonder that either a Jew or an heathen should represent them thus Sir, I do not blame you for not believing the Christian system, but for betraying so gross a partiality, for gleaning up every scrap of heathen scandal and palming it upon us as unquestionable evidence, and for not translating even these miserable fragments with any accuracy or faithfulness. Instead of giving us the text, bad as it is, you commonly substitute a paraphrase yet worse. And this the unlearned reader naturally supposes to be a faithful translation. It is no credit to your cause, if it needs such supports. And this is no credit to you if it does not. 7. To that of Lucian and Celsus, you add the evidence of Caecilius too, who calls, say you, these workers of miracles ’a lurking nation, shunning the light.’ Then they were strangely altered all on a sudden; for you told us that just before they were proving themselves cheats by a widely different method--by ’calling out both upon magistrates and people, and challenging all the world to come and see what they did’! (Page 20.) I was not aware that you had begun ’to throw together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with those extraordinary gifts.’ And it seems you have made an end of it! And accordingly you proceed to sum up the evidence, to ’observe, upon the whole, from these characters of the primitive wonder-workers, as given both by friends and enemies, we may fairly conclude that the gifts of those ages were generally engrossed by private Christians who travelled about from city to city to assist the ordinary preachers in the conversion of Pagans by the extraordinary miracles they pretended to perform’ (page 24). 8. ’Characters given both by friends and enemies’ I Pray, sir, what friends have you cited for this character or what enemies, except only Celsus the Jew (And you are a miserable interpreter for him.) So, from the single testimony of such a witness, you lay it down as an oracular truth that all the miracle-workers of the first three ages were ’mere vagabonds and common cheats,’ rambling about from city to city to assist in converting heathens by tricks and imposture! And this you ingeniously call ’throwing together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning them’! 9. But, to complete all, ’Here again,’ you say, ’we see a dispensation of things ascribed to God quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament’ (page 24). ’We see a dispensation’! Where Not in the primitive Church: not in the writings of one single Christian; not of one heathen: and only of one Jew; for poor Celsus had not a second, though he multiplies under your forming hand into a cloud of witnesses. He alone ascribes this to the ancient Christians, which you in their name ascribe to God. With the same regard to truth, you go on: ’In those days the power of working miracles’ (you should say the extraordinary gifts) ’was committed to none but those who presided in the Church of Christ.’ Ipse dixit for that. But I cannot take your word, especially when the Apostles and Evangelists say otherwise. ’But, upon the pretended revival of those powers,’--Sir, we do not pretend the revival of them, seeing we shall believe they never were intermitted till you can prove the contrary,--’we find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church, not to the bishops, the martyrs, or the principal champions of the Christian cause, but to boys, to women, and, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes also of a bad character.’ Surely, sir, you talk in your sleep: you could never talk thus, if you had your eyes open and your understanding about you. ’We find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church.’ No! I thought Cyprian had had the government of the Church at Carthage, and Dionysius at Alexandria! ’Not to the bishops.’ Who were these, then, that were mentioned last Bishops, or no bishops ’Not to the martyrs.’ Well, if Cyprian was neither bishop nor martyr, I hope you will allow Justin’s claim. ’Not to the principal champions of the Christian cause.’ And yet you told us, not three pages since, that ’these very Fathers were the chief champions of the Christian cause in those days’! ’But to boys, and to women.’ I answer: ’This is that which was spoken of by the Prophet Joel: It shall come to pass that I will pour out My Spirit, saith the Lord, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy’!--a circumstance which turns this argument full against you till you openly avow you do not believe those prophecies. ’And, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes of a bad character.’ I answer: (1) You cite only one ante-Nicene writer to prove them committed to ’private and obscure laymen.’ And he says this and no more: ’Generally private men do things of this kind.’[WJ" ejpivpan ijdiw’tai toV toiou’ton pravttousi (Origen’s Cont. Cels. 1. vii.).] By what rule of grammar you construe idiwtai ’private and obscure laymen’ I know not. (2) To prove these were sometimes men of a bad character, you quote also but one ante-Nicene Father (for I presume you will not assert the genuineness of the so-called Apostolical Constitutions); and that one is, in effect, none at all: it is Tertullian, who, in his Prescription against Heretics, says, ’They will add many things of the authority’ (or power) ’of every heretical teacher--that they raised the dead, healed the sick, foretold things to come.’ [’Adjicient multa de autoritate cujusque doctoris haeretici, illos mortuos suscitasse, debiles reformasse, &c.’] ’They will add’! But did Tertullian believe them There is no shadow of reason to think he did. And if not, what is all this to the purpose No more than the tales of later ages which you add concerning the miracles wrought by bones and relics. 10. ’These things,’ you add, ’are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers by a dexterity of juggling imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity would dispose them to embrace without examination whatever seemed to promote so good a cause’ (page 25). You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those who have no ’strong prejudices for Christianity’ did not apply what you say of these ’strolling wonder-workers’ to the Apostles as well as their successors. 11. A very short answer will suffice: ’These things are so strange.’ They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet; therefore the consequences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support. 12. Nay, but ’it is certain and notorious,’ you say, ’that this was really the case in some instances’--that is, that ’strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers’ (page 26). Sir, I must come in again with my cuckoo’s note,--The proof! where is the proof Till this is produced, I cannot allow that ’this is certain and notorious’ even in one individual instance. 13. Let us now stand still and observe what it is you have made out under this second head. What you proposed was ’to throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.’ And how have you executed what you proposed You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from heathens, three-quarters of a line from Origen, and three lines from Tertullian! Nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help. 14. And this, it seems, is ’all you have been able to draw from any of the primitive writers concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost’! (Page 21.) Permit me, sir, to apply to you what was spoken on another occasion: ’Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with’--neither sufficient skill, nor industry and application. Besides, you are resolved to draw out of the well what was never in it, and must of course lose all your labour. III. 1. You are, ’thirdly, to show the particular characters and opinions of those Fathers who attest these gifts.’ Suffer me to remind you that you mentioned nine of these--Justin, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius. You are therefore now to show what were ’the particular characters and opinions of these Fathers.’ Indeed, I should think their opinions had small relation to the question. But, since you think otherwise, I am prepared to hear you. You premise ’that an unexceptionable witness must have’ (page 26) both judgement and honesty; and then, passing over the apostolic Fathers as supposing them on your side, endeavour to show that these other Fathers had neither. 2. You begin with Justin Martyr, who, you say, ’frequently affirms that the miraculous gift of expounding the Holy Scriptures or the mysteries of God was granted to himself by the special grace of God’ (page 27). Upon which I observe: (1) It has not yet been agreed among learned men that declaring ’the mysteries of God’ is the same thing with ’expounding the Holy Scriptures.’ (2) It is not clear that Justin does affirm his being endued either with one or the other--at least, not from the passages which you cite. The first, literally translated, runs thus: ’He hath revealed to us whatsoever things we have understood by His grace from the Scriptures also.’ [jApekavlmyen ejn hJmi’n pavnta o{sa kaiV ajpoV tw’n grafw’n diaV th’" cavrito" aujtou’ nenohvkamen (Dial. Part ii).] The other: ’I have not any such power; but God has given me the grace to understand His Scriptures.’[OujdeV gaVr duvnami" ejmoiV toiuvth ti" e[stin, ajllaV cavri" paraV qeou" ejdovqh moi eij" toV sunievnai taV" grafaV" aujtou’ (Dial. Part ii.).] Now, sir, by which of these does it appear that Justin affirms he had the miraculous gift of expounding the Scriptures 3. However, you will affirm it, were it only to have the pleasure of confuting it. In order to which, you recite three passages from his writings wherein he interprets Scripture weakly enough; and then add, after a strained compliment to Dr. Grabe and a mangled translation of one of his remarks: ’His Works are but little else than a wretched collection of interpretations of the same kind. Yet this pious Father insists that they were all suggested to him from heaven.’ (Page 30.) No; neither the one nor the other. Neither do interpretations of Scripture (good or bad) make the tenth part of his writings; nor does he insist that all those which are found therein were suggested to him from heaven. This does not follow from any passage you have cited yet; nor from his saying in a particular case, ’Do you think I could have understood these things in the Scriptures; if I had not by the will of God received the grace to understand them’ 4. However, now you clap your wings. ’What credit,’ say you, ’can be due to this Father, in the report of other people’s gifts, who was so grossly deceived, or willing at least to deceive others, in this confident attestation of his own’ (Ibid.) The answer is plain and obvious: it is not clear that he attests his own at all; consequently, as yet his credit is unblemished. ’But he did not understand Hebrew, and gave a wrong derivation of the Hebrew word Satan.’ Allowing this, that he was no good etymologist, his credit as a witness may be as good as ever. 5. But, to blast his credit for ever, you will now reckon up all the heresies which he held. And first: ’He believed the doctrine of the Millennium; or " that all the saints should be raised in the flesh, and reign with Christ, in the enjoyment of all sensual pleasures, for a thousand years before the general resurrection "’ (page 31.) These you mark as though they were Justin’s words. I take knowledge you hold no faith is to be kept with heretics, and that all means are fair which conduce to so good an end as driving the Christian heresy out of the world. It is by this principle only that I can account for your adding: ’Which doctrine’ (that of their enjoying all sensual pleasures) ’he deduces from the testimony of the Prophets and of St. John the Apostle, and was followed in it by the Fathers of the second and third centuries.’ The doctrine (as you very well know) which Justin deduced from the Prophets and the Apostles, and in which he was undoubtedly followed by the Fathers of the second and third centuries, is this: The souls of them who have been martyred for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshipped the beast, neither received his mark, shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead shall not live again until the thousand years are finished. Now, to say they believed this is neither more nor less than to say they believed the Bible. 6. The second heresy you charge him with is the believing ’that those " sons of God " mentioned Genesis vi. 4, of whom it is there said, " They came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them," were evil angels’ (page 32). And I allow, he too lightly received this on the testimony of the Jewish commentators. But this only proves that he was a fallible man; not that he was a knave, or that he had not eyes and ears. 7. You charge him, thirdly, with ’treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystespes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures’ (page 33). His words are: ’By the power of evil spirits it was made death to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets.’ Well; how does this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures ’But it is certain,’ you say, ’that from this example and authority of Justin they were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers of the Church through all succeeding ages’ (ibid.). I do not conceive it is certain. I wait your proof, first of the fact, next of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that ’these books were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers through all succeeding ages,’ is in no wise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alexandrinus, wherein he urges the heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl and of Hystaspes (page 34). We cannot infer from hence that he himself held them ’in the highest veneration’; much less that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration--the example and authority of Justin--you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it may. But some, you tell us, ’impute the forging these books to Justin.’ Be pleased to tell us likewise who those are, and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till then, it can be of no signification. 8. You charge him, fourthly, ’with believing that silly story concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, with saying that he himself when at Alexandria saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up, and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto’ (page 37). And if all this be allowed, and, over and above, that he ’frequently cites apocryphal books and cites the Scriptures by memory,’ what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion--that ’he was either too great a fool or too great a knave to be believed touching a plain matter of fact’ 9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, fifthly: ’It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weakness of judgement, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact’ (page 29). But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does I dare say you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply: ’The want of judgement alone may in some cases disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him there was a statue at Rome inscribed " Simoni Deo Sancto," whereas it was really inscribed " Semoni Sanco Deo," to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,’ say you, ’if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!’ (Pages 40-1.) Far less easily. A man of good judgement may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye-and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow you endeavour to prove, sixthly, that Justin was a knave as well as a fool. To this end you remark that ’he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and divine, John Croius [Jean Croius or De Croi, Protestent Minister of Usez, wrote theological works in Latin; he died in 1659.]’ (you know when to bestow honourable appellations), ’says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles and the sentences of Mercurius.’ (Page 42.) With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And, till you disprove this or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwithstanding you have taken true pains to blacken him both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man and an unexceptionable witness as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As (1) That he held the doctrine of the Millennium, and related a weak fancy of Papias concerning it. (2) That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. (3) That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled. So he might, and all the later Fathers with him, without being either the better or the worse. (4) That he believed the story concerning the Septuagint version; nay, and that the Scriptures were destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, but restored again after seventy years by Esdras, inspired for that purpose. ’In this also’ you say, but do not prove, ’he was followed by all the principal Fathers that succeeded him; although there is no better foundation for it than that fabulous relation in the Second Book of Esdras.’ You add (5) That ’he believed the sons of God who came in to the daughters of men were evil angels.’ And all the early Fathers, you are very ready to believe, ’were drawn into the same error by the authority of the apocryphal Book of Enoch cited by St. Jude.’ (Page 44.) 12. It is not only out of your goodwill to St. Jude or Irenaeus you gather up these fragments of error that nothing be lost, but also to the whole body of the ancient Christians. For ’all those absurdities,’ you say, ’were taught by the Fathers of those ages’ (naturally implying by all the Fathers), ’as doctrines of the universal Church derived immediately from the Apostles, and thought so necessary that those who held the contrary were hardly considered as real Christians.’ Here I must beg you to prove as well as assert (1) that all these absurdities of the millennium, in the grossest sense of it, of the age of Christ, of paradise, of the destruction of the Scriptures, of the Septuagint version, and of evil angels mixing with women, were taught by all the Fathers of those ages; (2) that all those Fathers taught these as doctrines of ,the universal Church derived immediately from the Apostles; and (3) that they all denied those to be real Christians who held the contrary. 13. You next cite two far-fetched interpretations of Scripture and a weak saying out of the writings of Irenaeus. But all three prove no more than that in these instances he did not speak with strictness of judgement, not that he was incapable of knowing what he saw with his own eyes or of truly relating it to others. Before we proceed to what, with equal good humour and impartiality, you remark concerning the rest of these Fathers, it will be proper to consider what more is interspersed concerning these in the sequel of this argument. 14. And, first, you say: ’Justin used an inconclusive argument for the existence of the souls of men after death’ (page 67). It is possible he might; but, whether it was conclusive or no, this does not affect his moral character. You say, secondly: ’It was the common opinion of all the Fathers, taken from the authority of Justin Martyr, that the demons wanted the fumes of the sacrifices to strengthen them for the enjoyment of their lustful pleasures’ (page 69). Sir, no man of reason will believe this concerning one of the Fathers upon your bare assertion. I must therefore desire you to prove by more than a scrap of a sentence (1) that Justin himself held this opinion; (2) that he invented it; (3) that it was the common opinion of all the Fathers; and (4) that they all took it on his authority. 15. You affirm, thirdly: ’He says that all devils yield and submit to the name of Jesus; as also to the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ (page 85). Very likely he may. Lastly. You cite a passage from him concerning the Spirit of God influencing the minds of holy men. But neither does this in any measure affect his credit as a witness of fact. Consequently, after all that you have been able to draw either from himself or any of the primitive writers, here is one witness of unquestionable credit touching the miracles wrought in the primitive Church, touching the subsistence of the extraordinary gifts after the days of the Apostles. 16. But let us come once more to Irenaeus; for you have not done with him yet. ’Forgery,’ you say, ’has been actually charged upon Justin’ (by John Croius and Dr. Middleton), ’and may with equal reason be charged on Irenaeus; for what other account can be given of his frequent appeals to apostolical tradition for the support of so many incredible doctrines’ (page 111). Why, this very natural one, that in non-essential points he too easily followed the authority of Papias, a weak man, who on slight grounds believed many trifling things to have been said or done by the Apostles. And allowing all this, yet it does not give us so ’lamentable an idea of those primitive ages and primitive champions of the Christian cause’ (page 59). The same account may be given of his mistake concerning the age of our Lord (ibid.). There is therefore as yet neither reason nor any plausible presence for laying forgery to his charge; and consequently thus far his credit as a witness stands clear and unimpeached. But you say, secondly: ’He was a zealous asserter of tradition’ (page 61). He might be so, and yet be an honest man, and that whether he was mistaken or no in supposing Papias to have been a disciple of John the Apostle (page 64). You say, thirdly: He supposed ’that the disciples of Simon Magus as well as Carpocrates used magical arts’ (page 68); that ’the dead were frequently raised in his time’ (page 72); that ’the Jews by the name of God cast out devils’ (page 85); and that ’many had even then the gift of tongues, although he had it not himself.’ 17. This is the whole of your charge against St. Irenaeus, when summed up and laid together. And now let any reasonable person judge whether all this gives us the least cause to question either his having sense enough to discern a plain matter of fact or honesty enough to relate it. Here, then, is one more credible witness of miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles. 18. What you advance concerning the history of tradition, I am neither concerned to defend nor to confute. Only I must observe you forget yourself again where you say, ’The fable of the millennium, of the old age of Christ, with many more, were all embraced by the earliest Fathers’ (page 64). For modesty’s sake, sir, think a little before you speak; and remember you yourself informed us that one of these was never embraced at all but by one single Father only. 19. ’I cannot,’ you say, ’dismiss this article without taking notice that witchcraft was universally believed through all ages of the primitive Church’ (page 66). This you show by citations from several of the Fathers; who likewise believed, as you inform us, that ’evil spirits had power frequently to afflict either the bodies or minds of men’; that they ’acted the parts of the heathen gods, and assumed the forms of those who were called from the dead. Now, this opinion,’ say you, ’is not only a proof of the grossest credulity, but of that species of it which, of all others, lays a man most open to imposture’ (page 70). And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation, not only in the histories of all ages and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained, but particularly in Scripture--in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament, as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to ’suffer a witch to live’ (ibid.); where St. Paul numbers ’witchcraft’ with ’the works of the flesh’ (Gal. v. 19-20), and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, ’Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers’ (Rev. xxii. 15). That the gods of the heathens are devils (1 Cor. x. 30) is declared in terms by one of those who are styled inspired writers. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their ’assuming the form of those who were called from the dead’ (1 Sam. xxviii. 13-14). Of the power of evil spirits to afflict the minds of men none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job and that of the Gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book the Bible than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture. 20. Now to apply. ’A mind,’ you say, ’so totally possessed by superstitious fancies could not even suspect the pretensions of those vagrant jugglers, who in those primitive ages were so numerous and so industriously employed in deluding their fellow creatures. Both heathens, Jews, and Christians are all allowed to have had such impostors among them.’ (Page 71.) By whom, sir, is this allowed of the Christians By whom but Celsus was it affirmed of them Who informed you of their growing so numerous and using such industry in their employment To speak the plain truth, your mind appears ’to be so totally possessed by’ these ’vagrant jugglers,’ that you cannot say one word about the primitive Church but they immediately start up before you, though there is no more proof of their ever existing than of a witch’s sailing in an eggshell. 21. You conclude this head: ’When pious Christians are arrived to this pitch of credulity, as to believe that evil spirits or evil men can work miracles in opposition to the gospel, their very piety will oblige them to admit as miraculous whatever is pretended to be wrought in defence of it’ (ibid.). Once more you have spoken out: you have shown without disguise what you think of St. Paul and the ’lying miracles’ (2 Thess. ii. 9) which he (poor man!) believed evil spirits or evil men could work in opposition to the gospel; and of St. John talking so idly of him who ’doeth great wonders . . . and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth’ (even though they were not Christians) ’by means of those miracles which he hath power to do’ (Rev. xiii. 13-14). 22. You have now finished the third thing you proposed; which was ’to show the particular characters of the several Fathers who attest’ that they were eye-and ear-witnesses of the extraordinary gifts in the primitive Church. You named nine of these--Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius; at the same time observing that many other writers attest the same thing. But let the others stand by. Are these good men and true That is the present question. You say, ’No’; and, to prove that these nine are knaves, bring several charges against two of them. These have been answered at large: some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence. But, supposing we waive the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come. Oh, but you say: ’If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which these have taught them.’ You say; but how often must you be reminded that saying and proving are two things I grant in three or four opinions some (though not all) of these were mistaken as well as those two. But this by no means proves that they were all knaves together; or that, if Justin Martyr or Irenaeus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix. 23. You have therefore made a more lame piece of work on this head, if possible, than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a fourth part even of the writers you have named as attesting the continuance of the ’extraordinary gifts’ after the age of the Apostles. But you have taught that trick at least to your ’vagrant jugglers’ to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, your tenth legion. Yet, if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanish away. IV. You are, in the fourth place, to ’review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been given, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected’ (page 72). ’These,’ you say, ’are (1) the power of raising the dead; (2) of healing the sick; (3) of casting out devils; (4) of prophesying; (5) of seeing visions; (6) of discovering the secrets of men; (7) expounding the Scriptures; (8) of speaking with tongues.’ I had rather have had an account of the miraculous powers as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel. But that account you are not inclined to give. So we will make the best of what we have. Section I. 1. And, first, as to ’raising the dead.’ Irenaeus affirms: ’This was frequently performed on necessary occasions; when, by great fastings and the joint supplication of the Church, the spirit of the dead person returned into him, and the man was given back to the prayers of the saints’ (ibid.). 2. But you object: ’There is not an instance of this to be found in the first three centuries’ (ibid.). I presume you mean no heathen historian has mentioned it; for Christian historians were not. I answer: (1) It is not probable an heathen historian would have related such a fact had he known it. (2) It is equally improbable he should know it: seeing the Christians knew with whom they had to do; and that, had such an instance been made public, they would not long have enjoyed him who had been given back to their prayers. They could not but remember what had been before, when the Jews sought Lazarus also to kill him: a very obvious reason why a miracle of this particular kind ought not to have been published abroad;--especially considering (3) that it was not designed for the conversion of the heathens; but ’on occasions necessary’ for the good of the Church, of the Christian community. (4) It was a miracle proper, above all others, to support and confirm the Christians, who were daily tortured and slain, but sustained by the hope of obtaining a better resurrection. 3. You object, secondly: ’The heathens constantly affirmed the thing itself to be impossible’ (page 73). They did so. But is it ’a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead’ 4. You object, thirdly, that when ’Autolycus, an eminent heathen, scarce forty years after this, said to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, " Show me but one raised from the dead, that I may see and believe" (ibid.), Theophilus could not.’ Supposing he could not, I do not see that this contradicts the testimony of Irenaeus; for he does not affirm (though you say he does) that this was ’performed, as it were, in every parish or place where there was a Christian Church’ (page 72). He does not affirm that it was performed at Antioch; probably not in any Church, unless where a concurrence of important circumstances required it. Much less does he affirm that the persons raised in France would be alive forty years after. Therefore--although it be granted (1) that the historians of that age are silent; (2) that the heathens said the thing was impossible; and (3) that Theophilus did not answer the challenge of the heathen Autolycus--all this will not invalidate in any degree the express testimony of Irenaeus or prove that none have been raised from the dead since the days of the Apostles. Section II. 1. ’The next gift is that of healing the sick, often performed by anointing them with oil; in favour of which,’ as you observe, ’the ancient testimonies are more full and express’ (page 75). But ’this,’ you say, ’might be accounted for without a miracle, by the natural efficacy of the oil itself’ (page 76). I doubt not. Be pleased to try how many you can cure thus that are blind, deaf, dumb, or paralytic; and experience, if not philosophy, will teach you that oil has no such natural efficacy as this. 2. Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition that ’they were not cured at all, that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end.’ But by what arguments do you evince this The first is, ’The heathens pretended to do the same’; nay, and ’managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it, but insisted always that it was performed by demons or evil spirits’ (ibid.). But still the heathens maintained, ’the cures were wrought by their gods--by Aesculapius in particular.’ And where is the difference seeing, as was observed before, ’the gods of the heathens were but devils.’ 3. But you say, ’Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures at the time when they were performed, yet it is certain all those heathen miracles were pure forgeries’ (page 79). How is it certain If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more credulous than I. I cannot believe that the whole body of the heathens for so many generations were utterly destitute of common sense any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries You could have done no more, if they had been Christians! 4. But ’diseases thought fatal and desperate are oft surprisingly healed of themselves.’ And, therefore, ’we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more precisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle’ (ibid.). Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argument is easily seen. It points at the Master as well as His servants; and tends to prove that, after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure there were ever any in the world. But it will do no harm. For although we grant (1) that some recover even in seemingly desperate cases, and (2) that we do not know in any case the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance: I do not precisely know how far nature can go in healing, that is, restoring sight to the blind; yet this I assuredly know--that, if a man born blind is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard. 5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head is (1) that the heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them; (2) that oil may cure some diseases by its natural efficacy; and (3) that we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed either by our Lord and His Apostles or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries. Section III. 1. The third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive Church is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, neither by the Apostles nor since the Apostles (for the argument proves both or neither), is a task worthy of you. And, to give you your just praise, you have here put forth all your strength. 2. And yet I cannot but apprehend there was a much shorter way. Would it not have been readier to overthrow all those testimonies at a stroke by proving there never was any devil in the world Then the whole affair of casting him out had been at an end. But it is in condescension to the weakness and prejudices of mankind that you go less out of the common road, and only observe ’that those who were said to be possessed of the devil may have been ill of the falling sickness.’ And their symptoms, you say, ’seem to be nothing else but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy’ (page 81). If it be asked, But were ’the speeches and confessions of the devils and their answering to all questions nothing but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy’ you take in a second hypothesis, and account for these ’by the arts of imposture and contrivance between the persons concerned in the act’ (page 82). But is not this something extraordinary, that men in epileptic fits should be capable of so much art and contrivance To get over this difficulty, we are apt to suppose that art and contrivance were the main ingredients; so that we are to add only quantum sufficit of the epilepsy, and sometimes to leave it out of the composition. But the proof, sir where is the proof I want a little of that too. Instead of this we have only another supposition--’that all the Fathers were either induced by their prejudices to give too hasty credit to these pretended possessions or carried away by their zeal to support a delusion which was useful to the Christian cause’ (ibid.). I grant they were prejudiced in favour of the Bible; but yet we cannot fairly conclude from hence, either that they were one and all continually deceived by merely pretended possessions, or that they would all lie for God--a thing absolutely forbidden in that book. 3. But ’leaders of sects,’ you say, ’whatever principles they pretend to, have seldom scrupled to use a commodious lie’ (page 83). I observe you are quite impartial here. You make no exception of age or nation. It is all one to you whether your reader applies this to the son of Abdallah or the Son of Mary. And yet, sir, I cannot but think there was a difference. I fancy the Jew was an honester man than the Arabian; and though Mahomet used many a commodious lie, yet Jesus of Nazareth did not. 4. However, ’Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style’ (that is, in plain English, of lying), ’as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares’ (ibid.). You should have said an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head, but (as your manner is) taken all for granted. 5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: ’A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, " I found her on my own ground."’ (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian’s. But how is that proved Why, ’Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.’ He was so; but can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty 6. You add: ’The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted that these Jewish and heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.’ (Pages 84, 87-8.) ’Deceived,’ say you, ’by their own impostors’ Why, I thought they were the very men who set them to work! who opposed one cheat to another! Apt scholars, who acted their part so well as even to deceive their masters! But, whatever the heathen were, we cannot grant that all the ’Jewish exorcists were impostors.’ Whether the heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth cast them out; which is a point not here to be disputed. 7. But ’it is very hard to believe what Origen declares, that the devils used to possess and destroy cattle.’ You might have said what Matthew and Mark declare concerning the herd of swine; and yet we shall find you by-and-by believing far harder things than this. Before you subjoined the silly story of Hilarion and his camel, [St. Jerome says in his Vita Hilarions Eremitae that a raging camel, who had already trampled on many, was brought with ropes by more than thirty men to Hilarion. Its eyes were bloody, its mouth foaming. Hilarion dismissed the men; and when the camel would have rushed on him, he stretched out his hands and said, ’Thou wilt not terrify me, O devil, with thy vast body; both in the little fox and in the camel thou art one and the same.’ The camel fell humbly at his feet with the devil cast out. Kingsley does not give this story in The Hermits.] you should in candour have informed your reader that it is disputed whether the life of Hilarion was wrote by St. Jerome or no. But, be it as it may, I have no concern for either; for they did not live within the first three ages. 8. I know not what you have proved hitherto, though you have affirmed many things and intimated more. But now we come to the strength of the cause contained in your five observations. You observe, first, ’that all the primitive accounts of casting out devils, though given by different Fathers and in different ages, yet exactly agree with regard to all the main circumstances’ (page 91). And this you apprehend to be a mark of imposture. ’It looks,’ you say, ’as if they copied from each other’! Now, a vulgar reader would have imagined that any single account of this kind must be rendered much more (not less) credible by parallel accounts of what many had severally seen at different times and in different places. 9. You observe, secondly, ’that the persons thus possessed were called ejggastrivmuqoi, " ventriloquists "’ (some of them were), ’because they were generally believed to speak out of the belly. Now, there are at this day,’ you say, ’those who by art and practice can speak in the same manner. If we suppose, then, that there were artists of this kind among the ancient Christians, how easily, by a correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist, might they delude the most sensible of their audience!’ (Page 92.) But what did the ventriloquist do with his epilepsy in the meantime You must not let it go, because many of the circumstances wherein all these accounts agree cannot be tolerably accounted for without it. And yet how will you make these two agree It is a point worthy your serious consideration. But cheats, doubtless, they were, account for it who can. Yet it is strange none of the heathens should find them out, that the imposture should remain quite undiscovered till fourteen hundred years after the impostors were dead! He must have a very large faith who can believe this--who can suppose that not one of all those impostors should, either through inadvertence or in the midst of tortures and death, have once intimated any such thing. 10. You observe, thirdly, ’that many demoniacs could not be cured by all the power of the exorcists, and that the cures which were pretended to be wrought on any were but temporary, were but the cessation of a particular fit or access of the distemper. This,’ you say, ’is evident from the testimony of antiquity itself, and may be clearly collected from the method of treating them in the ancient Church.’ (Ibid.) Sir, you are the most obliging disputant in the world; for you continually answer your own arguments. Your last observation confuted all that you had advanced before. And now you are so kind as to confute that. For if, after all, these demoniacs were real epileptics, and that in so high a degree as to be wholly incurable, what becomes of their art and practice and of the very good correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist Having allowed you your supposition just so long as may suffice to confute yourself, I must now observe it is not true. For all that is evident from the testimony of antiquity is this: that although many demoniacs were wholly delivered, yet some were not even in the third century, but continued months or years with only intervals of ease before they were entirely set at liberty. 11. You observe, fourthly, ’that great numbers of demoniacs subsisted in those early ages whose chief habitation was in a part of the church where, as in a kind of hospital, they were under the care of the exorcists; which will account for the confidence of those challenges made to the heathens by the Christians to come and see how they could drive the devils out of them, while they kept such numbers of them in constant pay, always ready for the show, tried and disciplined by your exorcists to groan and howl, and give proper answers to all questions.’ (Pages 94-5.) So now the correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist is grown more close than ever! But the misfortune is, this observation likewise wholly overthrows that which went before it. For if all the groaning and howling and other symptoms were no more than what they’were disciplined to by their exorcists’ (page 95), then it cannot be that ’many of them could not possibly be cured by all the power of those exorcists’ (page 92). What! could they not possibly be taught to know their masters, and when to end as well as to begin the show One would think that the cures wrought upon these might have been more than temporary. Nay, it is surprising that, while they had such numbers of them, they should ever suffer the same person to show twice. 12. You observe, fifthly, ’that, whereas this power of casting out devils had hitherto been in the hands only of the meaner part of the laity’ (that wants proof), ’it was about the year 367 put under the direction of the clergy; it being then decreed by the Council of Laodicea that none should be exorcists but those appointed (or ordained) by the bishop. But no sooner was this done, even by those who favoured and desired to support it, than the gift itself gradually decreased and expired.’ (Page 95.) You here overthrow, not only your immediately preceding observation (as usual), but likewise what you have observed elsewhere--that the exorcists began to be ordained ’about the middle of the third century’ (page 86). If so, what need of decreeing it now, above an hundred years after Again: If the exorcists were ordained an hundred years before this Council sat, what change was made by the decree of the Council Or how came the power of casting out devils to cease upon it You say the bishops still favoured and desired to support it. Why, then, did they not support it It must have been they (not the poor exorcists, who were but a degree above sextons) who had hitherto kept such numbers of them in pay. What was become of them now Were all the groaners and howlers dead, and no more to be procured for money Or rather, did not the bishops, think you, grow covetous as they grew rich, and so kept fewer and fewer of them in pay, till at length the whole business dropped 13. These are your laboured objections against the great promise of our Lord, ’In My name shall they cast out devils’; whereby (to make sure work) you strike at Him and His Apostles just as much as at the primitive Fathers. But, by a strange jumble of ideas in your head, you would prove so much that you prove nothing. By attempting to show all who claimed this power to be at once both fools and knaves, you have spoiled your whole cause, and in the event neither shown them to be one nor the other; as the one half of your argument all along just serves to overthrow the other. So that, after all, the ancient testimonies touching this gift remain firm and unshaken. Section IV. I. You told us above that ’the fourth miraculous gift was that of prophesying; the fifth, of seeing visions; the sixth, of discovering the secrets of men’ (page 72). But here you jumble them all together, telling us, ’The next miraculous gift is that of prophetic visions and ecstatic trances’ (ecstatic ecstasies you might have said) ’and the discovery of men’s hearts’ (page 96). But why do you thrust all three into one Because, you say, ’these seem to be the fruit of one spirit.’ Most certainly they are, whether it was the Spirit of Truth or (as you suppose) the spirit of delusion. 2. However, it is the second of these on which you chiefly dwell (the fifth of those you before enumerated), taking but little notice of the fourth, ’foretelling things to come,’ and none at all of the sixth, ’discovering the secrets of men.’ The testimonies, therefore, for these remain in full force, as you do not even attempt to invalidate them. With regard to visions or ecstasies, you observe, first, that Tertullian calls ecstasy ’a temporary loss of senses’ (page 97). It was so of the outward senses, which were then locked up. You observe, secondly, that ’Suidas’ [Suidas, placed about A.D. 975-1025, reputed author of a Greek Lexicon which contains many passages from authors whose works are lost.] (a very primitive writer, who lived between eight and nine hundred years after Tertullian) ’says that of all the kinds of madness that of the poets and prophets was alone to be wished for.’ I am at a loss to know what this is brought to prove. The question is, Were there visions in the primitive Church You observe, thirdly, that Philo the Jew says (I literally translate his words, which you do not; for it would not answer your purpose), ’When the divine light shines, the human sets; but when that sets, this rises. This uses to befall the prophets’ (page 98). Well, sir, and what is this to the question Why, ’from these testimonies,’ you say, ’we may collect that the vision or ecstasy of the primitive Church was of the same kind with those of the Delphic Pythia or the Cumaean Sibyl.’ Well collected indeed! But I desire a little better testimony than either that of Philo the Jew, or Suidas a lexicographer of the eleventh century, before I believe this. How little Tertullian is to be regarded on this head you yourself show in the very next page. 3. You say, fourthly: ’Montanus and his associates were the authors of these trances. They first raised this spirit of enthusiasm in the Church, and acquired great credit by their visions and ecstasies.’ Sir, you forget: they did not ’raise this spirit,’ but rather Joel and St. Peter; according to whose words the ’young men saw visions’ before Montanus was born. 4. You observe, fifthly, how Tertullian was ’imposed upon by the craft of ecstatic visionaries’ (page 99), and then fall upon Cyprian with all your might: your objections to whom we shall now consider. And, first, you lay it down as a postulatum that he was ’fond of power and episcopal authority’ (page 101). I cannot grant this, sir: I must have some proof; else this and all you infer from it will go for nothing. You say, secondly: ’In all questionable points of doctrine or discipline, which he had a mind to introduce into the Christian worship, we find him constantly appealing to the testimony of visions and divine revelations. Thus he says to Caecilius that he was divinely admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament in order to render it effectual.’ You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian’s appealing to visions and revelations in order to introduce questionable points of doctrine or discipline into the Christian worship; because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be ’introduced into the Christian worship,’ having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed (Introductory Discourse, p. 57), at least from the time of Justin Martyr. Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, ’in order to render it effectual.’ They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing. 5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. ’He threatens,’ you say, ’to execute what he was ordered to do " against them in a vision "’ (page 102). Here also the last words, ’in a vision,’ are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian’s words are, ’I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.’ [’Utar ea admonitione, qua me Dominus uti jubet’ (Epis. ix.).] But neither was this in order to introduce any questionable point either of doctrine or discipline, no more than his using the same threat to Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him and left his communion. 6. You go on: ’He says likewise he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones’ (pages 103-4). True; but what ’questionable point of doctrine or discipline’ did he introduce hereby or by ordaining Celerinus, ’who was overruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office’ So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not--at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin, which, literally translated, run thus: ’I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.’ [’Non humane suffragatione, sed divina dignatione,conjunctum’ (Epis xxxiv.).] ’In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a reader, he says to his clergy and people, " In ordaining clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but there is no need to wait for human testimonies when the divine suffrage has been already signified."’ An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, ’He was fond of power’ (you have as much ground to say, ’He was fond of bloodshed’), you will make it plain, ’this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.’ But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again. 7. Hitherto, then, the character of Cyprian is unhurt; but now you are resolved to blow it up at once. So you proceed: ’The most memorable effect of any of his visions was his flight from his Church in the time of persecution. He affirms that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven. Yet this plea was a mere fiction, contrived to quiet the scandal which was raised by his flight; and is confuted by himself, where he declares it was the advice of Tertullus which prevailed with him to withdraw.’ (Pages 104-5.) You here charge Cyprian with confuting himself, in saying he ’withdrew by the advice of Tertullus’; whereas he had ’before affirmed that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven.’ Indeed he had not: there is no necessity at all for putting this construction upon those words, ’The Lord who commanded me to retire’; which may without any force be understood of the written command, ’When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another’ (Matt. x. 23). It is not therefore clear that this plea of a special revelation was ever advanced. And if it was advanced, it still remains to be proved that ’it was nothing else but a mere fiction.’ 8. Your citing his editor here obliges me to add a remark, for which you give continual occasion: If either Rigalt, Mr. Dodwell, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Thirlby, or any editor of the Fathers ever drops an expression to the disadvantage of the author whom he publishes or illustrates, this you account so much treasure, and will surely find a time to expose it to public view. And all these passages you recite as demonstration. These are doubtless mere oracles; although, when the same person speaks in favour of the Father, his authority is not worth a straw. But you have ’none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to palliate a bad cause’! (Preface, p. 31.) 9. What you relate of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, you have not from himself, but only from one who lived near an hundred years after Dionysius was dead. Therefore he is not at all accountable for it; as neither am I for any vision of St. Jerome. But I am concerned in the consequence you draw from it: ’If this was a fiction, so were Cyprian’s too.’ That will not follow. Many objections may lie against the one which have no place with regard to the other. 10. You now bring forth your grand discovery, that ’all the visions of those days were contrived, or authorized at least, by the leading men of the Church. For they were all applied, either (1) to excuse the conduct of particular persons, in some instances of it liable to censure; or (2) to enforce some doctrine or discipline pressed by some, but not relished by others; or (3) to confirm things not only frivolous but sometimes even superstitious and hurtful.’ (Page 103.) Well, sir, here is the proposition. But where is the proof I hope we shall have it in your next Free Inquiry; and that you will then give us a few instances of such applications from the writers of the first three centuries. 11. Being not disposed to do this at present, you fall again upon the poor ’heretic Montanus, who first gave a vogue’ (as you phrase it) ’to visions and ecstasies in the Christian Church’ (page 110). So you told us before. But we cannot believe it yet, because Peter and Paul tell us the contrary. Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is anything to the question, but only to make way for observing that those who wrote against him ’employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epiphanius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, " that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles."’ Sir, have you not mistook Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin and translated another That sentence which stands in your margin is this: ’When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.’ Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to ’shake the credit of all prophecy.’ 12. Why thus: ’Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.’ (Page 111.) That this was then ’the current opinion’ you bring three citations to prove. But if you could cite three Fathers more during the first three centuries expressly affirming that the Prophets were all out of their senses, I would not take their word. For though I take most of the Fathers to have been wise and good men, yet I know none of them were infallible. But do even these three expressly affirm it No, not one of them--at least, in the words you have cited. From Athenagoras you cite only part of a sentence, which, translated as literally as it will well bear, runs thus: ’Who in an ecstasy of their own thoughts, being moved by the Divine Spirit, spoke the things with which they were inspired even as a piper breathes into a pipe.’ Does Athenagoras expressly affirm in these words that the Prophets were ’transported out of their senses’ I hope, sir, you do not understand Greek. If so, you show here only a little harmless ignorance. 13. From Justin Martyr also you cite but part of a sentence. He speaks very nearly thus: ’That the Spirit of God, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as the quill strikes the harp or lyre, may reveal unto us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things.’ And does Justin expressly affirm in these words that all the Prophets were ’transported out of their senses’ Tertullian’s words are: ’A man being in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, must needs lose sense.’ [’Necesse est, excidat sensu.’] Now, as it is not plain that he means hereby ’lose his understanding’ (it being at least equally probable that he intends no more than losing for the time the use of his outward senses), neither can it be said that Tertullian expressly affirms, ’The Prophets were all out of their senses.’ Therefore you have not so much as one Father to vouch for what you say was ’the current opinion in those days.’ 14. I doubt not but all men of learning will observe a circumstance which holds throughout all your quotations. The strength of your argument constantly lies in a loose and paraphrastical manner of translating. The strength of mine lies in translating all in the most close and literal manner; so that closeness of translation strengthens mine in the same proportion as it weakens your arguments: a plain proof of what you elsewhere observe, that you use ’no subtle refinements or forced constructions’ (Preface, p. 31). 15. But to return to Cyprian. ’I cannot forbear,’ you say, ’relating two or three more of his wonderful stories. The first is, A man who had denied Christ was presently struck dumb: the second, A woman who had done so was seized by an unclean spirit, and soon after died in great anguish: the third, of which he says he was an eye-witness, is this,--The heathen magistrates gave to a Christian infant part of what had been offered to an idol. When the deacon forced the consecrated wine on this child, it was immediately seized with convulsions and vomiting; as was a woman who had apostatized, upon taking the consecrated elements.’ (Pages 112-13.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge. ’Now, what can we think,’ say you, ’of these strange stories, but that they were partly forged, partly dressed up in this tragical form, to support the discipline of the Church in these times of danger and trial’ (Page 115.) Why, many will think that some of them are true even in the manner they are related; and that, if any of them are not, Cyprian thought they were, and related them in the sincerity of his heart. Nay, perhaps some will think that the wisdom of God might ’in those times of danger and trial’ work things of this kind for that very end, ’to support the discipline of the Church.’ And till you show the falsehood, or at least the improbability, of this, Cyprian’s character stands untainted; not only as a man of sense (which you yourself allow), but likewise of eminent integrity; and consequently it is beyond dispute that visions, the fifth miraculous gift, remained in the Church after the days of the Apostles. Section V. 1. The sixth of the miraculous gifts which you enumerated above, namely, ’the discernment of spirits,’ you just name, and then entirely pass over. The seventh is that of ’expounding the Scriptures’ (page 116). You tack to it ’or the mysteries of God.’ But, inasmuch as it is not yet agreed (as was intimated above) whether this be the same gift, it may just as well be left out. 2. Now, as to this you say, ’There is no trace of it to be found since the days of the Apostles. For even in the second and third centuries a most senseless and extravagant method of expounding them prevailed. For which, when we censure any particular Father, his apologists with one voice allege, " This is to be charged to the age wherein he lived, which could not relish or endure any better."’ I doubt much whether you can produce one single apologist for any ’ridiculous comment on sacred writ,’ who anywhere ’alleges that the second or third century could not relish or endure any better.’ But if they were all to say this with one voice, yet no reasonable man could believe them; for it is notoriously contrary to matter of fact. It may be allowed that some of these Fathers, being afraid of too literal a way of expounding the Scriptures, leaned sometimes to the other extreme. Yet nothing can be more unjust than to infer from hence ’that the age in which they lived could not relish or endure any but senseless, extravagant, enthusiastic, ridiculous comments on sacred writ.’ Will you say that all the comments on Scripture still to be found in the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenagoras, or even of Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, are senseless and extravagant If not, this charge must fall to the ground; it being manifest that even ’the age in which they lived’ could both ’endure and relish’ sound, sensible, rational (and yet spiritual) comments on holy writ. Yet this extravagant charge you have repeated over and over in various parts of your work, thrusting it upon your reader in season and out of season: how fairly, let all candid men judge. 3. Touching the miraculous gift of expounding Scripture, you say, ’Justin Martyr affirms it was conferred on him by the special grace of God’ (page 117). I cannot find where he affirms this. Not in the words you cite, which, literally translated (as was observed before), runs thus: ’He hath revealed to us whatsoever things we have understood by His grace from the Scriptures also.’ You seem conscious these words do not prove the point, and therefore eke them out with those of Monsieur Tillemont.[Louis Sebastien de Tillemont (1637-98),the ecclesiastical historian; Ordained priest 1676. He took his name from Tillemont, near Paris where he settled.] But his own words, and no other, will satisfy me. I cannot believe it, unless from his own mouth. 4. Meantime I cannot but observe an odd circumstance--that you are here in the abundance of your strength confuting a proposition which (whether it be true or false) not one of your antagonists affirms. You are labouring to prove ’there was not in the primitive Church any such miraculous gift as that of expounding the Scriptures.’ Pray, sir, who says there was Not Justin Martyr; not one among all those Fathers whom you have quoted as witnesses of the miraculous gifts, from the tenth to the eighteenth page of your Inquiry. If you think they do, I am ready to follow you step by step through every quotation you have made. 5. No, nor is this mentioned in any enumeration of the miraculous gifts which I can find in the Holy Scriptures. Prophecy, indeed, is mentioned more than once by the Apostles as well as the Fathers. But the context shows, where it is promised as a miraculous gift, it means the foretelling things to come. All, therefore, which you say on this head is a mere ignoratio elenchi, ’a mistake of the question to be proved.’ Section VI. 1. The eighth and last of the miraculous gifts you enumerated was the gift of tongues. And this, it is sure, was claimed by the primitive Christians; for Irenaeus says expressly, ’" We hear many in the Church speaking with all kinds of tongues." And yet,’ you say, ’this was granted only on certain special occasions, and then withdrawn again from the Apostles themselves; so that in the ordinary course of their ministry they were generally destitute of it. This,’ you say, ’I have shown elsewhere.’ (Page 119.) I presume in some treatise which I have not seen. 2. But Irenaeus, who declares that ’many had this gift in his days, yet owns he had it not himself.’ This is only a proof that the case was then the same as when St. Paul observed long before, ’Are all workers of miracles have all the gifts of healing do all speak with tongues’ (1 Cor. xii. 19-30). No, not even when those gifts were shed abroad in the most abundant manner. 3. ’But no other Father has made the least claim to it’ (page 120). Perhaps none of those whose writings are now extant--at least, not in those writings which are extant. But what are these in comparison of those which are lost And how many were burning and shining lights within three hundred years after Christ who wrote no account of themselves at all--at least, none which has come to our hands But who are they that speak of it as a gift peculiar to the times of the Apostles You say, ’There is not a single Father who ventures to speak of it in any other manner’ (ibid.). Well, bring but six Ante-Nicene Fathers who speak of it in this manner, and I will give up the whole point. 4. But you say, ’After the apostolic times there is not in all history one instance even so much as mentioned of any particular person who ever exercised this gift’ (ibid.). You must mean either that the heathens have mentioned no instance of this kind (which is not at all surprising), or that Irenaeus does not mention the names of those many persons who in his time exercised this gift. And this also may be allowed without affecting in any wise the credibility of his testimony concerning them. 5. I must take notice here of another of your postulatums which leads you into many mistakes. With regard to past ages, you continually take this for granted: ’What is not recorded was not done.’ But this is by no means a self-evident axiom--nay, possibly it is not true. For there may be many reasons in the depth of the wisdom of God for His doing many things at various times and places, either by His natural or supernatural power, which were never recorded at all. And abundantly more were recorded once, and that with the fullest evidence, whereof, nevertheless, we find no certain evidence now, at the distance of fourteen hundred years. 6. Perhaps this may obtain in the very case before us. Many may have spoken with new tongues of whom this is not recorded--at least, the records are lost in a course of so many years. Nay, it is not only possible that it may be so, but it is absolutely certain that it is so: and you yourself must acknowledge it; for you acknowledge that the Apostles when in strange countries spoke with strange tongues--that St. John, for instance, when in Asia Minor, St. Peter when in Italy (if he was really there), and the other Apostles when in other countries, in Parthia, Media Phrygia, Pamphylia, spoke each to the natives of each in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. And yet there is no authentic record of this: there is not in all history one well-attested instance of any particular Apostle’s exercising this gift in any country whatsoever. Now, sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the ,consequence Even that the Apostles themselves no more spoke with tongues than any of their successors. 7. I need, therefore, take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built on such a foundation. Only I must observe an historical mistake which occurs toward the bottom of your next page. Since the Reformation, you say, ’this gift has never once been heard of or pretended to by the Romanists themselves’ (page 122). But has it been pretended to (whether justly or not) by no others, though not by the Romanists Has it ’never once been heard of’ since that time Sir, your memory fails you again: it has undoubtedly been pretended to, and that at no great distance either from our time or country. It has been heard of more than once no farther off than the valleys of Dauphiny. Nor is it yet fifty years ago since the Protestant inhabitants of those valleys so loudly pretended to this and other miraculous powers as to give much disturbance to Paris itself. And how did the King of France confute that presence and prevent its being heard any more Not by the pen of his scholars, but by (a truly heathen way) the swords and bayonets of his dragoons. 8. You close this head with a very extraordinary thought. ’The gift of tongues may,’ you say, ’be considered as a proper test or criterion for determining the miraculous pretensions of all Churches. If among their extraordinary gifts they cannot show us this, they have none to show which are genuine.’ (Ibid.) Now, I really thought it had been otherwise. I thought it had been an adjudged rule in the case, ’All these worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will’; and as to every man, so to every Church, every collective body of men. But if this be so, then yours is no proper test for determining the pretensions of all Churches: seeing He who worketh as He will may, with your good leave, give the gift of tongues where He gives no other; and may see abundant reasons so to do, whether you and I see them or not. For perhaps we have not always known the mind of the Lord, not being of the number of His counsellors. On the other hand, He may see good to give many other gifts where it is not His will to bestow this; particularly where it would be of no use, as in a Church where all are of one mind and all speak the same language. 9. You have now finished after a fashion what you proposed to do in the fourth place, which was ’to review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been in the primitive Church.’ Indeed, you have dropped one or two of them by the way: against the rest you have brought forth your strong reasons. Those reasons have been coolly examined. And now let every impartial man, every person of true and unbiased reason, calmly consider and judge whether you have made out one point of all that you took in hand, and whether some miracles of each kind may not have been wrought in the ancient Church, for anything you have advanced to the contrary. 10. From page 127 to page 158 you relate miracles said to be wrought in the fourth century. I have no concern with these; but I must weigh an argument which you intermix therewith again and again. It is in substance this: ’If we cannot believe the miracles attested by the later Fathers, then we ought not to believe those which are attested by the earliest writers of the Church.’ I answer: The consequence is not good, because the case is not the same with the one and with the other. Several objections which do not hold with regard to the earlier may lie against the later miracles,--drawn either from the improbability of the facts themselves, such as we have no precedent of in holy writ; from the incompetency of the instruments said to perform them, such as bones, relics, or departed saints; or from the gross ’credulity of a prejudiced or the dishonesty of an interested relater’ (page 145). 11. One or other of these objections holds against most of the later though not the earlier miracles. And if only one holds, it is enough; it is ground sufficient for making the difference. If, therefore, it was true that there was not a single Father of the fourth age who was not equally pious with the best of the more ancient, still we might consistently reject most of the miracles of the fourth while we allowed those of the preceding ages, both because of the far greater improbability of the facts themselves and because of the incompetency of the instruments. (Page 159.) But it is not true that ’the Fathers of the fourth age’ whom you mention were equally pious with the best of the preceding ages. Nay, according to your account (which I shall not now contest), they were not pious at all; for you say, ’They were wilful, habitual liars.’ And if so, they had not a grain of piety. Now, that the earlier Fathers were not such has been shown at large; though, indeed, you complimented them with the same character. Consequently, whether these later Fathers are to be believed or no, we may safely believe the former, who dared not to do evil that good might come or to lie either for God or man. 12. I had not intended to say anything more concerning any of the miracles of the later ages; but your way of accounting for one, said to have been wrought in the fifth, is so extremely curious that I cannot pass it by. The story, it seems, is this: ’Hunneric, an Arian prince, in his persecution of the orthodox in Afric, ordered the tongues of a certain society of them to be cut out by the roots. But, by a surprising instance of God’s good providence, they were enabled to speak articulately and distinctly without their tongues. And so, continuing to make open profession of the same doctrine, they became not only preachers but living witnesses of its truth.’ (Page 182.) Do not mistake me, sir: I have no design at all to vouch for the truth of this miracle. I leave it just as I find it. But what I am concerned with is your manner of accounting for it. 13. And, first, you say: ’It may not improbably be supposed that though their tongues were ordered to be cut to the roots, yet the sentence might not be so strictly executed as not to leave in some of them such a share of that organ as was sufficient in a tolerable degree for the use of speech’ (page 183). So you think, sir, if only an inch of a man’s tongue were to be neatly taken off, he would be able to talk tolerably well as soon as the operation was over. But the most marvellous part is still behind. For you add: ’To come more close to the point,--if we should allow that the tongues of these confessors were cut away to the very roots, what will the learned doctor say if this boasted miracle should be found at last to be no miracle at all’ (page 184). ’Say’ Why, that you have more skill than all the ’strolling wonder-workers’ of the first three centuries put together. But to the point: let us see how you will set about it. Why, thus: ’The tongue’ (as you justly though keenly observe) ’has generally been considered as absolutely necessary to the use of speech; so that to hear men talk without it might easily pass for a miracle in that credulous age. Yet there was always room to doubt whether there was anything miraculous in it or not. But we have an instance in the present century which clears up all our doubts and entirely decides the question: I mean the case of a girl, born without a tongue, who talked as easily and distinctly as if she had had one; an account of which is given in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences at Paris.’ (Ibid.) 14. And can you really believe this, that a girl ’spoke distinctly and easily’ without any tongue at all And after avowing this belief, do you gravely talk of other men’s credulity I wonder that such a volunteer in faith should stagger at anything. Doubtless, were it related as natural only, not miraculous, you could believe that a man might see without eyes. Surely there is something very peculiar in this--something extraordinary, though not miraculous--that a man who is too wise to believe the Bible should believe everything but the Bible I should swallow any tale, so God be out of the question, though ever so improbable, ever so impossible! 15. ’I have now,’ you say, ’thrown together all which I had collected for the support of my argument’ (page 187); after a lame recapitulation of which, you add with an air of triumph and satisfaction: ’I wish the Fathers the ablest advocates which Popery itself can afford; for Protestantism, I am sure, can supply none whom they would choose to retain in their cause--none who can defend them without contradicting their own profession and disgracing their own character, or produce anything but what deserves to be laughed at rather than answered’ (pages 188-9). Might it not be well, sir, not to be quite so sure yet You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without ’disgracing their own character.’ Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this; although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth chaplain, which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault. V. 1. The last thing you proposed was ’to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.’ To what you have offered on this head I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say: ’It is objected, first, that, by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain’ (page 190). After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. ’I may venture,’ you say, ’to declare that, if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.’ (Page 192.) ’If it be proved’! Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. ’It is objected,’ you say, ’secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apologists make to their enemies the heathens to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest’ (page 193). You answer: ’This objection has no real weight with any who are acquainted with the condition of the Christians in those days.’ You then enlarge (as it seems, with a peculiar pleasure) on the general contempt and odium they lay under from the first appearance of Christianity in the world till it was established by the civil power. (Pages 194-6.) ’In these circumstances it cannot be imagined,’ you say, ’that men of figure and fortune would pay any attention to the apologies or writings of a sect so utterly despised’ (page 197). But, sir, they were hated as well as despised; and that by the great vulgar as well as the small. And this very hatred would naturally prompt them to examine the ground of the challenges daily repeated by them they hated; were it only that, by discovering the fraud (which they wanted neither opportunity nor skill to do had there been any), they might have had a better presence for throwing the Christians to the lions than because the Nile did not or the Tiber did overflow. 3. You add: ’Much less can we believe that the Emperor or Senate of Rome should take any notice of those apologies, or even know, indeed, that any such were addressed to them’ (ibid.). Why, sir, by your account, you would make us believe that all the Emperors and Senate together were as ’senseless, stupid a race of blockheads and brutes’ as even the Christians themselves. But hold. You are going to prove it too. ’For,’ say you, ’should the like case happen now, that any Methodist, Moravian, or French prophet’ (right skilfully put together) ’should publish an apology for his brethren addressed to the King and Parliament, is it not wholly improbable that the Government would pay any regard to it’ You should add (to make the parallel complete), ’or know that any such was addressed to them.’ No: I conceive the improbability supposed lies wholly on the other side. Whatever the Government of heathen Rome was (which I presume you will not depreciate), the Government of England is remarkable for tenderness to the very meanest subject. It is, therefore, not improbable in the least that an address from some thousands of those subjects, how contemptible soever they were generally esteemed, would not be totally disregarded by such a Government. But that they should ’not know that any such had been addressed to them’ is not only improbable but morally impossible. If, therefore, it were possible for the heathens to ’have a worse opinion of the ancient Christians than we,’ you say, ’have of our modern fanatics,’ still it is utterly incredible that the Roman Government should, not only ’take no notice of their apologies,’ but ’not even know that any such were addressed to them.’ 4. ’But the publishing books was more expensive then than it is now; and therefore we cannot think the Christians of those days were able to provide such a number of them as was sufficient for the information of the public’ (pages 198-9). Nay, if they were not able to provide themselves food and raiment, they would be sure to provide a sufficient number of these-sufficient, at least, for the information of the Emperor and Senate, to whom those apologies were addressed. And how great a number, do you suppose, might suffice for them How many hundred or thousand copies I apprehend the Emperor would be content with one; and one more would be needful for the Senate. Now, I really believe the Christians of those days were able to provide both these copies--nay, and even two more, if it should have fallen out that two or three Emperors were on the throne; even though we should suppose that in Tertullian’s time there were but forty thousand of them in all Rome. 5. However, you plunge on: ’Since, then, the Christians were not able to bear the expense of copying them’ (whether the heathens were disposed to buy them or no is at present out of the question), ’there is great reason to believe that their apologies, how gravely soever addressed to Emperors and Senates, lay unknown for many years’ (ibid.). There is no great reason to believe it from anything you have advanced yet. You add: ’Especially when the publishing of them was not only expensive, but so criminal also, as to expose them often to danger and even to capital punishment.’ In very deed, sir, I am sometimes inclined to suspect that you are yourself related to certain ancient Fathers (notwithstanding the learned quotations which adorn your margin) who used to say, ’Graecum est; non potest leg).’ You lay me under an almost invincible temptation to think so upon this very occasion. For what could induce you, if you knew what he said, to place at the bottom of this very page a passage from one of those apologists, Justin Martyr, which so clearly confutes your own argument The words are: ’Although death be determined against those who teach or even confess the name of Christ, we both embrace and teach it everywhere. And if you also receive these words as enemies, you can do no more than kill us.’ [Kaiper qanatou orisqentos kata twn didaskntwn, h olws omologountwn to onoma tou Cristou, hmeis pantacou kai aspazomeqa kai didaskomen. Ei de kai umeis ws ecqroi enteuxesqe toisde tois logois, ou pleon ti dunasqe tou foneuein. (Just. Mart. Apol. i. p 69.)] Could danger then, or the fear of ’capital punishment,’ restrain those Christians from presenting these apologies No; capital punishment was no terror to them, who daily offered themselves to the flames till the very heathen butchers themselves were tired with slaughtering them. There can, therefore, no shadow of doubt remain with any cool and impartial man but that these apologies were presented to the most eminent heathens, to the Magistrates, the Senate, the Emperors. Nor, consequently, is there the least room to doubt of the truth of the facts therein asserted, seeing the apologists constantly desired their enemies ’to come and see them with their own eyes’--an hazard which those ’crafty men’ would never have run had not the facts themselves been infallibly certain. This objection, then, stands against you in full force; for such a public appeal to their bitterest enemies must exclude all reasonable suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles. 6. You tell us it is objected, thirdly, ’that no suspicion of fraud can reasonably be entertained against those who exposed themselves even to martyrdom in confirmation of the truth of what they taught’ (ibid.). In order to invalidate this objection, you assert that some of the primitive Christians might expose themselves to martyrdom out of mere obstinacy, others from a desire of glory, others from a fear of reproach, but the most of all from the hope of an higher reward in heaven, especially as they believed the end of the world was near and that the martyrs felt no pain in death. ’All which topics,’ you say, ’when displayed with art, were sufficient to inflame the multitude to embrace any martyrdom.’ (Pages 200-4, 208.) This appears very plausible in speculation. But fact and experience will not answer. You are an eloquent man, and are able to display any topic you please with art enough. Yet, if you was to try with all that art and eloquence to persuade by all these topics, not an whole multitude, but one simple, credulous ploughman, to go and be shot through the head, I am afraid you would scarce prevail with him, after all, to embrace even that easy martyrdom. And it might be more difficult still to find a man who, either out of obstinacy, fear of shame, or desire of glory, would calmly and deliberately offer himself to be roasted alive in Smithfield. 7. Have you considered, sir, how the case stood in our own country scarce two hundred years ago Not a multitude indeed, and yet not a few, of our own countrymen then expired in the flames. And it was not a general persuasion among them that martyrs feel no pain in death. That these have feeling as well as other men plainly appeared in the case of Bishop Ridley crying out, ’I cannot burn! I cannot burn!’ when his lower parts were consumed. Do you think the fear of shame or the desire of praise was the motive on which these acted Or have you reason to believe it was mere obstinacy that hindered them from accepting deliverance Sir, since ’human nature has always been the same, so that our experience of what now passes in our own soul will be the best comment on what is delivered to us concerning others,’ let me entreat you to make the case your own. You must not say, ’I am not one of the ignorant vulgar; I am a man of sense and learning.’ So were many of them--not inferior even to you, either in natural or acquired endowments. I ask, then, Would any of these motives suffice to induce you to burn at a stake I beseech you, lay your hand on your heart, and answer between God and your own soul what motive could incite you to walk into a fire but an hope full of immortality. When you mention this motive, you speak to the point. And yet even with regard to this both you and I should find, did it come to a trial, that the hope of a fool or the hope of an hypocrite would stand us in no stead. We should find nothing else would sustain us in that hour but a well-grounded confidence of a better resurrection; nothing less than the ’steadfastly looking up to heaven, and beholding the glory which shall be revealed.’ 8. ’But heretics,’ you say, ’have been martyrs.’ I will answer more particularly, when you specify who and when. It may suffice to say now, whosoever he be, that, rather than he will offend God, calmly and deliberately chooses to suffer death, I cannot lightly speak evil of him. But Cyprian says, ’Some who had suffered tortures for Christ yet afterwards fell into gross, open sin.’ It may be so; but it is nothing to the question. It does not prove in the least what you brought it to prove--namely, ’that bad men have endured martyrdom.’ Do not evade, sir, and say, ’Yes, torments are a kind of martyrdom.’ True; but not the martyrdom of which we speak. 9. You salve all at last by declaring gravely: ’It is not my design to detract in any manner from the just praise of those primitive martyrs who sustained the cause of Christ at the expense of their lives’ (page 112). No. Who could ever suppose it was Who could imagine it was your design to detract from the just praise of Justin, Irenaeus, or Cyprian You only designed to show what their just praise was--namely, the praise of pickpockets, of common cheats and impostors. We understand your meaning, therefore, when you add, ’It is reasonable to believe that they were the best sort of Christians and the chief ornaments of the Church in their several ages’ (page 213). 10. You conclude: ’My view is to show that their martyrdom does not add any weight to their testimony.’ Whether it does or no, ’it gives the strongest proof’ (as you yourself affirm) ’of the sincerity of their faith’; and consequently proves that ’no suspicion of fraud can reasonably be entertained against them’ (ibid.). But this (which you seem to have quite forgot) was the whole of the objection; and consequently this as well as both the former objections remain in their full force. 11. ’It has been objected,’ fourthly, you say, that you ’destroy the faith and credit of all history’ (page 114). But this objection, you affirm, ’when seriously considered, will appear to have no sense at all in it’ (page 215). That we will try. And one passage, home to the point, is as good as a thousand. Now, sir, be pleased to look back. In your Preface, page 9, I read these words: ’The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses. But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us; and though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it certainly be known.’ If this be as you assert (I repeat it again), then farewell the credit of all history. Sir, this is not the cant of zealots; you must not escape so: it is plain, sober reason. If the credibility of witnesses, of all witnesses (for you make no distinction), depends, as you peremptorily affirm, on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us, and consequently, though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none, then it is plain all history, sacred or profane, is utterly precarious and uncertain. Then I may indeed presume, but I cannot certainly know, that Julius Caesar was killed in the Senate House; then I cannot certainly know that there was an Emperor in Germany called Charles V, that Leo X ever sat in the see of Rome, or Louis XIV on the throne of France. Now, let any man of common understanding judge whether this objection has any sense in it or no. 12. Under this same head you fall again upon the case of witchcraft, and say: ’There is not in all history any one miraculous fact so authentically attested as the existence of witches. All Christian’ (yea, and all heathen) ’nations whatsoever have consented in the belief of them. Now, to deny the reality of facts so solemnly attested and so universally believed seems to give the lie to the sense and experience of all Christendom, to the wisest and best of every nation, and to public monuments subsisting to our own times.’ (Page 221.) What obliges you, then, to deny it You answer: ’The incredibility of the thing’ (page 223). O sir, never strain at the incredibility of this, after you have swallowed an hundred people talking without tongues! 13. What you aim at in this also is plain, as well as in your account of the Abbe de Paris. The point of your argument is: ’If you cannot believe these, then you ought not to believe the Bible; the incredibility of the things related ought to overrule all testimony whatsoever.’ Your argument at length would run thus: ’If things be incredible in themselves, then this incredibility ought to overrule all testimony concerning them. ’But the Gospel miracles are incredible in themselves.’ Sir, that proposition I deny. You have not proved it yet. You have only now and then, as it were by-the-by, made any attempt to prove it. And, till this is done, you have done nothing with all the pother that you have made. 14. You reserve the home-stroke for the last: ’There is hardly a miracle said to be wrought in the primitive times but what is said to be performed in our days. But all these modern pretensions we ascribe to their true cause--the craft of a few playing upon the credulity of the many for private interest. When, therefore, we read of the same things done by the ancients, and for the same ends--of acquiring wealth, credit, or power--how can we possibly hesitate to impute them to the same cause of fraud and imposture (Page 230.) The reason of our hesitation is this: they did not answer the same ends. The modern clergy of Rome do acquire credit and wealth by their pretended miracles. But the ancient clergy acquired nothing by their miracles, but to be ’afflicted, destitute, tormented.’ The one gain all things thereby: the others lost all things, And this, we think, makes some difference. ’Even unto this present hour,’ says one of them (writing to those who could easily confute him if he spoke not the truth), ’we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place: . . . being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are become as the filth of the world, as the offscouring of all things unto this day’ (1 Cor. iv. 11-13). Now, sir, whatever be thought of the others, we apprehend such clergy as these, labouring thus unto the death for such credit and wealth, are not chargeable with fraud and imposture. VI. I have now finished what I had to say with regard to your book. Yet I think humanity requires me to add a few words concerning some points frequently touched upon therein, which perhaps you do not so clearly understand. We have been long disputing about Christians, about Christianity, and the evidence whereby it is supported. But what do these terms mean Who is a Christian indeed What is real, genuine Christianity And what is the surest and most accessible evidence (if I may so speak) whereby I may know that it is of God May the God of the Christians enable me to speak on these heads in a manner suitable to the importance of them! Section I. 1. I would consider, first, Who is a Christian indeed What does that term properly imply It has been so long abused, I fear, not only to mean nothing at all, but (what was far worse than nothing) to be a cloak for the vilest hypocrisy, for the grossest abominations and immoralities of every kind, that it is high time to rescue it out of the hands of wretches that are a reproach to human nature, to show determinately what manner of man he is to whom this name of right belongs. 2. A Christian cannot think of the Author of his being without abasing himself before Him, without a deep sense of the distance between a worm of earth and Him that sitteth on the circle of the heavens. In His presence he sinks into the dust, knowing himself to be less than nothing in His eye, and being conscious, in a manner words cannot express, of his own littleness, ignorance, foolishness. So that he can only cry out from the fullness of his heart, ’O God I what is man what am I’ 3. He has a continual sense of his dependence on the Parent of good for his being and all the blessings that attend it. To Him he refers every natural and every moral endowment, with all that is commonly ascribed either to fortune or to the wisdom, courage, or merit of the possessor. And hence he acquiesces, in whatsoever appears to be His will, not only with patience but with thankfulness. He willingly resigns all he is, all he has, to His wise and gracious disposal. The ruling temper of his heart is the most absolute submission and the tenderest gratitude to his sovereign Benefactor. And this grateful love creates filial fear, an awful reverence toward Him, and an earnest care not to give place to any disposition, not to admit an action, word, or thought, which might in any degree displease that indulgent Power to whom he owes his life, breath, and all things. 4. And as he has the strongest affection for the Fountain of all good, so he has the firmest confidence in Him--a confidence which neither pleasure nor pain, neither life nor death, can shake. But yet this, far from creating sloth or indolence, pushes him on to the most vigorous industry. It causes him to put forth all his strength, in obeying Him in whom he confides. So that he is never faint in his mind, never weary of doing whatever he believes to be His will. And as he knows the most acceptable worship of God is to imitate Him he worships, so he is continually labouring to transcribe into himself all His imitable perfections--in particular, His justice, mercy, and truth, so eminently displayed in all His creatures. 5. Above all, remembering that God is love, he is conformed to the same likeness. He is gull of love to his neighbour, of universal love, not confined to one sect or party, not restrained to those who agree with him in opinions or in outward modes of worship, or to those who are allied to him by blood or recommended by nearness of place. Neither does he love those only that love him or that are endeared to him by intimacy of acquaintance. But his love resembles that of Him whose mercy is over all His works. It soars above all these scanty bounds, embracing neighbours and strangers, friends and enemies--yea, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward, the evil, and unthankful. For he loves every soul that God has made; every child of man, of whatever place or nation. And yet this universal benevolence does in no wise interfere with a peculiar regard for his relations, friends, and benefactors, a fervent love for his country, and the most endeared affection to all men of integrity, of clear and generous virtue. 6. His love, as to these, so to all mankind, is in itself generous and disinterested; springing from no view of advantage to himself, from no regard to profit or praise--no, nor even the pleasure of loving. This is the daughter, not the parent, of his affection. By experience he knows that social love, if it mean the love of our neighbour, is absolutely different from self-love, even of the most allowable kind--just as different as the objects at which they point. And yet it is sure that, if they are under due regulations, each will give additional force to the other till they mix together never to be divided. 7. And this universal, disinterested love is productive of all right affections. It is fruitful of gentleness, tenderness, sweetness, of humanity, courtesy, and affability. It makes a Christian rejoice in the virtues of all, and bear a part in their happiness, at the same time that he sympathizes with their pains and compassionates their infirmities. It creates modesty, condescension, prudence, together with calmness and evenness of temper. It is the parent of generosity, openness, and frankness, void of jealousy and suspicion. It begets candour, and willingness to believe and hope whatever is kind and friendly of every man, and invincible patience, never overcome of evil, but overcoming evil with good. 8. The same love constrains him to converse, not only with a strict regard to truth, but with artless sincerity and genuine simplicity, as one in whom there is no guile. And, not content with abstaining from all such expressions as are contrary to justice or truth, he endeavours to refrain from every unloving word, either to a present or of an absent person; in all his conversation aiming at this, either to improve himself in knowledge or virtue, or to make those with whom he converses some way wiser or better or happier than they were before. 9. The same love is productive of all right actions. It leads him into an earnest and steady discharge of all social offices, of whatever is due to relations of every kind--to his friends, to his country, and to any particular community whereof he is a member. It prevents his willingly hurting or grieving any man. It guides him into an uniform practice of justice and mercy, equally extensive with the principle whence it flows. It constrains him to do all possible good of every possible kind to all men; and makes him invariably resolved in every circumstance of life to do that, and that only, to others which, supposing he were himself in the same situation, he would desire they should do to him. 10. And as he is easy to others, so he is easy in himself. He is free from the painful swellings of pride, from the flames of anger, from the impetuous gusts of irregular self-will. He is no longer tortured with envy or malice, or with unreasonable and hurtful desire. He is no more enslaved to the pleasures of sense, but has the full power both over his mind and body, in a continued cheerful course of sobriety, of temperance and chastity. He knows how to use all things in their place, and yet is superior to them all. He stands above those low pleasures of imagination which captivate vulgar minds, whether arising from what mortals term greatness or from novelty or beauty. All these, too, he can taste, and still look upward, still aspire to nobler enjoyments. Neither is he a slave to fame; popular breath affects not him; he stands steady and collected in himself. 11. And he who seeks no praise cannot fear dispraise. Censure gives him no uneasiness, being conscious to himself that he would not willingly offend and that he has the approbation of the Lord of all. He cannot fear want, knowing in whose hand is the earth and the fullness thereof,and that it is impossible for Him to withhold from one that fears Him any manner of thing that is good. He cannot fear pain, knowing it will never be sent unless it be for his real advantage, and that then his strength will be proportioned to it, as it has always been in times past. He cannot fear death; being able to trust Him he loves with his soul as well as his body; yea, glad to leave the corruptible body in the dust, till it is raised incorruptible and immortal. So that, in honour or shame, in abundance or want, in ease or pain, in life or in death, always, and in all things, he has learned to be content, to be easy, thankful, happy. 12. He is happy in knowing there is a God, an intelligent Cause and Lord of all, and that he is not the produce either of blind chance or inexorable necessity. He is happy in the full assurance he has that this Creator and End of all things is a Being of boundless wisdom, of infinite power to execute all the designs of His wisdom, and of no less infinite goodness to direct all His power to the advantage of all His creatures. Nay, even the consideration of His immutable justice, rendering to all their due, of His unspotted holiness, of His all-sufficiency in Himself, and of that immense ocean of all perfections which centre in God from eternity to eternity, is a continual addition to the happiness of a Christian. 13. A farther addition is made thereto while, in contemplating even the things that surround him, that thought strikes warmly upon his heart-- These are Thy glorious works, Parent of good [Paradise Lost, v. 153.]; while he takes knowledge of the invisible things of God, even His eternal power and wisdom in the things that are seen--the heavens, the earth, the fowls of the air, the lilies of the field. How much more while, rejoicing in the constant care which He still takes of the work of His own hand, he breaks out in a transport of love and praise, ’O Lord our Governor, how excellent are Thy ways in all the earth! Thou that hast set Thy glory above the heavens!’ While he, as it were, sees the Lord sitting upon His throne, and ruling all things well; while he observes the general providence of God co-extended with His whole creation, and surveys all the effects of it in the heavens and earth, as a well-pleased spectator; while he sees the wisdom and goodness of His general government descending to every particular, so presiding over the whole universe as over a single person, so watching over every single person as if he were the whole universe;--how does he exult when he reviews the various traces of the Almighty goodness, in what has befallen himself in the several circumstances and changes of his own life! all which he now sees have been allotted to him, and dealt out in number, weight, and measure. With what triumph of soul, in surveying either the general or particular providence of God, does he observe every line pointing out an hereafter, every scene opening into eternity! 14. He is peculiarly and inexpressibly happy in the clearest and fullest conviction, ’This all-powerful, all-wise, all-gracious Being, this Governor of all, loves me. This Lover of my soul is always with me, is never absent--no, not for a moment. And I love Him: there is none in heaven but Thee, none on earth that I desire beside Thee! And He has given me to resemble Himself; He has stamped His image on my heart. And I live unto Him; I do only His will; I glorify Him with my body and my spirit. And it will not be long before I shall die unto Him; I shall die into the arms of God. And then farewell sin and pain; then it only remains that I should live with Him for ever.’ 15. This is the plain, naked portraiture of a Christian. But be not prejudiced against him for his name. Forgive his particularities of opinion and (what you think) superstitious modes of worship. These are circumstances but of small concern, and do not enter into the essence of his character. Cover them with a veil of love, and look at the substance--his tempers, his holiness, his happiness. Can calm reason conceive either a more amiable or a more desirable character Is it your own Away with names! Away with opinions! I care not what you are called. I ask not (it does not deserve a thought) what opinion you are of, so you are conscious to yourself that you are the man whom I have been (however faintly) describing. Do not you know you ought to be such Is the Governor of the world well pleased that you are not Do you (at least) desire it I would to God that desire may penetrate your inmost soul, and that you may have no rest in your spirit till you are, not only almost, but altogether a Christian! Section II. 1. The second point to be considered is, What is real, genuine Christianity whether we speak of it as a principle in the soul or as a scheme or system of doctrine. Christianity, taken in the latter sense, is that system of doctrine which describes the character above recited, which promises it shall be mine (provided I will not rest till I attain), and which tells me how I may attain it. 2, First. It describes this character in all its parts, and that in the most lively and affecting manner. The main lines of this picture are beautifully drawn in many passages of the Old Testament. These are filled up in the New, retouched and finished with all the art of God. The same we have in miniature more than once, particularly in the 13th chapter of the former Epistle to the Corinthians and in that discourse which St. Matthew records as delivered by our Lord at His entrance upon His public ministry. 3. Secondly. Christianity promises this character shall be mine, if I will not rest till I attain it. This is promised both in the Old Testament and the New. Indeed, the New is in effect all a promise; seeing every description of the servants of God mentioned therein has the nature of a command, in consequence of those general injunctions: ’Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ’ (1 Cor. xi. 1); ’Be ye followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises’ (Heb. vi. 12). And every command has the force of a promise in virtue of those general promises: ’A new heart will I give you; . . . and I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgements, and do them’ (Ezek. xxxvi. 26-7); ’This is the covenant that I will make after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts’ (Heb. viii. 10). Accordingly, when it is said, ’Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind’ (Matt. xxii. 37), it is not only a direction what I shall do, but a promise of what God will do in me; exactly equivalent with what is written elsewhere: ’The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed’ (alluding to the custom then in use), ’to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul’ (Deut. xxx. 6). 4. This being observed, it will readily appear, to every serious person who reads the New Testament with that care which the importance of the subject demands, that every particular branch of the preceding character is manifestly promised therein, either explicitly under the very form of a promise, or virtually under that of description or command. 5. Christianity tells me, in the third place, how I may attain the promise--namely, by faith. But what is faith Not an opinion, no more than it is a form of words; not any number of opinions put together, be they ever so true. A string of opinions is no more Christian faith than a string of beads is Christian holiness. It is not an assent to any opinion or any number of opinions. A man may assent to three or three-and-twenty creeds, he may assent to all the Old and New Testament (at least, as far as he understands them), and yet have no Christian faith at all. 6. The faith by which the promise is attained is represented by Christianity as a power, wrought by the Almighty in an immortal spirit inhabiting an house of clay, to see through that veil into the world of spirits, into things invisible and eternal; a power to discern those things which with eyes of flesh and blood no man hath seen or can see, either by reason of their nature, which (though they surround us on every side) is not perceivable by these gross senses, or by reason of their distance, as being yet afar off in the bosom of eternity. 7. This is Christian faith in the general notion of it. In its more particular notion, it is a divine evidence or conviction wrought in the heart that God is reconciled to me through His Son; inseparably joined with a confidence in Him as a gracious, reconciled Father, as for all things, so especially for all those good things which are invisible and eternal. To believe (in the Christian sense) is, then, to walk in the light of eternity, and to have a clear sight of and confidence in the Most High reconciled to me through the Son of His love. 8. Now, how highly desirable is such a faith, were it only on its own account! For how little does the wisest of men know of anything more than he can see with his eyes! What clouds and darkness cover the whole scene of things invisible and eternal! What does he know even of himself as to his invisible part what of his future manner of existence How melancholy an account does the prying, learned philosopher (perhaps the wisest and best of all heathens), the great, the venerable Marcus Antoninus, give of these things! What was the result of all his serious researches, of his high and deep contemplations ’Either dissipation, of the soul as well as the body, into the common, unthinking mass; or reabsorption into the universal fire, the unintelligent source of all things; or some unknown manner of conscious existence after the body sinks to rise no more.’ One of these three he supposed must succeed death; but which he had no light to determine. Poor Antoninus! With all his wealth, his honour, his power; with all his wisdom and philosophy,-- What points of knowledge did he gain That life is sacred all-and vain: Sacred, how high, and vain, how low He could not tell, but died to know.’ [Gambold’s Epitaph: where in line 2 it is ’was,’ not ’is’; and line 4 ’He knew not here, but dy’d to know.’] 9. He ’died to know’! And so must you, unless you are now a partaker of Christian faith. O consider this! Nay, and consider, not only how little you know of the immensity of the things that are beyond sense and time, but how uncertainly do you know even that little! How faintly glimmering a light is that you have! Can you properly be said to know any of these things Is that knowledge any more than bare conjecture And the reason is plain. You have no senses suitable to invisible or eternal objects. What desiderata, then, especially to the rational, the reflecting part of mankind, are these,--a more extensive knowledge of things invisible and eternal, a greater certainty in whatever knowledge of them we have, and (in order to both) faculties capable of discerning things invisible! 10. Is it not so Let impartial reason speak. Does not every thinking man want a window, not so much in his neighbour’s as in his own breast He wants an opening there, of whatever kind, that might let in light from eternity. He is pained to be thus feeling after God so darkly, so uncertainly; to know so little of God, and indeed so little of any beside material objects. He is concerned that he must see even that little, not directly, but in the dim, sullied glass of sense; and consequently so imperfectly and obscurely that it is all a mere enigma still. 11. Now, these very desiderata faith supplies. It gives a more extensive knowledge of things invisible, showing what eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither could it before enter into our heart to conceive. And all these it shows in the clearest light, with the fullest certainty and evidence. For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible. Oh who would not wish for such a faith, were it only on these accounts! How much more, if by this I may receive the promise, I may attain all that holiness and happiness! 12. So Christianity tells me; and So I find it, may every real Christian say. I now am assured that these things are so: I experience them in my own breast. What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all those promises. It is holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Section III. 1. And this I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity. I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind and in its degree. And yet I cannot set it on a level with this. It is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. But no length of time can possibly affect the strength of this internal evidence. It is equally strong, equally new, through the course of seventeen hundred years. It passes now, even as it has done from the beginning, directly from God into the believing soul. Do you suppose time will ever dry up this stream Oh no! It shall never be cut off: Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum. [Horace’s Epistles, I. ii. 43: ’It flows and will for ever flow.’] 2. Traditional evidence is of an extremely complicated nature, necessarily including so many and so various considerations, that only men of a strong and clear understanding can be sensible of its full force. On the contrary, how plain and simple is this! and how level to the lowest capacity! Is not this the sum--’One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see’! An argument so plain, that a peasant, a woman, a child may feel all its force. 3. The traditional evidence of Christianity stands, as it were, a great way off; and therefore, although it speaks loud and clear, yet makes a less lively impression. It gives us an account of what was transacted long ago in far distant times as well as places. Whereas the inward evidence is intimately present to all persons at all times and in all places. It is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, if thou believes" in the Lord Jesus Christ. ’This,’ then, ’is the record,’ this is the evidence, emphatically so called, ’that God hath given unto us eternal life; and this life is in His Son.’ 4. If, then, it were possible (which I conceive it is not) to shake the traditional evidence of Christianity, still he that has the internal evidence (and every true believer hath the witness or evidence in himself) would stand firm and unshaken. Still he could say to those who were striking at the external evidence, ’Beat on the sack of Anaxagoras.’ [Anaxagoras (500-458 B.C,), the most illustrious of the Ionic philosophers, had Euripides, Pericles, and possibly Socrates, in his philosophical school at Athens. He thought that all bodies were composed of atoms shaped by nous, or mind. He was indicted for impiety, and was only saved from death by the influence and eloquence of Pericles.] But you can no more hurt my evidence of Christianity than the tyrant could hurt the spirit of that wise man. 5. I have sometimes been almost inclined to believe that the wisdom of God has in most later ages permitted the external evidence of Christianity to be more or less clogged and encumbered for this very end, that men (of reflection especially) might not altogether rest there, but be constrained to look into themselves also and attend to the light shining in their hearts. Nay, it seems (if it may be allowed for us to pry so far into the reasons of the divine dispensations) that, particularly in this age, God suffers all kind of objections to be raised against the traditional evidence of Christianity, that men of understanding, though unwilling to give it up, yet, at the same time they defend this evidence, may not rest the whole strength of their cause thereon, but seek a deeper and firmer support for it. 6. Without this I cannot but doubt, whether they can long maintain their cause; whether, if they do not obey the loud call of God, and lay far more stress than they have hitherto done on this internal evidence of Christianity, they will not one after another give up the external, and (in heart at least) go over to those whom they are now contending with; so that in a century or two the people of England will be fairly divided into real Deists and real Christians. And I apprehend this would be no loss at all, but rather an advantage to the Christian cause; nay, perhaps it would be the speediest, yea the only effectual, way of bringing all reasonable Deists to be Christians. 7. May I be permitted to speak freely May I without offence ask of you that are called Christians, What real loss would you sustain in giving up your present opinion that the Christian system is of God Though you bear the name, you are not Christians: you have neither Christian faith nor love. You have no divine evidence of things unseen; you have not entered into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. You do not love God with all your heart; neither do you love your neighbour as yourself. You are neither happy nor holy. You have not learned in every state therewith to be content; to rejoice evermore, even in want, pain, death; and in everything to give thanks. You are not holy in heart; superior to pride, to anger, to foolish desires. Neither are you holy in life; you do not walk as Christ also walked. Does not the main of your Christianity lie in your opinion, decked with a few outward observances For as to morality, even honest, heathen morality (O let me utter a melancholy truth!), many of those whom you style Deists, there is reason to fear, have far more of it than you. 8. Go on, gentlemen, and prosper. Shame these nominal Christians out of that poor superstition which they call Christianity. Reason, rally, laugh them out of their dead, empty forms, void of spirit! of faith, of love. Convince them that such mean pageantry (for such it manifestly is, if there is nothing in the heart correspondent with the outward show) is absolutely unworthy, you need not say of God, but even of any man that is endued with common understanding. Show them that, while they are endeavouring to please God thus, they are only beating the air. Know your time; press on; push your victories, till you have conquered all that know not God. And then He, whom neither they nor you know now, shall rise and gird Himself with strength, and go forth in His almighty love, and sweetly conquer you all together. 9. Oh that the time were come! How do I long for you to be partakers of the exceeding great and precious promise! How am I pained when I hear any of you using those silly terms which the men of form have taught you, calling the mention of the only thing you want ’cant’! the deepest wisdom, the highest happiness ’enthusiasm’! What ignorance is this! How extremely despicable would it make you in the eyes of any but a Christian! But he cannot despise you who loves you as his own soul, who is ready to lay down his life for your sake. 10. Perhaps you will say, ’But this internal evidence of Christianity affects only those in whom the promise is fulfilled. It is no evidence to me.’ There is truth in this objection. It does affect them chiefly, but it does not affect them only. It cannot in the nature of things be so strong an evidence to others as it is to them. And yet it may bring a degree of evidence, it may reflect some light on you also. For (1) You see the beauty and loveliness of Christianity when it is rightly understood, and you are sure there is nothing to be desired in comparison of it. (2) You know the Scripture promises this, and says it is attained by faith, and by no other way. (3) You see clearly how desirable Christian faith is even on account of its own intrinsic value. (4) You are a witness that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way. The more you have laboured after virtue and happiness, the more convinced you are of this. Thus far, then, you need not lean upon other men; thus far you have personal experience. (5) What reasonable assurance can you have of things whereof you have not personal experience Suppose the question were, Can the blind be restored to sight This you have not yourself experienced. How, then, will you know that such a thing ever was Can there be an easier or surer way than to talk with one or some number of men who were blind but are now restored to sight They cannot be deceived as to the fact in question; the nature of the thing leaves no room for this. And if they are honest men (which you may learn from other circumstances), they will not deceive you. Now, transfer this to the case before us: and those who were blind, but now see--those who were sick many years, but now are healed--those who were miserable, but now are happy--will afford you also a very strong evidence of the truth of Christianity, as strong as can be in the nature of things, till you experience it in your own soul; and this, though it be allowed they are but plain men, and in general of weak understanding--nay, though some of them should be mistaken in other points, and hold opinions which cannot be defended. 11. All this may be allowed concerning the primitive Fathers; I mean particularly Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian; to whom I would add Macarius and Ephraim Syrus. I allow that some of these had not strong natural sense, that few of them had much learning, and none the assistances which our age enjoys in some respects above all that went before. Hence I doubt not but whoever will be at the pains of reading over their writings for that poor end will find many mistakes, many weak suppositions, and many ill-drawn conclusions. 12. And yet I exceedingly reverence them as well as their writings, and esteem them very highly in love. I reverence them, because they were Christians, such Christians as are above described. And I reverence their writings, because they describe true, genuine Christianity, and direct us to the strongest evidence of the Christian doctrine. Indeed, in addressing the heathens of those times, they intermix other arguments; particularly that drawn from the numerous miracles which were then performed in the Church, which they needed only to open their eyes and see daily wrought in the face of the sun. But still they never relinquish this: ’What the Scripture promises, I enjoy. Come and see what Christianity has done here, and acknowledge it is of God.’ I reverence these ancient Christians (with all their failings) the more, because I see so few Christians now; because I read so little in the writings of later times and hear so little of genuine Christianity; and because most of the modern Christians (so called), not content with being wholly ignorant of it, are deeply prejudiced against it, calling it ’enthusiasm’ and I know not what. That the God of power and love may make both them, and you and me, such Christians as those Fathers were, is the earnest prayer of, reverend sir, Your real friend and servant. January 24, 1749 To John Bennet LONDON, January 9, 1749. What can be done more for William Darney’s Societies [See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] than this First, that you should visit them once or twice in a quarter; and then, that either John Nelson or our Yorkshire preacher should go through them as often as possible. I am sending a messenger to Sir John Strange (the other counsel), lest the Lancashire cause should be neglected on occasion of Mr. Glanville’s death.[See Journal, iii. 328-9, 389; and letter of Aug. 26, 1748.] I wish you could talk yourself with James Hargrave. ’Tis very probable it would do good. I know not what to say concerning H. D. ’Tis an exceeding difficult case. I have no objection to your preaching in any meetinghouse. The place does not make the Dissenter. After you have once more talked freely and mildly to Sisters B-and C-, if they will not hear, you must let them go. [On the same page, and apparently part of the same letter, is the following:] To James Edmundson The great danger which I apprehend you to be in is that of healing your hurt slightly. It is God that has wounded you; and let Him heal the soul which hath sinned against Him. O beware that you never rest, or desire any rest, till Christ is revealed in your heart. You want nothing less than the eternal life which is in Him. And you will receive it if you faint not.--I am Your affectionate brother. [Edited by Jerry James (Pastor), and converted to HTML by Trent Friberg for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College (Nampa, ID).] Other: Volume 2 [Note from the editor of the digital edition of Wesley’s Letters: Telford placed several of Wesley’s lengthier letters from this period in a separate location in the last half of vol. 2. I have chosen to relocate them within the file for year in which they were written. Telford’s introduction to these letters follows (pp. 173-174):] CONTROVERSIAL AND HISTORICAL I. TO THOMAS CHURCH, M.A., Vicar of Battersea and Prebendary of St. Paul’s, concerning his Remarks on the Reverend Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal. II. TO THOMAS CHURCH, ‘The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained’; being an Answer to his Second Letter. III. TO DR. GIBSON, Bishop of London, ’occasioned by his Lordship’s late Charge to his Clergy.’ IV. TO VINCENT PERRONET Vicar of Shoreham in Kent, giving ‘A Plain Account of the People called Methodists.’ V. TO DR. CONYERS MIDDLETON ‘occasioned by his late Free Inquiry’ The longer controversial letters (which it has been found most convenient to place together) bear witness to the mastery Wesley had gained through his tutorial work at Lincoln College. Controversy was very uncongenial. He describes it as ‘Heavy work, such as I should never choose; but sometimes it must be done. Well might the ancient say, “God made practical divinity necessary, the devil controversial.” But it is necessary; we must “resist the devil,” or he will not “flee from us.”’ He exclaims, ‘Oh that I might dispute with no man! But if I must dispute, let it be with men of sense.’ His work and himself were attacked by men of all shades of opinion; but he took card to avoid personalities. He told Dr. Taylor of Norwich: ‘We may agree to leave each other’s person and character untouched, while we sum up and answer the several arguments advanced as plainly and closely as we can.’ When an antagonist fell into errors of scholarship, Wesley did not take advantage of this in his reply, but sent a private letter, for which he received thanks from some of his most distinguished opponents. The criticism of Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry takes a wider range and shows Wesley’s knowledge of the Fathers. Still more impressive is the accounts of his preaching in the letter to Dr. Church, p. 264. Dean Hutton, in his John Wesley, p. 171, says: ‘The particular controversies in which he was so continually engaged are for the most part exceedingly dusty now, but his own expressions about them are as fresh as ever. Most of all this is true when he deals with persons. Ho had a direct way of telling people their faults, and setting them right, which must have been extraordinarily unpleasing to the subjects of his wit or wisdom, but is extremely refreshing to ourselves.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: 34. VOLUME 3 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 3 Events SIX CRITICAL YEARS FEBRUARY 4, 1751, TO DECEMBER 22, 1756 PRINCIPAL EVENTS 1751 Feb 18 Wesley marries Mrs. Vazille. First visit to Scotland. June 1 Resigns his Fellowship. 1753 Nov. 26 Writes his Epitaph at Lewisham 1755 Jan. Notes upon the New Testament published. May 6-8. Question of Separation from the Church discussed at Leeds. 1756 Sept 3. The Future of Methodism. Nov. Pitt becomes Secretary of State. The six years from 1751 to 1756 include Wesley’s marriage, the serous illness which led him to write his own epitaph, the publication of his Notes upon the New Testament and the anxious debars as to the administration of the Sacraments and separation from the Church of England. The letter to Samuel Walker of Truro dated September 3, 1756 shows that for several years Wesley had been considering what steps should be taken to put Methodism on such a footing as he might wish it to be after his death. Mrs. Wesley appears in her best light in these years, sharing some of her husbands journeys, and helping him greatly by her skill and attention to his Book-Room affairs in London. The rift in the lute is visible in some jealousy and suspicion. Wesley makes a confidant of his staunch friend Ebenezer Blackwell. Charles Wesley’ s unreadiness to work in harness with his broker added much to John’s anxieties; but Charles did memorable service in the tour of inspection he made after James Wheatley had tried to cloak his own sin by defaming his brethren. The period includes some important controversial letters; and the correspondence with Samuel Furly and others proves how sane and stimulating a councilor Wesley was to his friends and preachers. GROWING RESPONSIBILITIES JANUARY 8, 1757, TO JANUARY 10, 1758 PRINCIPAL EVENTS 1757 Feb 18 Charles Wesley’s itinerancy becomes limited Mark. 13 Ordination of John Fletcher. 1758 Jan. 17 Wesley preaches at Nathaneal Gilbert’s house. Mark. 10. Assize Sermon at Bedford. Nov. 9. Visits John Berridge at Everton. 1759 Feb. 16. Public Fast; fear of French invasion. Apr. 8. Death of Thomas Walsh. Wesley began this period with renewed physical strength ; and he needed it His brother’s active itinerancy was practically finished in 1756. Wesley was almost the only clerical itinerant on the field, and the calls on his thought and labor were wellnigh overwhelming. Some of the most important letters of this time (addressed to Samuel Walker, Vicar of Truro, and others) deal with the relation of Methodism to the Church of England. The letters to his wife are poignant. That of October 27, 1758, is very happy; but the poison had long been at wok, and his dream of domestic peace faded away. There can be no doubt that Mrs. Wesley’s conduct points to mental unsoundness; the whole story is tragic. The one compensation was that Wesley’s time and strength were more and more concentrated on his growing parish. His relations with his preachers were his constant solace. Such men as Christopher Hopper enjoyed his absolute confidence and the growing band of loyal workers were spreading Methodism through England and Ireland. He was deeply thankful for the progress of the work. He tells a correspondent on September 20, 1757: ‘The longer I am absent from London and the more I attend the service the Church in other places the more I am convinced of the unspeakable advantage which the people called Methodists enjoy; I mean even with regard to public worship, particularly on the Lord’s Day.’ The year had a full share of controversy, and Wesley’s letters go straight to the mark, and have a pungency and vivacity all their own. It is remarkable how he found time to deal with Samuel Furly’s questions and to write letters of counsel to men and women in all parts of the country. John Fletcher went straight from his ordination at Whitehall to help Wesley in his sacramental service at West Street, and became henceforth a constant source of strength. The death of Thomas Walsh, the Irish saint and scholar, was a sore bereavement. Weslyy was always quick to recognize the gifts of his preachers, and Walsh was one of the noblest of them all. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: 35. 1749 ======================================================================== 1749 To Dr. Conyers Middleton TO DR. CONYERS MIDDLETON [1b] LONDON, January 4, 1749. REVEREND SIR,--1. In your late Inquiry you endeavour to prove (1) that there were no miracles wrought in the primitive Church; (2) that all the primitive Fathers were fools or knaves, and most of them both one and the other: and it is easy to observe the whole tenor of your argument tends to prove (3) that no miracles were wrought by Christ or His Apostles; and (4) that these too were fools or knaves, or both. 2. I am not agreed with you on any of these heads. My reasons I shall lay before you in as free a manner, though not in so smooth or laboured language, as you have laid yours before the world. 3. But I have neither inclination nor leisure to follow you step by step through three hundred and seventy-three quarto pages. I shall therefore set aside all I find in your work which does not touch the merits of the cause, and likewise contract the question itself to the first three centuries; for I have no more to do with the writers or miracles of the fourth than with those of the fourteenth century. 4. You will naturally ask: ’Why do you stop there What reason can you give for this If you allow miracles before the empire became Christian, why not afterwards too’ I answer: Because, ’after the empire became Christian’ (they are your own words), ’a general corruption both of faith and morals infected the Christian Church; which by that revolution, as St. Jerome says, " lost as much of her virtue as it had gained of wealth and power "’ (page 123). And this very reason St. Chrysostom himself gave in the words you have afterwards cited: ’There are some who ask, Why are not miracles performed still Why are there no persons who raise the dead and cure diseases’ To which he replies, that it was owing to the want of faith and virtue and piety in those times. 1. You begin your Preface by observing that the Inquiry was intended to have been published some time ago; but, upon reflection, you resolved to ’give out first some sketch of what you was projecting’ (page 1), and accordingly ’published the Introductory Discourse’ by itself, though ’foreseeing it would encounter all the opposition that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition are ever prepared to give to all inquiries’ of this nature (page 2). But it was your ’comfort that this would excite candid inquirers to weigh the merit and consequences of it’ (page 3). 2. The consequences of it are tolerably plain, even to free the good people of England from all that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition vulgarly called Christianity. But it is not so plain that ’this is the sole expedient which can secure the Protestant religion against the efforts of Rome’ (ibid.). It may be doubted whether Deism is the sole expedient to secure us against Popery; for some are of opinion there are persons in the world who are neither Deists, nor Papists. 3. You open the cause artfully enough by a quotation from Mr. Locke (page 4). But we are agreed to build our faith on no man’s authority. His reasons will be considered in their place. ’Those who have written against his and your opinion,’ you say, ’have shown great eagerness, but little knowledge of the question; urged by the hopes of honours, and prepared to fight for every establishment that offers such pay to its defenders’ (page 5). I have not read one of these; yet I would fain believe that neither the hope of honour nor the desire of pay was the sole, or indeed the main, motive that urged either them or you to engage in writing. But I grant they are overseen, if they argue against you by citing ’the testimonies of the ancient Fathers’ (page 6), seeing they might easily perceive you pay no more regard to these than to the Evangelists or Apostles. Neither do I commend them if they ’insinuate jealousies of consequences dangerous to Christianity’ (ibid.). Why they should insinuate these I cannot conceive: I need not insinuate that the sun shines at noonday. You have ’opened too great a glare to the public’ (page 7) to leave them any room for such insinuation. Though, to save appearances, you gravely declare still, ’Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the Gospel miracles could not in any. degree be shaken by it’ (page 6). 4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point. ’The present question,’ you say, ’depends on the joint credibility of the facts and of the witnesses who attest them, especially’ on the former. For ’if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things’ (page 9). All this is most true. You go on: ’The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses, But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known.’ (Page 10.) Sir, will you retract this, or defend it If you defend, and can prove as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If ’the credibility of witnesses’ (of all witnesses, for you make no distinction) depends, as you peremptorily affirm, ’on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us’; and consequently, ’though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none,’--then it is plain all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain; then I may indeed presume, but cannot certainly know, that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born, much less that He healed the sick and raised either Lazarus or Himself from the dead. Now, sir, go and declare again how careful you are for ’the credit of the Gospel miracles’! 5. But, for fear any--considering how ’frank and open’ your nature is, and how ’warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true’ (page 7)--should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: ’The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously’--to what to the Jewish or Christian revelation No; but ’to that revelation which He made of Himself from the beginning in the beautiful fabric of this visible world.’ (Page 22.) 6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you either with that passage from St. Mark or any other from Scripture--at least I will not, unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, ’Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers which are the subject of it as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel’ (page 10). Very true; ’this should be our first care.’ I was therefore all attention to hear your account of ’the nature of those powers as they are represented to us in the Gospel,’ But, alas! you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those ’zealous champions who have attempted’ (bold men as they are) ’to refute the Introductory Discourse’ (page 11). Perhaps you will say, ’Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.’ You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers, but only to open the way to ’one of your antagonists’ (page 12); of whom you yourself affirm that ’not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament’ (page 11). Consequently the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have ’spent one thought upon the subject.’ 7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: ’It being agreed, then, that in the original promise there is no intimation of any particular period to which their continuance was limited’ (pages 13-14). Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. ’For, till we have learned from those sacred records’ (I use your own words) ’what they were and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgement of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us’ (page 11). Now, sir, if this be true (as without doubt it is), then it necessarily follows that--seeing, from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers ’as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel’--you dispute throughout the whole ’at random, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.’ 8. Your reply to ’the adversaries of your scheme’ (pages 15-27) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again. Only I would here take notice of one assertion--’that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served’ (page 23). You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. ’This, I say, is evident’ (ibid.) is not a sufficient proof; nor ’A treatise is prepared on that subject’ (page 24). Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord’s promise, [’Non omnibus omnia-ita tamen cuilibet credenti tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quae se, non semper quidem, sed data occasione explicaret’ (Grotius in Marcum xvi. 17). ] which, literally translated, runs thus: ’To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.’ 9. But, waiving this, I grant ’the single point in dispute is, whether the testimony of the Fathers be a sufficient ground to believe that miraculous gifts subsisted at all after the days of the Apostles’ (page 27). But with this you interweave another question--whether the Fathers were not all fools or knaves: in treating of which you strongly intimate (1) that such gifts did never subsist, and (2) that the Apostles were equally wise and good with the ’wonder-workers’ (your favourite term) that followed them. When, therefore, you add, ’My opinion is this--that, after our Lord’s ascension, the extraordinary gifts He had promised were poured out on the Apostles, and the other primary instruments of planting the gospel, in order to enable them to overrule the inveterate prejudices both of the Jews and Gentiles, and to bear up against the discouraging shocks of popular rage and persecution’ (page 28)--I look upon all this to be mere grimace. You believe not one word of what you say; you cannot possibly, if you believe what you said before: for who can believe both the sides of a contradiction 10. However, I will suppose you do believe it, and will argue with you from your own words. But first let us have a few more of them: ’In process of time, as miraculous powers began to be less and less wanted, so they began gradually to decline, till they were finally withdrawn’ (page 29); ’And this may probably be thought to have happened while some of the Apostles were still living.’ These were given, you say, to the first planters of the gospel, ’in order to enable them to overrule the inveterate prejudices both of Jews and Gentiles and to bear up against the shocks of persecution.’ Thus far we are agreed. They were given for these ends. But if you allow this, you cannot suppose, consistently with yourself, that they were withdrawn till these ends were fully answered. So long, therefore, as those prejudices subsisted, and Christians were exposed to the shocks of persecution, you cannot deny but there was the same occasion for those powers to be continued as there was for their being given at first. And this, you say, is ’a postulatum which all people will grant, that they continued as long as they were necessary to the Church’ (page II). 11. Now, did those prejudices cease or was persecution at an end while some of the Apostles were still living You have yourself abundantly shown they did not. You know there was as sharp persecution in the third century as there was in the first, while all the Apostles were living. And with regard to prejudices, you have industriously remarked that ’the principal writers of Rome, who make any mention of the Christians about the time of Trajan, speak of them as a set of despicable, stubborn, and even wicked enthusiasts’ (page 193); that ’Suetonius calls them " a race of men of a new and mischievous superstition "’ (page 194); and that ’Tacitus, describing the horrible tortures which they suffered under Nero, says, " They were detested for their flagitious practices; possessed with an abominable superstition; and condemned, not so much for their supposed crime of firing the city, as from the hatred of all mankind "’ (ibid.). And ’their condition,’ you say, ’continued much the same till they were established by the civil power; during all which time they were constantly insulted and calumniated by their heathen adversaries as a stupid, credulous, impious sect, the very scum of mankind’ (page 195). In a word, both with regard to prejudice and persecution, I read in your following page: ’The heathen magistrates would not give themselves the trouble to make the least inquiry into their manners or doctrines, but condemned them for the mere name without examination or trial; treating a Christian of course as guilty of every crime, as an enemy of the gods, emperors, laws, and of nature itself’ (page 196). 12. If, then, the end of those miraculous powers was ’to overcome inveterate prejudices and to enable the Christians to bear up against the shocks of persecution,’ how can you possibly conceive that those powers should cease while some of the Apostles were living With what colour can you assert that they were less wanted for these ends in the second and third than in the apostolic age With what shadow of reason can you maintain that (if they ever subsisted at all) they were finally withdrawn before Christianity was established by the civil power Then, indeed, these ends did manifestly cease, persecution was at an end, and the inveterate prejudices which had so long obtained were in great measure rooted up--another plain reason why the powers which were to balance these should remain in the Church so long, and no longer. 13. You go on to acquaint us with the excellences of your performance. ’The reader,’ you say, ’will find in these sheets none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to perplex a good cause or to palliate a bad one; no subtile refinements, forced constructions, or evasive distinctions; but plain reasoning, grounded on plain facts, and published with an honest and disinterested view to free the minds of men from an inveterate imposture. I have shown that the ancient Fathers, by whom that delusion was imposed, were extremely credulous and superstitious, possessed with strong prejudices, and scrupling no art or means by which they might propagate the same.’ (Page 31.) Surely, sir, you add the latter part of this paragraph on purpose to confute the former; for just here you use one of the unfairest arts which the most dishonest disputant can employ, in endeavouring to forestall the judgement of the reader, and to prejudice him against those men on whom he ought not to pass any sentence before he has heard the evidence. 1. In the beginning of your Introductory Discourse you declare the reasons which moved you to publish it. One of these, you say, was the late increase of Popery in this kingdom (page 41); chiefly occasioned, as you suppose, by the confident assertions of the Romish emissaries that there has been a succession of miracles in their Church from the apostolic to the present age. To obviate this plea you would ’settle some rule of discerning the true from the false, so as to give a reason for admitting the miracles of one age and rejecting those of another’ (page 44). 2. This has a pleasing sound, and is extremely well imagined to prejudice a Protestant reader in your favour. You then slide with great art into your subject: ’This claim of a miraculous power, now peculiar to the Church of Rome, was asserted in all Christian countries till the Reformation’ (ibid.). But then ’the cheat was detected’ (page 45)--nay, and men began to ’suspect that the Church had long been governed by the same arts.’ ’For it was easy to trace them up to the primitive Church, though not to fix the time when the cheat began; to show how long after the days of the Apostles the miraculous gifts continued in the Church’ (page 46). However, it is commonly believed that they continued till Christianity was the established religion. Some, indeed, extend them to the fourth and fifth centuries (page 50); but these, you say, betray the Protestant cause (page 51). ’For in the third, fourth, and fifth the chief corruptions of Popery were introduced, or at least the seeds of them sown. By these I mean monkery; the worship of relics; invocation of saints; prayers for the dead; the superstitious use of images, of the sacraments, of the sign of the cross, and of the consecrated oil.’ (Page 52.) 3. I have nothing to do with the fourth or fifth century. But to what you allege in support of this charge, so far as it relates to the third century, I have a few things to reply. And, first, you quote not one line from any Father in the third century in favour of monkery, the worship of relics, the invocation of saints, or the superstitious use either of images or consecrated oil. How is this, sir You brought eight accusations at once against the Fathers of the third as well as the following centuries; and as to five of the eight, when we call for the proof you have not one word to say! As to the sixth, you say, ’In the sacrament of the eucharist several abuses were introduced’ (page 57). You instance, first, in mixing the wine with water. But how does it appear that this was any abuse at all or that ’Irenaeus declared it to have been taught as well as practiced by our Saviour’ (Ibid.) The words you quote to prove this do not prove it at all; they simply relate a matter of fact--’Taking the bread, He confessed it to be His body; and the mixed cup, He affirmed it was His blood.[’Accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur; et temperamentum calicis, suum sanguinem confirmavit’ (Adversus omnes haereses).] You cannot be ignorant of this fact--that the cup used after the paschal supper was always mixed with water. But ’Cyprian declared this mixture to have been enjoined to himself by a divine revelation’ (page 58). If he did, that will not prove it to be an abuse; so that you are wide of the point still. You instance next in their sending the bread to the sick; which (as well as the mixture) is mentioned by Justin Martyr. This fact likewise we allow; but you have not proved it to be an abuse. I grant that, near an hundred years after, some began to have a superstitious regard for this bread. But that in ’Tertullian’s days it was carried home and locked up as a divine treasure’ I call upon you to prove; as also that infant communion was an abuse, or the styling it ’the sacrifice of the body of Christ’ (page 59). I believe the offering it up for the martyrs was an abuse; and that this, with the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, were, if not the earliest of all, yet as early as any which crept into the Christian Church. 4. It is certain ’praying for the dead was common in the second century’ (page 60). You might have said, ’And in the first also’; seeing that petition, ’Thy kingdom come,’ manifestly concerns the saints in paradise as well as those upon earth. But it is far from certain that ’the purpose of this was to procure relief and refreshment to the departed souls in some intermediate state of expiatory pains,’ or that ’this was the general opinion of those times.’ 5. As to the ’consecrated oil’ (page 63), you seem entirely to forget that it was neither St. Jerome nor St. Chrysostom, but St. James, who said, ’Is any sick among you let him send for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up’ (v. 14-15). The sum is: you have charged the Fathers of the third century with eight of the chief corruptions of Popery--(1) monkery; (2) the worship of relics; (3) invocation of saints; (4) the superstitious use of images; (5) of the consecrated oil; (6) of the sacraments; (7) of the sign of the cross; (8) praying for the dead. And what is all this heavy charge come to at last Why, just thus much: some of them in the beginning of the third century did superstitiously use the sign of the cross; and others in the middle of that century offered up the eucharist for the martyrs on their annual festivals; though how you make this ’the superstitious use of the sacraments’ I know not, or how these come to be the ’chief corruptions of Popery.’ Praying thus far for the dead, ’that God would shortly accomplish the number of His elect and hasten His kingdom,’ and anointing the sick with oil, you will not easily prove to be any corruptions at all. As to monkery, the worship of relics, invocation of saints, and the superstitious use of images, you have not even attempted to prove that these Fathers were guilty; so that, for aught appears, you might as well have charged them on the Apostles. ’Yet it is no more,’ you solemnly assure us, ’than what fact and truth oblige you to say’! (Page 65.) When I meet with any of these assurances for the time to come, I shall remember to stand upon my guard. 6. In the following pages you are arguing against the miracles of the fourth and fifth century. After which you add: ’But if these must be rejected, where, then, are we to stop And to what period must we confine ourselves This, indeed, is the grand difficulty, and what has puzzled all the other doctors who have considered the same question before me.’ (Page 71.) Sir, your memory is short. In this very discourse you yourself said just the contrary. You told us awhile ago that not only Dr. Marshall, [Thomas Marshall, D.D., Rector of Lincoln College 1672.] Dr. Dodwell, and Archbishop Tillotson, but the generality of the Protestant doctors were agreed to what period they should confine themselves, believing that miracles subsisted through the first three centuries and ceased in the beginning of the fourth (page 46 et seq.). 7. However, that none of them may ever be puzzled any more, you will ’lay down some general principles, which may lead us to a more rational solution of the matter than any that has hitherto been offered’ (ibid.). Here again I was all attention. And what did the mountain bring forth What are these general principles, preceded by so solemn a declaration, and laid down for thirteen pages together (Pages 71-84.) Why, they are dwindled down into one--’that the forged miracles of the fourth century taint the credit of all the later miracles’! I should desire you to prove that the miracles of the fourth century were all forged, but that it is not material to our question. 8. But you endeavour to show it is, ’For that surprising confidence,’ you say, ’with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged’ (a little more proof of that), ’makes us suspect that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times’ (page 84). It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth. 9. You say, secondly: ’This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.’ (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally ’begin to forge miracles’ at that time when real miracles were no more. 10. You say, thirdly: ’The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.’ (Page 85.) I answer: (1) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier. Nor (2) That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more: witness Hilarion’s camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could ’smell an heretic at a mile’s distance.’ (Free Inquiry, pp. 89-90.) But if (3) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato’s supposition) to be deluded themselves; for they would have more assistance from God. 11. But you say, fourthly: ’The earlier ages of the Church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse: for there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and His Apostles; several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but those who would forge or make use of forged books would make use of forged miracles.’ (Introductory Discourse, pp. 8-7.) I answer: (1) It is allowed that before the end of the third century the Church was greatly degenerated from its first purity. Yet I doubt not (2) But abundantly more rank heresies have been publicly professed in many later ages; but they were not publicly protested against, and therefore historians did not record them. (3) You cannot but know it has always been the judgement of learned men (which you are at liberty to refute if you are able) that the far greater part of those spurious books have been forged by heretics, and that many more were compiled by weak, well meaning men from what had been orally delivered down from the Apostles. But (4) There have been in the Church from the beginning men who had only the name of Christians. And these doubtless were capable of pious frauds (so called). But this ought not to be charged upon the whole body. Add to this (5) What is observed by Mr. Daille,--’I impute a great part of this mischief to those men who before the invention of printing were the transcribers and copiers out of manuscripts. We may well presume that these men took the same liberty in forging as St. Jerome complains they did in corrupting books, especially since this course was beneficial to them, which the other was not.’Much more to the same effect we have in his treatise Of the Right Use of the Fathers, Part I. chap. iii. N.B. These transcribers were not all Christians--no, not in name; perhaps few, if any of them, in the first century. (6) By what evidences do you prove that these spurious books ’are frequently cited by the most eminent Fathers as not only genuine but of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves’ Or, lastly, that they either forged these books themselves or made use of what they knew to be forged These things also you are not to take for granted but to prove before your argument can be of force. 12. We are come at last to your general conclusion: ’There is no sufficient reason to believe that any miraculous powers subsisted in any age of the Church after the times of the Apostles’ (page 91). But pretended miracles, you say, arose thus: ’As the high authority of the apostolic writings excited some of the most learned Christians’ (prove that!) ’to forge books under their names; so the great fame of the apostolic miracles would naturally excite some of the most crafty when the Apostles were dead to attempt some juggling tricks in imitation of them. And when these artful pretenders had maintained their ground through the first three centuries, the leading clergy of the fourth understood their interest too well to part with the old plea of miraculous gifts.’ (Page 92.) Round assertions indeed! But surely, sir, you do not think that reasonable men will take these for proofs! You are here advancing a charge of the blackest nature. But where are your vouchers Where are the witnesses to support it Hitherto you have not been able to produce one through a course of three hundred years; unless you bring in those heathen, of whose senseless, shameless prejudices you have yourself given so clear an account. But you designed to produce your witnesses in the Free Inquiry a year or two after the Introductory Discourse was published. So you condemn them first, and try them afterwards; you will pass sentence now, and hear the evidence by-and-by! A genuine specimen of that ’impartial regard to truth’ which you profess upon all occasions. 13. Another instance of this is in your marginal note: ’The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity.’ They were; but by whom Why, by Jews and heathens. Accordingly the two witnesses you produce here are Celsus the Jew and Julian the apostate. But, lest this should not suffice, you make them confess the charge. ’The Fathers,’ your words are, ’defend themselves by saying that they did no more than the philosophers had always done; that Pythagoras’s precepts were inculcated with an ipse dixit, and they found the same method useful with the vulgar’ (page 93). And is this their whole defence Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem Stand this as another genuine proof of Dr. Middleton’s candour and impartiality! 14. A farther proof of your ’frank and open nature,’ and of your ’contenting yourself with the discharge of your own conscience by a free declaration of your real sentiments’ (page 40), I find in the very next page. Here you solemnly declare: ’Christianity is confirmed by the evidence of such miracles as, of all others on record, are the least liable to exception, and carry the clearest marks of their sincerity; being wrought by Christ and His Apostles for an end so great, so important, as to be highly worthy the interposition of the Deity; wrought by mean and simple men, and delivered by eye-witnesses, whose characters exclude the suspicion of fraud’ (page 94). Sir, do you believe one word of what you so solemnly declare You have yourself declared the contrary. But if you do not, where shall we have you Or how can we believe you another time How shall we know, I will not say, when you speak truth, but when you would have us think you do By what criterion shall we distinguish between what is spoken in your real and what in your personated character how discern when you speak as Dr. Middleton and when as the public librarian 14. You go on: ’By granting the Romanists but a single age of miracles after the Apostles, we shall be entangled in difficulties, whence we can never extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age’ (page 96). I will allow them, however, three ages of miracles, and let them make what advantage of it they can. You proceed: ’If the Scriptures are a complete rule (I reject the word ’sufficient,’ because it is ambiguous), we do not want the Fathers as guides, or, if clear, as interpreters. An esteem for them has carried many into dangerous errors: the neglect of them can have no ill consequences.’ (Page 97.) I answer: (1) The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points. And yet their clearness does not prove that they need not be explained, nor their completeness that they need not be enforced. (2) The esteeming the writings of the first three centuries not equally with but next to the Scriptures never carried any man yet into dangerous errors, nor probably ever will. But it has brought many out of dangerous errors, and particularly out of the errors of Popery. (3) The neglect in your sense of the primitive Fathers--that is, the thinking they were all fools and knaves--has this natural consequence (which ,I grant is no ill one, according to your principles), to make all who are not real Christians think Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles just as honest and wise as them. 16. You afterwards endeavour to show how the Church of England came to have such an esteem for the ancient Fathers. There are several particulars in this account which are liable to exception. But I let them pass, as they have little connexion with the point in question. 17. You conclude your Introductory Discourse thus: ’The design of the present treatise is to fix the religion of the Protestants on its proper basis--that is, on the Sacred Scriptures’ (page 111). Here again you speak in your personated character; as also when you ’freely own the primitive writers to be of use in attesting and transmitting to us the genuine books of the Holy Scriptures’! (Page 112.) Books for the full attestation as well as safe transmission whereof you have doubtless the deepest concern! 18. I cannot dismiss this Discourse without observing that the uncommon artfulness and disingenuity which glare through the whole must needs give disgust to every honest and upright heart; nor is it any credit at all to the cause you have espoused. Nay, I am persuaded there are many in these kingdoms who, though they think as you do concerning the Christian system, yet could not endure the thought of writing against it in the manner that you have done; of combating fraud (if it were so) with fraud, and practicing the very thing which they professed to expose and abhor. In your Free Inquiry itself you propose,-- ’I. To draw out in order all the principal testimonies which relate to miraculous gifts as they are found in the writings of the Fathers from the earliest ages after the Apostles; whence we shall see at one view the whole evidence by which they have hitherto been supported. ’II. To throw together all which those Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with those gifts.’ (Page 1.) ’III. To illustrate the particular characters and opinions of the Fathers who attest those miracles. ’IV. To review all the several kinds of miracles which are pretended to have been wrought, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected. ’V. To refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.’ (Page 2.) I was in hopes you would have given, at least in entering upon your main work, what you promised so long ago, an account of ’the proper nature and condition of those miraculous powers which are the subject of the whole dispute as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel’ (Preface, p. 10). But as you do not appear to have any thought of doing it at all, you will give me leave at length to do it for you. The original promise of these runs thus: ’These signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover’ (Mark xvi.17-18). A farther account is given of them by St. Peter on the very day whereon that promise was fulfilled: ’This is that which was spoken of by the Prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, . . . your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams’ (Acts ii. 16-17). The account given by St. Paul is a little fuller than this: ’There are diversities of gifts’ (carismavtwn, the usual scriptural term for the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost), ’but the same Spirit. For to one is given the word of wisdom; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of’ other ’miracles; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: all these worketh that one and the same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.’ (1 Cor. xii. 4-11.) Hence we may observe that the chief carivsmata, ’spiritual gifts,’ conferred on the apostolical Church were (1) casting out devils; (2) speaking with new tongues; (3) escaping dangers, in which otherwise they must have perished; (4) healing the sick; (5) prophecy, foretelling things to come; (6) visions; (7) divine dreams; and (8) discerning of spirits. Some of these appear to have been chiefly designed for the conviction of Jews and heathens, as the casting out devils and speaking with new tongues; some chiefly for the benefit of their fellow Christians, as healing the sick, foretelling things to come, and the discernment of spirits; and all in order to enable those who either wrought or saw them to ’run with patience the race set before them,’ through all the storms of persecution which the most inveterate prejudice, rage, and malice could raise against them. I. 1. You are, first, ’to draw out in order all the principal testimonies which relate to miraculous gifts as they are found in the writings of the Fathers from the earliest ages after the Apostles.’ You begin with the apostolic Fathers--that is, those who lived and conversed with the Apostles. ’There are several,’ you say, ’of this character, whose writings still remain to us: St. Barnabas, St. Clemens, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Hermas. Now, if those gifts had subsisted after the days of the Apostles, these must have possessed a large share of them. But if any of them had, he would have mentioned it in his writings, which not one of them has done.’ (Page 3.) The argument, fully proposed, runs thus: If any such gifts had subsisted in them or in their days, they must have mentioned them in their circular Epistles to the Churches (for so their predecessors, the Apostles, did); but they did not mention any such gifts therein. Sir, your consequence is not of any force; as will easily appear by a parallel argument: If such gifts had subsisted in St. Peter or in his days, he must have mentioned them in his circular Epistles to the Churches. But he does not mention any such gifts therein; therefore they did not subsist in him or in his days. Your argument, therefore, proves too much; nor can it conclude against an apostolic Father without concluding against the Apostle too. If, therefore, the apostolic Fathers had not mentioned any miraculous gifts in their circular Epistles to the Churches, you could not have inferred that they possessed none; since neither does he mention them in his circular Epistles whom you allow to have possessed them. Of all the Apostles you can produce but one, St. Paul, who makes mention of these gifts: and that not in his circular Epistles to the Churches; for I know not that he wrote any such. 2. All this time I have been arguing on your own suppositions that these five apostolic Fathers all wrote circular Epistles to the Churches, and yet never mentioned these gifts therein. But neither of these suppositions is true. For (1) Hermas wrote no Epistle at all. (2) Although the rest wrote Epistles to particular Churches (Clemens to the Corinthians, Ignatius to the Romans, &c.), yet not one of them wrote any circular Epistle to the Churches, like those of St. James and St. Peter; unless we allow that to be a genuine Epistle which bears the name of St. Barnabas. (3) You own they all ’speak of spiritual gifts as abounding among the Christians of that age’; but assert, ’These cannot mean anything more than faith, hope, and charity’ (ibid.). You assert: but the proof, sir I I want the proof. Though I am but one of the vulgar, yet I am not half so credulous as you apprehend the first Christians to have been. Ipse dixi will not satisfy me: I want plain, clear, logical proof; especially when I consider how much you build upon this--that it is the main foundation whereon your hypothesis stands. You yourself must allow that in the Epistles of St. Paul pneumatikaV carivsmata, ’spiritual gifts,’ does always mean more than faith, hope, and charity; that it constantly means ’miraculous gifts.’ How, then, do you prove that in the Epistles of St. Ignatius it means quite another thing not miraculous gifts, but only the ordinary gifts and graces of the gospel I thought ’the reader’ was to ’find no evasive distinctions in the following sheets’ (Preface, p. 31). Prove, then, that this distinction is not evasive, that the same words mean absolutely different things. Till this is clearly and solidly done, reasonable men must believe that this and the like expressions mean the same thing in the writings of the apostolical Fathers as they do in the writings of the Apostles--namely, not the ordinary graces of the gospel, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. 3. You aim, indeed, at a proof, which would be home to the point if you were but able to make it out. ’These Fathers themselves seem to disclaim all gifts of a more extraordinary kind. Thus Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians says, " Neither I, nor any other such as I am, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed Paul." And in the same Epistle he declares, " It was not granted to him to practice that’ Be ye angry, and sin not.’ " St. Ignatius also in his Epistle to the Ephesians says, "These things I prescribe to you, not as if I were somebody extraordinary; for though I am bound for His name, I am not yet perfect in Christ Jesus."’ (Pages 7-8.) I think verily these extraordinary proofs may stand without any reply. 4. Yet you courteously add: ’If from the passages referred to above or any other it should appear probable to any that they were favoured on some occasions with some extraordinary illuminations, visions, or divine impressions, I shall not dispute that point; but remind them only that these gifts were granted for their particular comfort, and do not therefore in any manner affect or relate to the question now before us’ (page 10). I ask pardon, sir. These do so deeply affect, so nearly relate to, the question now before us, even as stated by yourself (Preface, p. 28), that, in allowing these, you give up the substance of the question. You yourself have declared that one great end of the extraordinary gifts conferred on the Apostles was ’to enable them to bear up against the shocks of popular rage and persecution.’ Now, were not ’extraordinary illuminations, visions, and impressions,’ if given at all, given for this very end--’for their particular comfort,’ as you now word it Therefore, in allowing these to the apostolic Fathers, you allow extraordinary gifts, which had been formerly granted to the Apostles, to have subsisted in the Church after the days of the Apostles, and for the same end as they did before. 5. Therefore the apostolic writers have not left us in the dark with regard to our present argument, and consequently your triumph comes too soon: ’Here, then, we have an interval of half a century in which we have the strongest reason to presume that the extraordinary gifts of the apostolic age were withdrawn’ (page 9). No: not if all the apostolic Fathers speak of spiritual gifts as abounding among the Christians of that age; not if ’extraordinary illuminations, visions, and divine impressions still subsisted among them.’ For, as to your now putting in, ’as exerted openly in the Church for the conviction of unbelievers,’ I must desire you to put it out again; it comes a great deal too late. The question between you and me was stated without it above an hundred pages back. Although, if it be admitted, it will do you no service; seeing your proposition is overthrown if there were ’miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles,’ whether they were ’openly exerted for the conviction of unbelievers’ or not. 6. I was a little surprised that you should take your leave of the apostolic Fathers so soon. But, upon looking forward, my surprise was at an end: I found you was not guilty of any design to spare them; but only delayed your remarks till the reader should be prepared for what might have shocked him had it stood in its proper place. I do not find, indeed, that you make any objection to any part of the Epistles of Ignatius; no, nor of the Catholic Epistle, as it is called, which is inscribed with the name of Barnabas. This clearly convinces me you have not read it--I am apt to think not one page of it; seeing, if you had, you would never have let slip such an opportunity of exposing one that was called an apostolic Father. 7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking concerning it that ’he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix as a type and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable I know not.’ (Page 55.) But that it is so is certain, and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow either that Clemens was a wicked man or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. 8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season--namely, ’that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice’ (page 60). And it is not improbable that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves, some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof either that Polycarp was not an holy man or that he was not favoured with the extraordinary as well as ordinary gifts of the Spirit. 9. With regard to the narrative of his martyrdom, you affirm, ’It is one of the most authentic pieces in all primitive antiquity’ (page 124). I will not vouch for its authenticity; nor, therefore, for the story of the dove, the flame forming an arch, the fragrant smell, or the revelation to Pionius. But your attempt to account for these things is truly curious. You say: ’An arch of flame round his body is an appearance which might easily happen from the common effects of wind. And the dove said to fly out of him might be conveyed into the wood which was prepared to consume him.’ (Page 229.) How much more naturally may we account for both by supposing the whole to be a modern fiction, wrote on occasion of that account mentioned by Eusebius, but lost many ages ago!But, whatever may be thought of this account of his death, neither does this affect the question whether during his life he was endued with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. 10. There is one of those whom you style apostolic Fathers yet behind, of whom you talk full as familiarly as of the rest; I mean Hermas: ’to whom,’ you say, ’some impute the fraud of forging the Sibylline books’ (page 37). It would not have been amiss if you had told us which of the ancients, whether Christian, Jew, or heathen, ever accused him of this. If none ever did, some will be apt to think it is giving a person but hard measure to bring an accusation against him which never was heard of till sixteen hundred years after his death. But I can the more easily excuse you, because he is a person whom you are wholly unacquainted with. Though it is much, curiosity did not lead you, when you had Archbishop Wake’s translation in your hand, to read over if it were but half a dozen pages of his famous Shepherd. But charity obliges me to believe you never did. Otherwise I cannot conceive you would so peremptorily affirm of him and the rest together, ’There is not the least claim or pretension in all their several pieces to any of these extraordinary gifts which are the subject of this inquiry’ (page 3). I am amazed I Sir, have you never a friend in the world If you was yourself ignorant of the whole affair, would no one inform you that all the three books of Hermas from the first page to the last are nothing else than a recital of his extraordinary gifts, his visions, prophecies, and revelations Can you expect after this that any man in his senses should take your word for anything under heaven that any one should credit anything which you affirm or believe you any farther than he can see you Jesus, whom you persecute, can forgive you this; but how can you forgive yourself One would think you should be crying out day and night, ’The Shepherd of Hermas will not let me sleep!’ 11. You proceed to the testimony of Justin Martyr, who wrote about fifty years after the Apostles: ’He says (I translate his words literally), " There are prophetic gifts among us even until now. You may see with us both women and men having gifts from the Spirit of God." He particularly insists on that of " casting out devils, as what every one might see with his own eyes."’ (Page 10.) ’Irenaeus, who wrote somewhat later, affirms " that all who were truly disciples of Jesus wrought miracles in His name: some cast out devils; others had visions, or the knowledge of future events; others healed the sick." And as to raising the dead, he declares it to have been frequently performed on necessary occasions by great fasting and the joint supplication of the Church. " And we hear many," says he, " speaking with all kinds of tongues, and expounding the mysteries of God."’ (Pages 11-12.) ’Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the same age, speaks of casting out devils as then common in the Church’ (ibid.). 12. ’Tertullian, who flourished toward the end of the second century, challenges the heathen magistrates to ’call before their tribunals any person possessed with a devil. And if the evil spirit, when commanded by any Christian, did not confess himself to be a devil, who elsewhere called himself a god, they should take the life of that Christian."’ (Ibid.) ’Minutius Felix, supposed to have wrote in the beginning of the third century, addressing himself to his heathen friend, says, " The greatest part of you know what confessions the demons make concerning themselves, when we expel them out of the bodies of men"’ (page 13). 13. ’Origen, something younger than Minutius, declares that there remained still the manifest indications of the Holy Spirit. " For the Christians," says he, " cast out devils, perform many cures, foretell things to come. And many have been converted to Christianity by visions. I have seen many examples of this sort."’ (Page 14.) In another place he says: ’Signs of the Holy Ghost were shown at the beginning of the teaching of Jesus’ (not, as you translate it, ’miracles began with the preaching of Jesus’; that is quite a different thing); ’ more were shown after His ascension, but afterwards fewer. However, even now there are still some remains of them with a few, whose souls are cleansed by the word and a life conformable to it.’(Page 15.) Again: ’Some,’says he, ’heal the sick. I myself have seen many so healed, of loss of senses, madness, and innumerable other evils which neither men nor devils can cure.’(Ibid.)’ And this is done, not by magical arts, but by prayer and certain plain adjurations such as any common Christian may use; for generally common men do things of this kind’ (page 16). 14. ’Cyprian, who wrote about the middle of the third century, says, " Beside the visions of the night, even in the daytime innocent children among us are filled with the Holy Spirit, and in ecstasies see and hear and speak those things by which God is pleased to admonish and instruct us"’ (ibid.). Elsewhere he particularly mentions the casting out of devils: ’which,’says he, ’either depart immediately or by degrees, according to the faith of the patient or the grace of him that works the cure’(page 17). ’Arnobius, who is supposed to have wrote in the year of Christ 303, tells us, " Christ appears even now to men unpolluted and eminently holy who love Him; whose very name puts evil spirits to flight, strikes their prophets dumb, deprives the soothsayers of the power of answering, and frustrates the acts of arrogant magicians"’ (page 18). ’Lactantius, who wrote about the same time, speaking of evil spirits, says, " Being adjured by Christians, they retire out of the bodies of men, confess themselves to be demons, and tell their names, even the same which are adored in the temples "’ (ibid.). 15. ’These,’ you say, ’are the principal testimonies which assert miraculous gifts through the first three centuries; which might be supported by many more of the same kind from the same as well as different writers. But none will scruple to risk the fate of the cause upon these.’ (Page 19.) Thus far I do not scruple it. I do not doubt but the testimonies of these nine witnesses, added to the evidence of the apostolic Fathers, will satisfy every impartial man with regard to the point in question. Yet I see no cause, if there are nine witnesses more, to give up their evidence; seeing you may possibly raise objections against these which the others are unconcerned in. If, then, you should invalidate what I have to reply in behalf of the witnesses now produced, you will have done but half your work. I shall afterwards require a fair hearing for the others also. 16. You close this head with remarking (1) ’That the silence of all the apostolic writers on the subject of these gifts must dispose us to conclude they were then withdrawn’ (ibid.). O sir, mention this no more! I entreat you never name their silence again. They speak loud enough to shame you as long as you live. You cannot therefore talk with any grace of ’the pretended revival of them after a cessation of forty or fifty years,’ or draw conclusions from that which never was. Your second remark is perfectly new: I dare say none ever observed before yourself that this particular circumstance of the primitive Christians ’carried with it an air of imposture’--namely, their ’challenging all the world to come and see the miracles which they wrought’! (Page 21.) To complete the argument, you should have added, ’and their staking their lives upon the performance of them.’ 17. I doubt you have not gone one step forward yet. You have, indeed, advanced many bold assertions; but you have not fairly proved one single conclusion with regard to the point in hand. But a natural effect of your lively imagination is that from this time you argue more and more weakly; inasmuch, as the farther you go, the more things you imagine (and only imagine) yourself to have proved. Consequently, as you gather up more mistakes every step you take, every page is more precarious than the former. II. 1. The second thing you proposed was ’to throw together all which those Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit’ (ibid.). ’Now, whenever we think or speak with reverence,’say you, ’of those primitive times, it is always with regard to these very Fathers whose testimonies I have been collecting. And they were, indeed, the chief persons and champions of the Christian cause, the pastors, bishops, and martyrs of the primitive Church--namely, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius.’ Sir, you stumble at the threshold. A common dictionary may inform you that these were not all either pastors, bishops, or martyrs. 2. You go on as you set out: ’Yet none of these have anywhere affirmed that they themselves were endued with any power of working miracles’ (page 22). You should say, ’with any of those extraordinary gifts promised by our Lord and conferred on His Apostles.’ No! Have ’none of these anywhere affirmed that they themselves were endued’ with any extraordinary gifts What think you of the very first of them, Justin Martyr Either you are quite mistaken in the account you give of him elsewhere (pages 27, 30), or he affirmed this of himself over and over. And as to Cyprian, you will by-and-by spend several pages together (pages 101, &c.) on the extraordinary gifts he affirmed himself to be endued with. But suppose they had not anywhere affirmed this of themselves, what would you infer therefrom that they were not endued with any extraordinary gifts Then, by the very same method of arguing, you might prove that neither St. Peter, nor James, nor John were endued with any such; for neither do they anywhere affirm this of themselves in any of the writings which they have left behind them. 3. Your argument concerning the apostolic Fathers is just as conclusive as this, For if you say, ’The writers following the apostolic Fathers do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts, therefore they had none,’ by a parity of reason you must say, ’The writers following the Apostles do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts, therefore the Apostles had none.’ 4. Your next argument against the existence of those gifts is ’that the Fathers do not tell us the names of them which had them.’ This is not altogether true. The names of Justin Martyr and Cyprian are pretty well known; as is, among the learned, that of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. (Pages 106, 212.) 5. But what if they did not Supposing miraculous powers were openly exerted in the Church, and that not only they themselves but every one else might see this whenever they pleased--if any heathen might come and see whenever he pleased,--what could a reasonable man desire more What did it signify to him to know the names of those whom he heard prophesying or saw working miracles Though, without doubt, whoever saw the miracles wrought might easily learn the names of those that wrought them; which, nevertheless, the Christians had no need to publish abroad, to expose them so much the more to the rage and malice of their persecutors. 6. Your third argument is: ’The Christian workers of miracles were always charged with imposture by their adversaries. Lucian tells us, " Whenever any crafty juggler went to the Christians, he grew rich immediately." And Celsus represents the Christian wonder-workers as mere vagabonds and common cheats who rambled about to fairs and markets.’ (Page 23.) And is it any wonder that either a Jew or an heathen should represent them thus Sir, I do not blame you for not believing the Christian system, but for betraying so gross a partiality, for gleaning up every scrap of heathen scandal and palming it upon us as unquestionable evidence, and for not translating even these miserable fragments with any accuracy or faithfulness. Instead of giving us the text, bad as it is, you commonly substitute a paraphrase yet worse. And this the unlearned reader naturally supposes to be a faithful translation. It is no credit to your cause, if it needs such supports. And this is no credit to you if it does not. 7. To that of Lucian and Celsus, you add the evidence of Caecilius too, who calls, say you, these workers of miracles ’a lurking nation, shunning the light.’ Then they were strangely altered all on a sudden; for you told us that just before they were proving themselves cheats by a widely different method--by ’calling out both upon magistrates and people, and challenging all the world to come and see what they did’! (Page 20.) I was not aware that you had begun ’to throw together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with those extraordinary gifts.’ And it seems you have made an end of it! And accordingly you proceed to sum up the evidence, to ’observe, upon the whole, from these characters of the primitive wonder-workers, as given both by friends and enemies, we may fairly conclude that the gifts of those ages were generally engrossed by private Christians who travelled about from city to city to assist the ordinary preachers in the conversion of Pagans by the extraordinary miracles they pretended to perform’ (page 24). 8. ’Characters given both by friends and enemies’ I Pray, sir, what friends have you cited for this character or what enemies, except only Celsus the Jew (And you are a miserable interpreter for him.) So, from the single testimony of such a witness, you lay it down as an oracular truth that all the miracle-workers of the first three ages were ’mere vagabonds and common cheats,’ rambling about from city to city to assist in converting heathens by tricks and imposture! And this you ingeniously call ’throwing together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning them’! 9. But, to complete all, ’Here again,’ you say, ’we see a dispensation of things ascribed to God quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament’ (page 24). ’We see a dispensation’! Where Not in the primitive Church: not in the writings of one single Christian; not of one heathen: and only of one Jew; for poor Celsus had not a second, though he multiplies under your forming hand into a cloud of witnesses. He alone ascribes this to the ancient Christians, which you in their name ascribe to God. With the same regard to truth, you go on: ’In those days the power of working miracles’ (you should say the extraordinary gifts) ’was committed to none but those who presided in the Church of Christ.’ Ipse dixit for that. But I cannot take your word, especially when the Apostles and Evangelists say otherwise. ’But, upon the pretended revival of those powers,’--Sir, we do not pretend the revival of them, seeing we shall believe they never were intermitted till you can prove the contrary,--’we find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church, not to the bishops, the martyrs, or the principal champions of the Christian cause, but to boys, to women, and, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes also of a bad character.’ Surely, sir, you talk in your sleep: you could never talk thus, if you had your eyes open and your understanding about you. ’We find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church.’ No! I thought Cyprian had had the government of the Church at Carthage, and Dionysius at Alexandria! ’Not to the bishops.’ Who were these, then, that were mentioned last Bishops, or no bishops ’Not to the martyrs.’ Well, if Cyprian was neither bishop nor martyr, I hope you will allow Justin’s claim. ’Not to the principal champions of the Christian cause.’ And yet you told us, not three pages since, that ’these very Fathers were the chief champions of the Christian cause in those days’! ’But to boys, and to women.’ I answer: ’This is that which was spoken of by the Prophet Joel: It shall come to pass that I will pour out My Spirit, saith the Lord, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy’!--a circumstance which turns this argument full against you till you openly avow you do not believe those prophecies. ’And, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes of a bad character.’ I answer: (1) You cite only one ante-Nicene writer to prove them committed to ’private and obscure laymen.’ And he says this and no more: ’Generally private men do things of this kind.’[WJ" ejpivpan ijdiw’tai toV toiou’ton pravttousi (Origen’s Cont. Cels. 1. vii.).] By what rule of grammar you construe idiwtai ’private and obscure laymen’ I know not. (2) To prove these were sometimes men of a bad character, you quote also but one ante-Nicene Father (for I presume you will not assert the genuineness of the so-called Apostolical Constitutions); and that one is, in effect, none at all: it is Tertullian, who, in his Prescription against Heretics, says, ’They will add many things of the authority’ (or power) ’of every heretical teacher--that they raised the dead, healed the sick, foretold things to come.’ [’Adjicient multa de autoritate cujusque doctoris haeretici, illos mortuos suscitasse, debiles reformasse, &c.’] ’They will add’! But did Tertullian believe them There is no shadow of reason to think he did. And if not, what is all this to the purpose No more than the tales of later ages which you add concerning the miracles wrought by bones and relics. 10. ’These things,’ you add, ’are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers by a dexterity of juggling imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity would dispose them to embrace without examination whatever seemed to promote so good a cause’ (page 25). You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those who have no ’strong prejudices for Christianity’ did not apply what you say of these ’strolling wonder-workers’ to the Apostles as well as their successors. 11. A very short answer will suffice: ’These things are so strange.’ They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet; therefore the consequences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support. 12. Nay, but ’it is certain and notorious,’ you say, ’that this was really the case in some instances’--that is, that ’strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers’ (page 26). Sir, I must come in again with my cuckoo’s note,--The proof! where is the proof Till this is produced, I cannot allow that ’this is certain and notorious’ even in one individual instance. 13. Let us now stand still and observe what it is you have made out under this second head. What you proposed was ’to throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.’ And how have you executed what you proposed You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from heathens, three-quarters of a line from Origen, and three lines from Tertullian! Nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help. 14. And this, it seems, is ’all you have been able to draw from any of the primitive writers concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost’! (Page 21.) Permit me, sir, to apply to you what was spoken on another occasion: ’Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with’--neither sufficient skill, nor industry and application. Besides, you are resolved to draw out of the well what was never in it, and must of course lose all your labour. III. 1. You are, ’thirdly, to show the particular characters and opinions of those Fathers who attest these gifts.’ Suffer me to remind you that you mentioned nine of these--Justin, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius. You are therefore now to show what were ’the particular characters and opinions of these Fathers.’ Indeed, I should think their opinions had small relation to the question. But, since you think otherwise, I am prepared to hear you. You premise ’that an unexceptionable witness must have’ (page 26) both judgement and honesty; and then, passing over the apostolic Fathers as supposing them on your side, endeavour to show that these other Fathers had neither. 2. You begin with Justin Martyr, who, you say, ’frequently affirms that the miraculous gift of expounding the Holy Scriptures or the mysteries of God was granted to himself by the special grace of God’ (page 27). Upon which I observe: (1) It has not yet been agreed among learned men that declaring ’the mysteries of God’ is the same thing with ’expounding the Holy Scriptures.’ (2) It is not clear that Justin does affirm his being endued either with one or the other--at least, not from the passages which you cite. The first, literally translated, runs thus: ’He hath revealed to us whatsoever things we have understood by His grace from the Scriptures also.’ [jApekavlmyen ejn hJmi’n pavnta o{sa kaiV ajpoV tw’n grafw’n diaV th’" cavrito" aujtou’ nenohvkamen (Dial. Part ii).] The other: ’I have not any such power; but God has given me the grace to understand His Scriptures.’[OujdeV gaVr duvnami" ejmoiV toiuvth ti" e[stin, ajllaV cavri" paraV qeou" ejdovqh moi eij" toV sunievnai taV" grafaV" aujtou’ (Dial. Part ii.).] Now, sir, by which of these does it appear that Justin affirms he had the miraculous gift of expounding the Scriptures 3. However, you will affirm it, were it only to have the pleasure of confuting it. In order to which, you recite three passages from his writings wherein he interprets Scripture weakly enough; and then add, after a strained compliment to Dr. Grabe and a mangled translation of one of his remarks: ’His Works are but little else than a wretched collection of interpretations of the same kind. Yet this pious Father insists that they were all suggested to him from heaven.’ (Page 30.) No; neither the one nor the other. Neither do interpretations of Scripture (good or bad) make the tenth part of his writings; nor does he insist that all those which are found therein were suggested to him from heaven. This does not follow from any passage you have cited yet; nor from his saying in a particular case, ’Do you think I could have understood these things in the Scriptures; if I had not by the will of God received the grace to understand them’ 4. However, now you clap your wings. ’What credit,’ say you, ’can be due to this Father, in the report of other people’s gifts, who was so grossly deceived, or willing at least to deceive others, in this confident attestation of his own’ (Ibid.) The answer is plain and obvious: it is not clear that he attests his own at all; consequently, as yet his credit is unblemished. ’But he did not understand Hebrew, and gave a wrong derivation of the Hebrew word Satan.’ Allowing this, that he was no good etymologist, his credit as a witness may be as good as ever. 5. But, to blast his credit for ever, you will now reckon up all the heresies which he held. And first: ’He believed the doctrine of the Millennium; or " that all the saints should be raised in the flesh, and reign with Christ, in the enjoyment of all sensual pleasures, for a thousand years before the general resurrection "’ (page 31.) These you mark as though they were Justin’s words. I take knowledge you hold no faith is to be kept with heretics, and that all means are fair which conduce to so good an end as driving the Christian heresy out of the world. It is by this principle only that I can account for your adding: ’Which doctrine’ (that of their enjoying all sensual pleasures) ’he deduces from the testimony of the Prophets and of St. John the Apostle, and was followed in it by the Fathers of the second and third centuries.’ The doctrine (as you very well know) which Justin deduced from the Prophets and the Apostles, and in which he was undoubtedly followed by the Fathers of the second and third centuries, is this: The souls of them who have been martyred for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshipped the beast, neither received his mark, shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead shall not live again until the thousand years are finished. Now, to say they believed this is neither more nor less than to say they believed the Bible. 6. The second heresy you charge him with is the believing ’that those " sons of God " mentioned Genesis vi. 4, of whom it is there said, " They came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them," were evil angels’ (page 32). And I allow, he too lightly received this on the testimony of the Jewish commentators. But this only proves that he was a fallible man; not that he was a knave, or that he had not eyes and ears. 7. You charge him, thirdly, with ’treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystespes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures’ (page 33). His words are: ’By the power of evil spirits it was made death to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets.’ Well; how does this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures ’But it is certain,’ you say, ’that from this example and authority of Justin they were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers of the Church through all succeeding ages’ (ibid.). I do not conceive it is certain. I wait your proof, first of the fact, next of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that ’these books were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers through all succeeding ages,’ is in no wise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alexandrinus, wherein he urges the heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl and of Hystaspes (page 34). We cannot infer from hence that he himself held them ’in the highest veneration’; much less that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration--the example and authority of Justin--you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it may. But some, you tell us, ’impute the forging these books to Justin.’ Be pleased to tell us likewise who those are, and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till then, it can be of no signification. 8. You charge him, fourthly, ’with believing that silly story concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, with saying that he himself when at Alexandria saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up, and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto’ (page 37). And if all this be allowed, and, over and above, that he ’frequently cites apocryphal books and cites the Scriptures by memory,’ what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion--that ’he was either too great a fool or too great a knave to be believed touching a plain matter of fact’ 9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, fifthly: ’It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weakness of judgement, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact’ (page 29). But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does I dare say you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply: ’The want of judgement alone may in some cases disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him there was a statue at Rome inscribed " Simoni Deo Sancto," whereas it was really inscribed " Semoni Sanco Deo," to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,’ say you, ’if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!’ (Pages 40-1.) Far less easily. A man of good judgement may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye-and ear witness. 10. For a parting blow you endeavour to prove, sixthly, that Justin was a knave as well as a fool. To this end you remark that ’he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and divine, John Croius [Jean Croius or De Croi, Protestent Minister of Usez, wrote theological works in Latin; he died in 1659.]’ (you know when to bestow honourable appellations), ’says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles and the sentences of Mercurius.’ (Page 42.) With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And, till you disprove this or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwithstanding you have taken true pains to blacken him both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man and an unexceptionable witness as to plain facts done before his face. 11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As (1) That he held the doctrine of the Millennium, and related a weak fancy of Papias concerning it. (2) That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. (3) That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled. So he might, and all the later Fathers with him, without being either the better or the worse. (4) That he believed the story concerning the Septuagint version; nay, and that the Scriptures were destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, but restored again after seventy years by Esdras, inspired for that purpose. ’In this also’ you say, but do not prove, ’he was followed by all the principal Fathers that succeeded him; although there is no better foundation for it than that fabulous relation in the Second Book of Esdras.’ You add (5) That ’he believed the sons of God who came in to the daughters of men were evil angels.’ And all the early Fathers, you are very ready to believe, ’were drawn into the same error by the authority of the apocryphal Book of Enoch cited by St. Jude.’ (Page 44.) 12. It is not only out of your goodwill to St. Jude or Irenaeus you gather up these fragments of error that nothing be lost, but also to the whole body of the ancient Christians. For ’all those absurdities,’ you say, ’were taught by the Fathers of those ages’ (naturally implying by all the Fathers), ’as doctrines of the universal Church derived immediately from the Apostles, and thought so necessary that those who held the contrary were hardly considered as real Christians.’ Here I must beg you to prove as well as assert (1) that all these absurdities of the millennium, in the grossest sense of it, of the age of Christ, of paradise, of the destruction of the Scriptures, of the Septuagint version, and of evil angels mixing with women, were taught by all the Fathers of those ages; (2) that all those Fathers taught these as doctrines of ,the universal Church derived immediately from the Apostles; and (3) that they all denied those to be real Christians who held the contrary. 13. You next cite two far-fetched interpretations of Scripture and a weak saying out of the writings of Irenaeus. But all three prove no more than that in these instances he did not speak with strictness of judgement, not that he was incapable of knowing what he saw with his own eyes or of truly relating it to others. Before we proceed to what, with equal good humour and impartiality, you remark concerning the rest of these Fathers, it will be proper to consider what more is interspersed concerning these in the sequel of this argument. 14. And, first, you say: ’Justin used an inconclusive argument for the existence of the souls of men after death’ (page 67). It is possible he might; but, whether it was conclusive or no, this does not affect his moral character. You say, secondly: ’It was the common opinion of all the Fathers, taken from the authority of Justin Martyr, that the demons wanted the fumes of the sacrifices to strengthen them for the enjoyment of their lustful pleasures’ (page 69). Sir, no man of reason will believe this concerning one of the Fathers upon your bare assertion. I must therefore desire you to prove by more than a scrap of a sentence (1) that Justin himself held this opinion; (2) that he invented it; (3) that it was the common opinion of all the Fathers; and (4) that they all took it on his authority. 15. You affirm, thirdly: ’He says that all devils yield and submit to the name of Jesus; as also to the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ (page 85). Very likely he may. Lastly. You cite a passage from him concerning the Spirit of God influencing the minds of holy men. But neither does this in any measure affect his credit as a witness of fact. Consequently, after all that you have been able to draw either from himself or any of the primitive writers, here is one witness of unquestionable credit touching the miracles wrought in the primitive Church, touching the subsistence of the extraordinary gifts after the days of the Apostles. 16. But let us come once more to Irenaeus; for you have not done with him yet. ’Forgery,’ you say, ’has been actually charged upon Justin’ (by John Croius and Dr. Middleton), ’and may with equal reason be charged on Irenaeus; for what other account can be given of his frequent appeals to apostolical tradition for the support of so many incredible doctrines’ (page 111). Why, this very natural one, that in non-essential points he too easily followed the authority of Papias, a weak man, who on slight grounds believed many trifling things to have been said or done by the Apostles. And allowing all this, yet it does not give us so ’lamentable an idea of those primitive ages and primitive champions of the Christian cause’ (page 59). The same account may be given of his mistake concerning the age of our Lord (ibid.). There is therefore as yet neither reason nor any plausible presence for laying forgery to his charge; and consequently thus far his credit as a witness stands clear and unimpeached. But you say, secondly: ’He was a zealous asserter of tradition’ (page 61). He might be so, and yet be an honest man, and that whether he was mistaken or no in supposing Papias to have been a disciple of John the Apostle (page 64). You say, thirdly: He supposed ’that the disciples of Simon Magus as well as Carpocrates used magical arts’ (page 68); that ’the dead were frequently raised in his time’ (page 72); that ’the Jews by the name of God cast out devils’ (page 85); and that ’many had even then the gift of tongues, although he had it not himself.’ 17. This is the whole of your charge against St. Irenaeus, when summed up and laid together. And now let any reasonable person judge whether all this gives us the least cause to question either his having sense enough to discern a plain matter of fact or honesty enough to relate it. Here, then, is one more credible witness of miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles. 18. What you advance concerning the history of tradition, I am neither concerned to defend nor to confute. Only I must observe you forget yourself again where you say, ’The fable of the millennium, of the old age of Christ, with many more, were all embraced by the earliest Fathers’ (page 64). For modesty’s sake, sir, think a little before you speak; and remember you yourself informed us that one of these was never embraced at all but by one single Father only. 19. ’I cannot,’ you say, ’dismiss this article without taking notice that witchcraft was universally believed through all ages of the primitive Church’ (page 66). This you show by citations from several of the Fathers; who likewise believed, as you inform us, that ’evil spirits had power frequently to afflict either the bodies or minds of men’; that they ’acted the parts of the heathen gods, and assumed the forms of those who were called from the dead. Now, this opinion,’ say you, ’is not only a proof of the grossest credulity, but of that species of it which, of all others, lays a man most open to imposture’ (page 70). And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation, not only in the histories of all ages and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained, but particularly in Scripture--in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament, as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to ’suffer a witch to live’ (ibid.); where St. Paul numbers ’witchcraft’ with ’the works of the flesh’ (Gal. v. 19-20), and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, ’Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers’ (Rev. xxii. 15). That the gods of the heathens are devils (1 Cor. x. 30) is declared in terms by one of those who are styled inspired writers. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their ’assuming the form of those who were called from the dead’ (1 Sam. xxviii. 13-14). Of the power of evil spirits to afflict the minds of men none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job and that of the Gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book the Bible than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture. 20. Now to apply. ’A mind,’ you say, ’so totally possessed by superstitious fancies could not even suspect the pretensions of those vagrant jugglers, who in those primitive ages were so numerous and so industriously employed in deluding their fellow creatures. Both heathens, Jews, and Christians are all allowed to have had such impostors among them.’ (Page 71.) By whom, sir, is this allowed of the Christians By whom but Celsus was it affirmed of them Who informed you of their growing so numerous and using such industry in their employment To speak the plain truth, your mind appears ’to be so totally possessed by’ these ’vagrant jugglers,’ that you cannot say one word about the primitive Church but they immediately start up before you, though there is no more proof of their ever existing than of a witch’s sailing in an eggshell. 21. You conclude this head: ’When pious Christians are arrived to this pitch of credulity, as to believe that evil spirits or evil men can work miracles in opposition to the gospel, their very piety will oblige them to admit as miraculous whatever is pretended to be wrought in defence of it’ (ibid.). Once more you have spoken out: you have shown without disguise what you think of St. Paul and the ’lying miracles’ (2 Thess. ii. 9) which he (poor man!) believed evil spirits or evil men could work in opposition to the gospel; and of St. John talking so idly of him who ’doeth great wonders . . . and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth’ (even though they were not Christians) ’by means of those miracles which he hath power to do’ (Rev. xiii. 13-14). 22. You have now finished the third thing you proposed; which was ’to show the particular characters of the several Fathers who attest’ that they were eye-and ear-witnesses of the extraordinary gifts in the primitive Church. You named nine of these--Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius; at the same time observing that many other writers attest the same thing. But let the others stand by. Are these good men and true That is the present question. You say, ’No’; and, to prove that these nine are knaves, bring several charges against two of them. These have been answered at large: some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence. But, supposing we waive the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come. Oh, but you say: ’If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which these have taught them.’ You say; but how often must you be reminded that saying and proving are two things I grant in three or four opinions some (though not all) of these were mistaken as well as those two. But this by no means proves that they were all knaves together; or that, if Justin Martyr or Irenaeus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix. 23. You have therefore made a more lame piece of work on this head, if possible, than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a fourth part even of the writers you have named as attesting the continuance of the ’extraordinary gifts’ after the age of the Apostles. But you have taught that trick at least to your ’vagrant jugglers’ to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, your tenth legion. Yet, if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanish away. IV. You are, in the fourth place, to ’review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been given, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected’ (page 72). ’These,’ you say, ’are (1) the power of raising the dead; (2) of healing the sick; (3) of casting out devils; (4) of prophesying; (5) of seeing visions; (6) of discovering the secrets of men; (7) expounding the Scriptures; (8) of speaking with tongues.’ I had rather have had an account of the miraculous powers as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel. But that account you are not inclined to give. So we will make the best of what we have. Section I. 1. And, first, as to ’raising the dead.’ Irenaeus affirms: ’This was frequently performed on necessary occasions; when, by great fastings and the joint supplication of the Church, the spirit of the dead person returned into him, and the man was given back to the prayers of the saints’ (ibid.). 2. But you object: ’There is not an instance of this to be found in the first three centuries’ (ibid.). I presume you mean no heathen historian has mentioned it; for Christian historians were not. I answer: (1) It is not probable an heathen historian would have related such a fact had he known it. (2) It is equally improbable he should know it: seeing the Christians knew with whom they had to do; and that, had such an instance been made public, they would not long have enjoyed him who had been given back to their prayers. They could not but remember what had been before, when the Jews sought Lazarus also to kill him: a very obvious reason why a miracle of this particular kind ought not to have been published abroad;--especially considering (3) that it was not designed for the conversion of the heathens; but ’on occasions necessary’ for the good of the Church, of the Christian community. (4) It was a miracle proper, above all others, to support and confirm the Christians, who were daily tortured and slain, but sustained by the hope of obtaining a better resurrection. 3. You object, secondly: ’The heathens constantly affirmed the thing itself to be impossible’ (page 73). They did so. But is it ’a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead’ 4. You object, thirdly, that when ’Autolycus, an eminent heathen, scarce forty years after this, said to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, " Show me but one raised from the dead, that I may see and believe" (ibid.), Theophilus could not.’ Supposing he could not, I do not see that this contradicts the testimony of Irenaeus; for he does not affirm (though you say he does) that this was ’performed, as it were, in every parish or place where there was a Christian Church’ (page 72). He does not affirm that it was performed at Antioch; probably not in any Church, unless where a concurrence of important circumstances required it. Much less does he affirm that the persons raised in France would be alive forty years after. Therefore--although it be granted (1) that the historians of that age are silent; (2) that the heathens said the thing was impossible; and (3) that Theophilus did not answer the challenge of the heathen Autolycus--all this will not invalidate in any degree the express testimony of Irenaeus or prove that none have been raised from the dead since the days of the Apostles. Section II. 1. ’The next gift is that of healing the sick, often performed by anointing them with oil; in favour of which,’ as you observe, ’the ancient testimonies are more full and express’ (page 75). But ’this,’ you say, ’might be accounted for without a miracle, by the natural efficacy of the oil itself’ (page 76). I doubt not. Be pleased to try how many you can cure thus that are blind, deaf, dumb, or paralytic; and experience, if not philosophy, will teach you that oil has no such natural efficacy as this. 2. Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition that ’they were not cured at all, that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end.’ But by what arguments do you evince this The first is, ’The heathens pretended to do the same’; nay, and ’managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it, but insisted always that it was performed by demons or evil spirits’ (ibid.). But still the heathens maintained, ’the cures were wrought by their gods--by Aesculapius in particular.’ And where is the difference seeing, as was observed before, ’the gods of the heathens were but devils.’ 3. But you say, ’Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures at the time when they were performed, yet it is certain all those heathen miracles were pure forgeries’ (page 79). How is it certain If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more credulous than I. I cannot believe that the whole body of the heathens for so many generations were utterly destitute of common sense any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries You could have done no more, if they had been Christians! 4. But ’diseases thought fatal and desperate are oft surprisingly healed of themselves.’ And, therefore, ’we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more precisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle’ (ibid.). Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argument is easily seen. It points at the Master as well as His servants; and tends to prove that, after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure there were ever any in the world. But it will do no harm. For although we grant (1) that some recover even in seemingly desperate cases, and (2) that we do not know in any case the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance: I do not precisely know how far nature can go in healing, that is, restoring sight to the blind; yet this I assuredly know--that, if a man born blind is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard. 5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head is (1) that the heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them; (2) that oil may cure some diseases by its natural efficacy; and (3) that we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed either by our Lord and His Apostles or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries. Section III. 1. The third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive Church is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, neither by the Apostles nor since the Apostles (for the argument proves both or neither), is a task worthy of you. And, to give you your just praise, you have here put forth all your strength. 2. And yet I cannot but apprehend there was a much shorter way. Would it not have been readier to overthrow all those testimonies at a stroke by proving there never was any devil in the world Then the whole affair of casting him out had been at an end. But it is in condescension to the weakness and prejudices of mankind that you go less out of the common road, and only observe ’that those who were said to be possessed of the devil may have been ill of the falling sickness.’ And their symptoms, you say, ’seem to be nothing else but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy’ (page 81). If it be asked, But were ’the speeches and confessions of the devils and their answering to all questions nothing but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy’ you take in a second hypothesis, and account for these ’by the arts of imposture and contrivance between the persons concerned in the act’ (page 82). But is not this something extraordinary, that men in epileptic fits should be capable of so much art and contrivance To get over this difficulty, we are apt to suppose that art and contrivance were the main ingredients; so that we are to add only quantum sufficit of the epilepsy, and sometimes to leave it out of the composition. But the proof, sir where is the proof I want a little of that too. Instead of this we have only another supposition--’that all the Fathers were either induced by their prejudices to give too hasty credit to these pretended possessions or carried away by their zeal to support a delusion which was useful to the Christian cause’ (ibid.). I grant they were prejudiced in favour of the Bible; but yet we cannot fairly conclude from hence, either that they were one and all continually deceived by merely pretended possessions, or that they would all lie for God--a thing absolutely forbidden in that book. 3. But ’leaders of sects,’ you say, ’whatever principles they pretend to, have seldom scrupled to use a commodious lie’ (page 83). I observe you are quite impartial here. You make no exception of age or nation. It is all one to you whether your reader applies this to the son of Abdallah or the Son of Mary. And yet, sir, I cannot but think there was a difference. I fancy the Jew was an honester man than the Arabian; and though Mahomet used many a commodious lie, yet Jesus of Nazareth did not. 4. However, ’Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style’ (that is, in plain English, of lying), ’as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares’ (ibid.). You should have said an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head, but (as your manner is) taken all for granted. 5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: ’A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, " I found her on my own ground."’ (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian’s. But how is that proved Why, ’Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.’ He was so; but can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty 6. You add: ’The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted that these Jewish and heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.’ (Pages 84, 87-8.) ’Deceived,’ say you, ’by their own impostors’ Why, I thought they were the very men who set them to work! who opposed one cheat to another! Apt scholars, who acted their part so well as even to deceive their masters! But, whatever the heathen were, we cannot grant that all the ’Jewish exorcists were impostors.’ Whether the heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth cast them out; which is a point not here to be disputed. 7. But ’it is very hard to believe what Origen declares, that the devils used to possess and destroy cattle.’ You might have said what Matthew and Mark declare concerning the herd of swine; and yet we shall find you by-and-by believing far harder things than this. Before you subjoined the silly story of Hilarion and his camel, [St. Jerome says in his Vita Hilarions Eremitae that a raging camel, who had already trampled on many, was brought with ropes by more than thirty men to Hilarion. Its eyes were bloody, its mouth foaming. Hilarion dismissed the men; and when the camel would have rushed on him, he stretched out his hands and said, ’Thou wilt not terrify me, O devil, with thy vast body; both in the little fox and in the camel thou art one and the same.’ The camel fell humbly at his feet with the devil cast out. Kingsley does not give this story in The Hermits.] you should in candour have informed your reader that it is disputed whether the life of Hilarion was wrote by St. Jerome or no. But, be it as it may, I have no concern for either; for they did not live within the first three ages. 8. I know not what you have proved hitherto, though you have affirmed many things and intimated more. But now we come to the strength of the cause contained in your five observations. You observe, first, ’that all the primitive accounts of casting out devils, though given by different Fathers and in different ages, yet exactly agree with regard to all the main circumstances’ (page 91). And this you apprehend to be a mark of imposture. ’It looks,’ you say, ’as if they copied from each other’! Now, a vulgar reader would have imagined that any single account of this kind must be rendered much more (not less) credible by parallel accounts of what many had severally seen at different times and in different places. 9. You observe, secondly, ’that the persons thus possessed were called ejggastrivmuqoi, " ventriloquists "’ (some of them were), ’because they were generally believed to speak out of the belly. Now, there are at this day,’ you say, ’those who by art and practice can speak in the same manner. If we suppose, then, that there were artists of this kind among the ancient Christians, how easily, by a correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist, might they delude the most sensible of their audience!’ (Page 92.) But what did the ventriloquist do with his epilepsy in the meantime You must not let it go, because many of the circumstances wherein all these accounts agree cannot be tolerably accounted for without it. And yet how will you make these two agree It is a point worthy your serious consideration. But cheats, doubtless, they were, account for it who can. Yet it is strange none of the heathens should find them out, that the imposture should remain quite undiscovered till fourteen hundred years after the impostors were dead! He must have a very large faith who can believe this--who can suppose that not one of all those impostors should, either through inadvertence or in the midst of tortures and death, have once intimated any such thing. 10. You observe, thirdly, ’that many demoniacs could not be cured by all the power of the exorcists, and that the cures which were pretended to be wrought on any were but temporary, were but the cessation of a particular fit or access of the distemper. This,’ you say, ’is evident from the testimony of antiquity itself, and may be clearly collected from the method of treating them in the ancient Church.’ (Ibid.) Sir, you are the most obliging disputant in the world; for you continually answer your own arguments. Your last observation confuted all that you had advanced before. And now you are so kind as to confute that. For if, after all, these demoniacs were real epileptics, and that in so high a degree as to be wholly incurable, what becomes of their art and practice and of the very good correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist Having allowed you your supposition just so long as may suffice to confute yourself, I must now observe it is not true. For all that is evident from the testimony of antiquity is this: that although many demoniacs were wholly delivered, yet some were not even in the third century, but continued months or years with only intervals of ease before they were entirely set at liberty. 11. You observe, fourthly, ’that great numbers of demoniacs subsisted in those early ages whose chief habitation was in a part of the church where, as in a kind of hospital, they were under the care of the exorcists; which will account for the confidence of those challenges made to the heathens by the Christians to come and see how they could drive the devils out of them, while they kept such numbers of them in constant pay, always ready for the show, tried and disciplined by your exorcists to groan and howl, and give proper answers to all questions.’ (Pages 94-5.) So now the correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist is grown more close than ever! But the misfortune is, this observation likewise wholly overthrows that which went before it. For if all the groaning and howling and other symptoms were no more than what they’were disciplined to by their exorcists’ (page 95), then it cannot be that ’many of them could not possibly be cured by all the power of those exorcists’ (page 92). What! could they not possibly be taught to know their masters, and when to end as well as to begin the show One would think that the cures wrought upon these might have been more than temporary. Nay, it is surprising that, while they had such numbers of them, they should ever suffer the same person to show twice. 12. You observe, fifthly, ’that, whereas this power of casting out devils had hitherto been in the hands only of the meaner part of the laity’ (that wants proof), ’it was about the year 367 put under the direction of the clergy; it being then decreed by the Council of Laodicea that none should be exorcists but those appointed (or ordained) by the bishop. But no sooner was this done, even by those who favoured and desired to support it, than the gift itself gradually decreased and expired.’ (Page 95.) You here overthrow, not only your immediately preceding observation (as usual), but likewise what you have observed elsewhere--that the exorcists began to be ordained ’about the middle of the third century’ (page 86). If so, what need of decreeing it now, above an hundred years after Again: If the exorcists were ordained an hundred years before this Council sat, what change was made by the decree of the Council Or how came the power of casting out devils to cease upon it You say the bishops still favoured and desired to support it. Why, then, did they not support it It must have been they (not the poor exorcists, who were but a degree above sextons) who had hitherto kept such numbers of them in pay. What was become of them now Were all the groaners and howlers dead, and no more to be procured for money Or rather, did not the bishops, think you, grow covetous as they grew rich, and so kept fewer and fewer of them in pay, till at length the whole business dropped 13. These are your laboured objections against the great promise of our Lord, ’In My name shall they cast out devils’; whereby (to make sure work) you strike at Him and His Apostles just as much as at the primitive Fathers. But, by a strange jumble of ideas in your head, you would prove so much that you prove nothing. By attempting to show all who claimed this power to be at once both fools and knaves, you have spoiled your whole cause, and in the event neither shown them to be one nor the other; as the one half of your argument all along just serves to overthrow the other. So that, after all, the ancient testimonies touching this gift remain firm and unshaken. Section IV. I. You told us above that ’the fourth miraculous gift was that of prophesying; the fifth, of seeing visions; the sixth, of discovering the secrets of men’ (page 72). But here you jumble them all together, telling us, ’The next miraculous gift is that of prophetic visions and ecstatic trances’ (ecstatic ecstasies you might have said) ’and the discovery of men’s hearts’ (page 96). But why do you thrust all three into one Because, you say, ’these seem to be the fruit of one spirit.’ Most certainly they are, whether it was the Spirit of Truth or (as you suppose) the spirit of delusion. 2. However, it is the second of these on which you chiefly dwell (the fifth of those you before enumerated), taking but little notice of the fourth, ’foretelling things to come,’ and none at all of the sixth, ’discovering the secrets of men.’ The testimonies, therefore, for these remain in full force, as you do not even attempt to invalidate them. With regard to visions or ecstasies, you observe, first, that Tertullian calls ecstasy ’a temporary loss of senses’ (page 97). It was so of the outward senses, which were then locked up. You observe, secondly, that ’Suidas’ [Suidas, placed about A.D. 975-1025, reputed author of a Greek Lexicon which contains many passages from authors whose works are lost.] (a very primitive writer, who lived between eight and nine hundred years after Tertullian) ’says that of all the kinds of madness that of the poets and prophets was alone to be wished for.’ I am at a loss to know what this is brought to prove. The question is, Were there visions in the primitive Church You observe, thirdly, that Philo the Jew says (I literally translate his words, which you do not; for it would not answer your purpose), ’When the divine light shines, the human sets; but when that sets, this rises. This uses to befall the prophets’ (page 98). Well, sir, and what is this to the question Why, ’from these testimonies,’ you say, ’we may collect that the vision or ecstasy of the primitive Church was of the same kind with those of the Delphic Pythia or the Cumaean Sibyl.’ Well collected indeed! But I desire a little better testimony than either that of Philo the Jew, or Suidas a lexicographer of the eleventh century, before I believe this. How little Tertullian is to be regarded on this head you yourself show in the very next page. 3. You say, fourthly: ’Montanus and his associates were the authors of these trances. They first raised this spirit of enthusiasm in the Church, and acquired great credit by their visions and ecstasies.’ Sir, you forget: they did not ’raise this spirit,’ but rather Joel and St. Peter; according to whose words the ’young men saw visions’ before Montanus was born. 4. You observe, fifthly, how Tertullian was ’imposed upon by the craft of ecstatic visionaries’ (page 99), and then fall upon Cyprian with all your might: your objections to whom we shall now consider. And, first, you lay it down as a postulatum that he was ’fond of power and episcopal authority’ (page 101). I cannot grant this, sir: I must have some proof; else this and all you infer from it will go for nothing. You say, secondly: ’In all questionable points of doctrine or discipline, which he had a mind to introduce into the Christian worship, we find him constantly appealing to the testimony of visions and divine revelations. Thus he says to Caecilius that he was divinely admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament in order to render it effectual.’ You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian’s appealing to visions and revelations in order to introduce questionable points of doctrine or discipline into the Christian worship; because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be ’introduced into the Christian worship,’ having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed (Introductory Discourse, p. 57), at least from the time of Justin Martyr. Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, ’in order to render it effectual.’ They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing. 5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. ’He threatens,’ you say, ’to execute what he was ordered to do " against them in a vision "’ (page 102). Here also the last words, ’in a vision,’ are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian’s words are, ’I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.’ [’Utar ea admonitione, qua me Dominus uti jubet’ (Epis. ix.).] But neither was this in order to introduce any questionable point either of doctrine or discipline, no more than his using the same threat to Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him and left his communion. 6. You go on: ’He says likewise he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones’ (pages 103-4). True; but what ’questionable point of doctrine or discipline’ did he introduce hereby or by ordaining Celerinus, ’who was overruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office’ So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not--at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin, which, literally translated, run thus: ’I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.’ [’Non humane suffragatione, sed divina dignatione,conjunctum’ (Epis xxxiv.).] ’In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a reader, he says to his clergy and people, " In ordaining clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but there is no need to wait for human testimonies when the divine suffrage has been already signified."’ An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, ’He was fond of power’ (you have as much ground to say, ’He was fond of bloodshed’), you will make it plain, ’this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.’ But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again. 7. Hitherto, then, the character of Cyprian is unhurt; but now you are resolved to blow it up at once. So you proceed: ’The most memorable effect of any of his visions was his flight from his Church in the time of persecution. He affirms that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven. Yet this plea was a mere fiction, contrived to quiet the scandal which was raised by his flight; and is confuted by himself, where he declares it was the advice of Tertullus which prevailed with him to withdraw.’ (Pages 104-5.) You here charge Cyprian with confuting himself, in saying he ’withdrew by the advice of Tertullus’; whereas he had ’before affirmed that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven.’ Indeed he had not: there is no necessity at all for putting this construction upon those words, ’The Lord who commanded me to retire’; which may without any force be understood of the written command, ’When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another’ (Matt. x. 23). It is not therefore clear that this plea of a special revelation was ever advanced. And if it was advanced, it still remains to be proved that ’it was nothing else but a mere fiction.’ 8. Your citing his editor here obliges me to add a remark, for which you give continual occasion: If either Rigalt, Mr. Dodwell, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Thirlby, or any editor of the Fathers ever drops an expression to the disadvantage of the author whom he publishes or illustrates, this you account so much treasure, and will surely find a time to expose it to public view. And all these passages you recite as demonstration. These are doubtless mere oracles; although, when the same person speaks in favour of the Father, his authority is not worth a straw. But you have ’none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to palliate a bad cause’! (Preface, p. 31.) 9. What you relate of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, you have not from himself, but only from one who lived near an hundred years after Dionysius was dead. Therefore he is not at all accountable for it; as neither am I for any vision of St. Jerome. But I am concerned in the consequence you draw from it: ’If this was a fiction, so were Cyprian’s too.’ That will not follow. Many objections may lie against the one which have no place with regard to the other. 10. You now bring forth your grand discovery, that ’all the visions of those days were contrived, or authorized at least, by the leading men of the Church. For they were all applied, either (1) to excuse the conduct of particular persons, in some instances of it liable to censure; or (2) to enforce some doctrine or discipline pressed by some, but not relished by others; or (3) to confirm things not only frivolous but sometimes even superstitious and hurtful.’ (Page 103.) Well, sir, here is the proposition. But where is the proof I hope we shall have it in your next Free Inquiry; and that you will then give us a few instances of such applications from the writers of the first three centuries. 11. Being not disposed to do this at present, you fall again upon the poor ’heretic Montanus, who first gave a vogue’ (as you phrase it) ’to visions and ecstasies in the Christian Church’ (page 110). So you told us before. But we cannot believe it yet, because Peter and Paul tell us the contrary. Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is anything to the question, but only to make way for observing that those who wrote against him ’employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epiphanius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, " that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles."’ Sir, have you not mistook Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin and translated another That sentence which stands in your margin is this: ’When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.’ Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to ’shake the credit of all prophecy.’ 12. Why thus: ’Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.’ (Page 111.) That this was then ’the current opinion’ you bring three citations to prove. But if you could cite three Fathers more during the first three centuries expressly affirming that the Prophets were all out of their senses, I would not take their word. For though I take most of the Fathers to have been wise and good men, yet I know none of them were infallible. But do even these three expressly affirm it No, not one of them--at least, in the words you have cited. From Athenagoras you cite only part of a sentence, which, translated as literally as it will well bear, runs thus: ’Who in an ecstasy of their own thoughts, being moved by the Divine Spirit, spoke the things with which they were inspired even as a piper breathes into a pipe.’ Does Athenagoras expressly affirm in these words that the Prophets were ’transported out of their senses’ I hope, sir, you do not understand Greek. If so, you show here only a little harmless ignorance. 13. From Justin Martyr also you cite but part of a sentence. He speaks very nearly thus: ’That the Spirit of God, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as the quill strikes the harp or lyre, may reveal unto us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things.’ And does Justin expressly affirm in these words that all the Prophets were ’transported out of their senses’ Tertullian’s words are: ’A man being in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, must needs lose sense.’ [’Necesse est, excidat sensu.’] Now, as it is not plain that he means hereby ’lose his understanding’ (it being at least equally probable that he intends no more than losing for the time the use of his outward senses), neither can it be said that Tertullian expressly affirms, ’The Prophets were all out of their senses.’ Therefore you have not so much as one Father to vouch for what you say was ’the current opinion in those days.’ 14. I doubt not but all men of learning will observe a circumstance which holds throughout all your quotations. The strength of your argument constantly lies in a loose and paraphrastical manner of translating. The strength of mine lies in translating all in the most close and literal manner; so that closeness of translation strengthens mine in the same proportion as it weakens your arguments: a plain proof of what you elsewhere observe, that you use ’no subtle refinements or forced constructions’ (Preface, p. 31). 15. But to return to Cyprian. ’I cannot forbear,’ you say, ’relating two or three more of his wonderful stories. The first is, A man who had denied Christ was presently struck dumb: the second, A woman who had done so was seized by an unclean spirit, and soon after died in great anguish: the third, of which he says he was an eye-witness, is this,--The heathen magistrates gave to a Christian infant part of what had been offered to an idol. When the deacon forced the consecrated wine on this child, it was immediately seized with convulsions and vomiting; as was a woman who had apostatized, upon taking the consecrated elements.’ (Pages 112-13.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge. ’Now, what can we think,’ say you, ’of these strange stories, but that they were partly forged, partly dressed up in this tragical form, to support the discipline of the Church in these times of danger and trial’ (Page 115.) Why, many will think that some of them are true even in the manner they are related; and that, if any of them are not, Cyprian thought they were, and related them in the sincerity of his heart. Nay, perhaps some will think that the wisdom of God might ’in those times of danger and trial’ work things of this kind for that very end, ’to support the discipline of the Church.’ And till you show the falsehood, or at least the improbability, of this, Cyprian’s character stands untainted; not only as a man of sense (which you yourself allow), but likewise of eminent integrity; and consequently it is beyond dispute that visions, the fifth miraculous gift, remained in the Church after the days of the Apostles. Section V. 1. The sixth of the miraculous gifts which you enumerated above, namely, ’the discernment of spirits,’ you just name, and then entirely pass over. The seventh is that of ’expounding the Scriptures’ (page 116). You tack to it ’or the mysteries of God.’ But, inasmuch as it is not yet agreed (as was intimated above) whether this be the same gift, it may just as well be left out. 2. Now, as to this you say, ’There is no trace of it to be found since the days of the Apostles. For even in the second and third centuries a most senseless and extravagant method of expounding them prevailed. For which, when we censure any particular Father, his apologists with one voice allege, " This is to be charged to the age wherein he lived, which could not relish or endure any better."’ I doubt much whether you can produce one single apologist for any ’ridiculous comment on sacred writ,’ who anywhere ’alleges that the second or third century could not relish or endure any better.’ But if they were all to say this with one voice, yet no reasonable man could believe them; for it is notoriously contrary to matter of fact. It may be allowed that some of these Fathers, being afraid of too literal a way of expounding the Scriptures, leaned sometimes to the other extreme. Yet nothing can be more unjust than to infer from hence ’that the age in which they lived could not relish or endure any but senseless, extravagant, enthusiastic, ridiculous comments on sacred writ.’ Will you say that all the comments on Scripture still to be found in the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenagoras, or even of Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, are senseless and extravagant If not, this charge must fall to the ground; it being manifest that even ’the age in which they lived’ could both ’endure and relish’ sound, sensible, rational (and yet spiritual) comments on holy writ. Yet this extravagant charge you have repeated over and over in various parts of your work, thrusting it upon your reader in season and out of season: how fairly, let all candid men judge. 3. Touching the miraculous gift of expounding Scripture, you say, ’Justin Martyr affirms it was conferred on him by the special grace of God’ (page 117). I cannot find where he affirms this. Not in the words you cite, which, literally translated (as was observed before), runs thus: ’He hath revealed to us whatsoever things we have understood by His grace from the Scriptures also.’ You seem conscious these words do not prove the point, and therefore eke them out with those of Monsieur Tillemont.[Louis Sebastien de Tillemont (1637-98),the ecclesiastical historian; Ordained priest 1676. He took his name from Tillemont, near Paris where he settled.] But his own words, and no other, will satisfy me. I cannot believe it, unless from his own mouth. 4. Meantime I cannot but observe an odd circumstance--that you are here in the abundance of your strength confuting a proposition which (whether it be true or false) not one of your antagonists affirms. You are labouring to prove ’there was not in the primitive Church any such miraculous gift as that of expounding the Scriptures.’ Pray, sir, who says there was Not Justin Martyr; not one among all those Fathers whom you have quoted as witnesses of the miraculous gifts, from the tenth to the eighteenth page of your Inquiry. If you think they do, I am ready to follow you step by step through every quotation you have made. 5. No, nor is this mentioned in any enumeration of the miraculous gifts which I can find in the Holy Scriptures. Prophecy, indeed, is mentioned more than once by the Apostles as well as the Fathers. But the context shows, where it is promised as a miraculous gift, it means the foretelling things to come. All, therefore, which you say on this head is a mere ignoratio elenchi, ’a mistake of the question to be proved.’ Section VI. 1. The eighth and last of the miraculous gifts you enumerated was the gift of tongues. And this, it is sure, was claimed by the primitive Christians; for Irenaeus says expressly, ’" We hear many in the Church speaking with all kinds of tongues." And yet,’ you say, ’this was granted only on certain special occasions, and then withdrawn again from the Apostles themselves; so that in the ordinary course of their ministry they were generally destitute of it. This,’ you say, ’I have shown elsewhere.’ (Page 119.) I presume in some treatise which I have not seen. 2. But Irenaeus, who declares that ’many had this gift in his days, yet owns he had it not himself.’ This is only a proof that the case was then the same as when St. Paul observed long before, ’Are all workers of miracles have all the gifts of healing do all speak with tongues’ (1 Cor. xii. 19-30). No, not even when those gifts were shed abroad in the most abundant manner. 3. ’But no other Father has made the least claim to it’ (page 120). Perhaps none of those whose writings are now extant--at least, not in those writings which are extant. But what are these in comparison of those which are lost And how many were burning and shining lights within three hundred years after Christ who wrote no account of themselves at all--at least, none which has come to our hands But who are they that speak of it as a gift peculiar to the times of the Apostles You say, ’There is not a single Father who ventures to speak of it in any other manner’ (ibid.). Well, bring but six Ante-Nicene Fathers who speak of it in this manner, and I will give up the whole point. 4. But you say, ’After the apostolic times there is not in all history one instance even so much as mentioned of any particular person who ever exercised this gift’ (ibid.). You must mean either that the heathens have mentioned no instance of this kind (which is not at all surprising), or that Irenaeus does not mention the names of those many persons who in his time exercised this gift. And this also may be allowed without affecting in any wise the credibility of his testimony concerning them. 5. I must take notice here of another of your postulatums which leads you into many mistakes. With regard to past ages, you continually take this for granted: ’What is not recorded was not done.’ But this is by no means a self-evident axiom--nay, possibly it is not true. For there may be many reasons in the depth of the wisdom of God for His doing many things at various times and places, either by His natural or supernatural power, which were never recorded at all. And abundantly more were recorded once, and that with the fullest evidence, whereof, nevertheless, we find no certain evidence now, at the distance of fourteen hundred years. 6. Perhaps this may obtain in the very case before us. Many may have spoken with new tongues of whom this is not recorded--at least, the records are lost in a course of so many years. Nay, it is not only possible that it may be so, but it is absolutely certain that it is so: and you yourself must acknowledge it; for you acknowledge that the Apostles when in strange countries spoke with strange tongues--that St. John, for instance, when in Asia Minor, St. Peter when in Italy (if he was really there), and the other Apostles when in other countries, in Parthia, Media Phrygia, Pamphylia, spoke each to the natives of each in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. And yet there is no authentic record of this: there is not in all history one well-attested instance of any particular Apostle’s exercising this gift in any country whatsoever. Now, sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the ,consequence Even that the Apostles themselves no more spoke with tongues than any of their successors. 7. I need, therefore, take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built on such a foundation. Only I must observe an historical mistake which occurs toward the bottom of your next page. Since the Reformation, you say, ’this gift has never once been heard of or pretended to by the Romanists themselves’ (page 122). But has it been pretended to (whether justly or not) by no others, though not by the Romanists Has it ’never once been heard of’ since that time Sir, your memory fails you again: it has undoubtedly been pretended to, and that at no great distance either from our time or country. It has been heard of more than once no farther off than the valleys of Dauphiny. Nor is it yet fifty years ago since the Protestant inhabitants of those valleys so loudly pretended to this and other miraculous powers as to give much disturbance to Paris itself. And how did the King of France confute that presence and prevent its being heard any more Not by the pen of his scholars, but by (a truly heathen way) the swords and bayonets of his dragoons. 8. You close this head with a very extraordinary thought. ’The gift of tongues may,’ you say, ’be considered as a proper test or criterion for determining the miraculous pretensions of all Churches. If among their extraordinary gifts they cannot show us this, they have none to show which are genuine.’ (Ibid.) Now, I really thought it had been otherwise. I thought it had been an adjudged rule in the case, ’All these worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will’; and as to every man, so to every Church, every collective body of men. But if this be so, then yours is no proper test for determining the pretensions of all Churches: seeing He who worketh as He will may, with your good leave, give the gift of tongues where He gives no other; and may see abundant reasons so to do, whether you and I see them or not. For perhaps we have not always known the mind of the Lord, not being of the number of His counsellors. On the other hand, He may see good to give many other gifts where it is not His will to bestow this; particularly where it would be of no use, as in a Church where all are of one mind and all speak the same language. 9. You have now finished after a fashion what you proposed to do in the fourth place, which was ’to review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been in the primitive Church.’ Indeed, you have dropped one or two of them by the way: against the rest you have brought forth your strong reasons. Those reasons have been coolly examined. And now let every impartial man, every person of true and unbiased reason, calmly consider and judge whether you have made out one point of all that you took in hand, and whether some miracles of each kind may not have been wrought in the ancient Church, for anything you have advanced to the contrary. 10. From page 127 to page 158 you relate miracles said to be wrought in the fourth century. I have no concern with these; but I must weigh an argument which you intermix therewith again and again. It is in substance this: ’If we cannot believe the miracles attested by the later Fathers, then we ought not to believe those which are attested by the earliest writers of the Church.’ I answer: The consequence is not good, because the case is not the same with the one and with the other. Several objections which do not hold with regard to the earlier may lie against the later miracles,--drawn either from the improbability of the facts themselves, such as we have no precedent of in holy writ; from the incompetency of the instruments said to perform them, such as bones, relics, or departed saints; or from the gross ’credulity of a prejudiced or the dishonesty of an interested relater’ (page 145). 11. One or other of these objections holds against most of the later though not the earlier miracles. And if only one holds, it is enough; it is ground sufficient for making the difference. If, therefore, it was true that there was not a single Father of the fourth age who was not equally pious with the best of the more ancient, still we might consistently reject most of the miracles of the fourth while we allowed those of the preceding ages, both because of the far greater improbability of the facts themselves and because of the incompetency of the instruments. (Page 159.) But it is not true that ’the Fathers of the fourth age’ whom you mention were equally pious with the best of the preceding ages. Nay, according to your account (which I shall not now contest), they were not pious at all; for you say, ’They were wilful, habitual liars.’ And if so, they had not a grain of piety. Now, that the earlier Fathers were not such has been shown at large; though, indeed, you complimented them with the same character. Consequently, whether these later Fathers are to be believed or no, we may safely believe the former, who dared not to do evil that good might come or to lie either for God or man. 12. I had not intended to say anything more concerning any of the miracles of the later ages; but your way of accounting for one, said to have been wrought in the fifth, is so extremely curious that I cannot pass it by. The story, it seems, is this: ’Hunneric, an Arian prince, in his persecution of the orthodox in Afric, ordered the tongues of a certain society of them to be cut out by the roots. But, by a surprising instance of God’s good providence, they were enabled to speak articulately and distinctly without their tongues. And so, continuing to make open profession of the same doctrine, they became not only preachers but living witnesses of its truth.’ (Page 182.) Do not mistake me, sir: I have no design at all to vouch for the truth of this miracle. I leave it just as I find it. But what I am concerned with is your manner of accounting for it. 13. And, first, you say: ’It may not improbably be supposed that though their tongues were ordered to be cut to the roots, yet the sentence might not be so strictly executed as not to leave in some of them such a share of that organ as was sufficient in a tolerable degree for the use of speech’ (page 183). So you think, sir, if only an inch of a man’s tongue were to be neatly taken off, he would be able to talk tolerably well as soon as the operation was over. But the most marvellous part is still behind. For you add: ’To come more close to the point,--if we should allow that the tongues of these confessors were cut away to the very roots, what will the learned doctor say if this boasted miracle should be found at last to be no miracle at all’ (page 184). ’Say’ Why, that you have more skill than all the ’strolling wonder-workers’ of the first three centuries put together. But to the point: let us see how you will set about it. Why, thus: ’The tongue’ (as you justly though keenly observe) ’has generally been considered as absolutely necessary to the use of speech; so that to hear men talk without it might easily pass for a miracle in that credulous age. Yet there was always room to doubt whether there was anything miraculous in it or not. But we have an instance in the present century which clears up all our doubts and entirely decides the question: I mean the case of a girl, born without a tongue, who talked as easily and distinctly as if she had had one; an account of which is given in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences at Paris.’ (Ibid.) 14. And can you really believe this, that a girl ’spoke distinctly and easily’ without any tongue at all And after avowing this belief, do you gravely talk of other men’s credulity I wonder that such a volunteer in faith should stagger at anything. Doubtless, were it related as natural only, not miraculous, you could believe that a man might see without eyes. Surely there is something very peculiar in this--something extraordinary, though not miraculous--that a man who is too wise to believe the Bible should believe everything but the Bible I should swallow any tale, so God be out of the question, though ever so improbable, ever so impossible! 15. ’I have now,’ you say, ’thrown together all which I had collected for the support of my argument’ (page 187); after a lame recapitulation of which, you add with an air of triumph and satisfaction: ’I wish the Fathers the ablest advocates which Popery itself can afford; for Protestantism, I am sure, can supply none whom they would choose to retain in their cause--none who can defend them without contradicting their own profession and disgracing their own character, or produce anything but what deserves to be laughed at rather than answered’ (pages 188-9). Might it not be well, sir, not to be quite so sure yet You may not always have the laugh on your side. You are not yet infallibly assured but that even Protestantism may produce something worth an answer. There may be some Protestants, for aught you know, who have a few grains of common sense left, and may find a way to defend, at least the Ante-Nicene Fathers, without ’disgracing their own character.’ Even such an one as I have faintly attempted this; although I neither have, nor expect to have, any preferment, not even to be a Lambeth chaplain, which if Dr. Middleton is not, it is not his own fault. V. 1. The last thing you proposed was ’to refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.’ To what you have offered on this head I must likewise attempt a short reply. You say: ’It is objected, first, that, by the character I have given of the Fathers, the authority of the books of the New Testament, which were transmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain’ (page 190). After a feint of confuting it, you frankly acknowledge the whole of this objection. ’I may venture,’ you say, ’to declare that, if this objection be true, it cannot hurt my argument. For if it be natural and necessary that the craft and credulity of witnesses should always detract from the credit of their testimony, then who can help it And if this charge be proved on the Fathers, it must be admitted, how far soever the consequences may reach.’ (Page 192.) ’If it be proved’! Very true. If that charge against the Fathers were really and substantially proved, the authority of the New Testament would be at an end so far as it depends on one kind of evidence. But that charge is not proved. Therefore even the traditional authority of the New Testament is as firm as ever. 2. ’It is objected,’ you say, ’secondly, that all suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles is excluded by that public appeal and challenge which the Christian apologists make to their enemies the heathens to come and see with their own eyes the reality of the facts which they attest’ (page 193). You answer: ’This objection has no real weight with any who are acquainted with the condition of the Christians in those days.’ You then enlarge (as it seems, with a peculiar pleasure) on the general contempt and odium they lay under from the first appearance of Christianity in the world till it was established by the civil power. (Pages 194-6.) ’In these circumstances it cannot be imagined,’ you say, ’that men of figure and fortune would pay any attention to the apologies or writings of a sect so utterly despised’ (page 197). But, sir, they were hated as well as despised; and that by the great vulgar as well as the small. And this very hatred would naturally prompt them to examine the ground of the challenges daily repeated by them they hated; were it only that, by discovering the fraud (which they wanted neither opportunity nor skill to do had there been any), they might have had a better presence for throwing the Christians to the lions than because the Nile did not or the Tiber did overflow. 3. You add: ’Much less can we believe that the Emperor or Senate of Rome should take any notice of those apologies, or even know, indeed, that any such were addressed to them’ (ibid.). Why, sir, by your account, you would make us believe that all the Emperors and Senate together were as ’senseless, stupid a race of blockheads and brutes’ as even the Christians themselves. But hold. You are going to prove it too. ’For,’ say you, ’should the like case happen now, that any Methodist, Moravian, or French prophet’ (right skilfully put together) ’should publish an apology for his brethren addressed to the King and Parliament, is it not wholly improbable that the Government would pay any regard to it’ You should add (to make the parallel complete), ’or know that any such was addressed to them.’ No: I conceive the improbability supposed lies wholly on the other side. Whatever the Government of heathen Rome was (which I presume you will not depreciate), the Government of England is remarkable for tenderness to the very meanest subject. It is, therefore, not improbable in the least that an address from some thousands of those subjects, how contemptible soever they were generally esteemed, would not be totally disregarded by such a Government. But that they should ’not know that any such had been addressed to them’ is not only improbable but morally impossible. If, therefore, it were possible for the heathens to ’have a worse opinion of the ancient Christians than we,’ you say, ’have of our modern fanatics,’ still it is utterly incredible that the Roman Government should, not only ’take no notice of their apologies,’ but ’not even know that any such were addressed to them.’ 4. ’But the publishing books was more expensive then than it is now; and therefore we cannot think the Christians of those days were able to provide such a number of them as was sufficient for the information of the public’ (pages 198-9). Nay, if they were not able to provide themselves food and raiment, they would be sure to provide a sufficient number of these-sufficient, at least, for the information of the Emperor and Senate, to whom those apologies were addressed. And how great a number, do you suppose, might suffice for them How many hundred or thousand copies I apprehend the Emperor would be content with one; and one more would be needful for the Senate. Now, I really believe the Christians of those days were able to provide both these copies--nay, and even two more, if it should have fallen out that two or three Emperors were on the throne; even though we should suppose that in Tertullian’s time there were but forty thousand of them in all Rome. 5. However, you plunge on: ’Since, then, the Christians were not able to bear the expense of copying them’ (whether the heathens were disposed to buy them or no is at present out of the question), ’there is great reason to believe that their apologies, how gravely soever addressed to Emperors and Senates, lay unknown for many years’ (ibid.). There is no great reason to believe it from anything you have advanced yet. You add: ’Especially when the publishing of them was not only expensive, but so criminal also, as to expose them often to danger and even to capital punishment.’ In very deed, sir, I am sometimes inclined to suspect that you are yourself related to certain ancient Fathers (notwithstanding the learned quotations which adorn your margin) who used to say, ’Graecum est; non potest leg).’ You lay me under an almost invincible temptation to think so upon this very occasion. For what could induce you, if you knew what he said, to place at the bottom of this very page a passage from one of those apologists, Justin Martyr, which so clearly confutes your own argument The words are: ’Although death be determined against those who teach or even confess the name of Christ, we both embrace and teach it everywhere. And if you also receive these words as enemies, you can do no more than kill us.’ [Kaiper qanatou orisqentos kata twn didaskntwn, h olws omologountwn to onoma tou Cristou, hmeis pantacou kai aspazomeqa kai didaskomen. Ei de kai umeis ws ecqroi enteuxesqe toisde tois logois, ou pleon ti dunasqe tou foneuein. (Just. Mart. Apol. i. p 69.)] Could danger then, or the fear of ’capital punishment,’ restrain those Christians from presenting these apologies No; capital punishment was no terror to them, who daily offered themselves to the flames till the very heathen butchers themselves were tired with slaughtering them. There can, therefore, no shadow of doubt remain with any cool and impartial man but that these apologies were presented to the most eminent heathens, to the Magistrates, the Senate, the Emperors. Nor, consequently, is there the least room to doubt of the truth of the facts therein asserted, seeing the apologists constantly desired their enemies ’to come and see them with their own eyes’--an hazard which those ’crafty men’ would never have run had not the facts themselves been infallibly certain. This objection, then, stands against you in full force; for such a public appeal to their bitterest enemies must exclude all reasonable suspicion of fraud in the case of the primitive miracles. 6. You tell us it is objected, thirdly, ’that no suspicion of fraud can reasonably be entertained against those who exposed themselves even to martyrdom in confirmation of the truth of what they taught’ (ibid.). In order to invalidate this objection, you assert that some of the primitive Christians might expose themselves to martyrdom out of mere obstinacy, others from a desire of glory, others from a fear of reproach, but the most of all from the hope of an higher reward in heaven, especially as they believed the end of the world was near and that the martyrs felt no pain in death. ’All which topics,’ you say, ’when displayed with art, were sufficient to inflame the multitude to embrace any martyrdom.’ (Pages 200-4, 208.) This appears very plausible in speculation. But fact and experience will not answer. You are an eloquent man, and are able to display any topic you please with art enough. Yet, if you was to try with all that art and eloquence to persuade by all these topics, not an whole multitude, but one simple, credulous ploughman, to go and be shot through the head, I am afraid you would scarce prevail with him, after all, to embrace even that easy martyrdom. And it might be more difficult still to find a man who, either out of obstinacy, fear of shame, or desire of glory, would calmly and deliberately offer himself to be roasted alive in Smithfield. 7. Have you considered, sir, how the case stood in our own country scarce two hundred years ago Not a multitude indeed, and yet not a few, of our own countrymen then expired in the flames. And it was not a general persuasion among them that martyrs feel no pain in death. That these have feeling as well as other men plainly appeared in the case of Bishop Ridley crying out, ’I cannot burn! I cannot burn!’ when his lower parts were consumed. Do you think the fear of shame or the desire of praise was the motive on which these acted Or have you reason to believe it was mere obstinacy that hindered them from accepting deliverance Sir, since ’human nature has always been the same, so that our experience of what now passes in our own soul will be the best comment on what is delivered to us concerning others,’ let me entreat you to make the case your own. You must not say, ’I am not one of the ignorant vulgar; I am a man of sense and learning.’ So were many of them--not inferior even to you, either in natural or acquired endowments. I ask, then, Would any of these motives suffice to induce you to burn at a stake I beseech you, lay your hand on your heart, and answer between God and your own soul what motive could incite you to walk into a fire but an hope full of immortality. When you mention this motive, you speak to the point. And yet even with regard to this both you and I should find, did it come to a trial, that the hope of a fool or the hope of an hypocrite would stand us in no stead. We should find nothing else would sustain us in that hour but a well-grounded confidence of a better resurrection; nothing less than the ’steadfastly looking up to heaven, and beholding the glory which shall be revealed.’ 8. ’But heretics,’ you say, ’have been martyrs.’ I will answer more particularly, when you specify who and when. It may suffice to say now, whosoever he be, that, rather than he will offend God, calmly and deliberately chooses to suffer death, I cannot lightly speak evil of him. But Cyprian says, ’Some who had suffered tortures for Christ yet afterwards fell into gross, open sin.’ It may be so; but it is nothing to the question. It does not prove in the least what you brought it to prove--namely, ’that bad men have endured martyrdom.’ Do not evade, sir, and say, ’Yes, torments are a kind of martyrdom.’ True; but not the martyrdom of which we speak. 9. You salve all at last by declaring gravely: ’It is not my design to detract in any manner from the just praise of those primitive martyrs who sustained the cause of Christ at the expense of their lives’ (page 112). No. Who could ever suppose it was Who could imagine it was your design to detract from the just praise of Justin, Irenaeus, or Cyprian You only designed to show what their just praise was--namely, the praise of pickpockets, of common cheats and impostors. We understand your meaning, therefore, when you add, ’It is reasonable to believe that they were the best sort of Christians and the chief ornaments of the Church in their several ages’ (page 213). 10. You conclude: ’My view is to show that their martyrdom does not add any weight to their testimony.’ Whether it does or no, ’it gives the strongest proof’ (as you yourself affirm) ’of the sincerity of their faith’; and consequently proves that ’no suspicion of fraud can reasonably be entertained against them’ (ibid.). But this (which you seem to have quite forgot) was the whole of the objection; and consequently this as well as both the former objections remain in their full force. 11. ’It has been objected,’ fourthly, you say, that you ’destroy the faith and credit of all history’ (page 114). But this objection, you affirm, ’when seriously considered, will appear to have no sense at all in it’ (page 215). That we will try. And one passage, home to the point, is as good as a thousand. Now, sir, be pleased to look back. In your Preface, page 9, I read these words: ’The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses. But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us; and though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it certainly be known.’ If this be as you assert (I repeat it again), then farewell the credit of all history. Sir, this is not the cant of zealots; you must not escape so: it is plain, sober reason. If the credibility of witnesses, of all witnesses (for you make no distinction), depends, as you peremptorily affirm, on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us, and consequently, though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none, then it is plain all history, sacred or profane, is utterly precarious and uncertain. Then I may indeed presume, but I cannot certainly know, that Julius Caesar was killed in the Senate House; then I cannot certainly know that there was an Emperor in Germany called Charles V, that Leo X ever sat in the see of Rome, or Louis XIV on the throne of France. Now, let any man of common understanding judge whether this objection has any sense in it or no. 12. Under this same head you fall again upon the case of witchcraft, and say: ’There is not in all history any one miraculous fact so authentically attested as the existence of witches. All Christian’ (yea, and all heathen) ’nations whatsoever have consented in the belief of them. Now, to deny the reality of facts so solemnly attested and so universally believed seems to give the lie to the sense and experience of all Christendom, to the wisest and best of every nation, and to public monuments subsisting to our own times.’ (Page 221.) What obliges you, then, to deny it You answer: ’The incredibility of the thing’ (page 223). O sir, never strain at the incredibility of this, after you have swallowed an hundred people talking without tongues! 13. What you aim at in this also is plain, as well as in your account of the Abbe de Paris. The point of your argument is: ’If you cannot believe these, then you ought not to believe the Bible; the incredibility of the things related ought to overrule all testimony whatsoever.’ Your argument at length would run thus: ’If things be incredible in themselves, then this incredibility ought to overrule all testimony concerning them. ’But the Gospel miracles are incredible in themselves.’ Sir, that proposition I deny. You have not proved it yet. You have only now and then, as it were by-the-by, made any attempt to prove it. And, till this is done, you have done nothing with all the pother that you have made. 14. You reserve the home-stroke for the last: ’There is hardly a miracle said to be wrought in the primitive times but what is said to be performed in our days. But all these modern pretensions we ascribe to their true cause--the craft of a few playing upon the credulity of the many for private interest. When, therefore, we read of the same things done by the ancients, and for the same ends--of acquiring wealth, credit, or power--how can we possibly hesitate to impute them to the same cause of fraud and imposture (Page 230.) The reason of our hesitation is this: they did not answer the same ends. The modern clergy of Rome do acquire credit and wealth by their pretended miracles. But the ancient clergy acquired nothing by their miracles, but to be ’afflicted, destitute, tormented.’ The one gain all things thereby: the others lost all things, And this, we think, makes some difference. ’Even unto this present hour,’ says one of them (writing to those who could easily confute him if he spoke not the truth), ’we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place: . . . being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are become as the filth of the world, as the offscouring of all things unto this day’ (1 Cor. iv. 11-13). Now, sir, whatever be thought of the others, we apprehend such clergy as these, labouring thus unto the death for such credit and wealth, are not chargeable with fraud and imposture. VI. I have now finished what I had to say with regard to your book. Yet I think humanity requires me to add a few words concerning some points frequently touched upon therein, which perhaps you do not so clearly understand. We have been long disputing about Christians, about Christianity, and the evidence whereby it is supported. But what do these terms mean Who is a Christian indeed What is real, genuine Christianity And what is the surest and most accessible evidence (if I may so speak) whereby I may know that it is of God May the God of the Christians enable me to speak on these heads in a manner suitable to the importance of them! Section I. 1. I would consider, first, Who is a Christian indeed What does that term properly imply It has been so long abused, I fear, not only to mean nothing at all, but (what was far worse than nothing) to be a cloak for the vilest hypocrisy, for the grossest abominations and immoralities of every kind, that it is high time to rescue it out of the hands of wretches that are a reproach to human nature, to show determinately what manner of man he is to whom this name of right belongs. 2. A Christian cannot think of the Author of his being without abasing himself before Him, without a deep sense of the distance between a worm of earth and Him that sitteth on the circle of the heavens. In His presence he sinks into the dust, knowing himself to be less than nothing in His eye, and being conscious, in a manner words cannot express, of his own littleness, ignorance, foolishness. So that he can only cry out from the fullness of his heart, ’O God I what is man what am I’ 3. He has a continual sense of his dependence on the Parent of good for his being and all the blessings that attend it. To Him he refers every natural and every moral endowment, with all that is commonly ascribed either to fortune or to the wisdom, courage, or merit of the possessor. And hence he acquiesces, in whatsoever appears to be His will, not only with patience but with thankfulness. He willingly resigns all he is, all he has, to His wise and gracious disposal. The ruling temper of his heart is the most absolute submission and the tenderest gratitude to his sovereign Benefactor. And this grateful love creates filial fear, an awful reverence toward Him, and an earnest care not to give place to any disposition, not to admit an action, word, or thought, which might in any degree displease that indulgent Power to whom he owes his life, breath, and all things. 4. And as he has the strongest affection for the Fountain of all good, so he has the firmest confidence in Him--a confidence which neither pleasure nor pain, neither life nor death, can shake. But yet this, far from creating sloth or indolence, pushes him on to the most vigorous industry. It causes him to put forth all his strength, in obeying Him in whom he confides. So that he is never faint in his mind, never weary of doing whatever he believes to be His will. And as he knows the most acceptable worship of God is to imitate Him he worships, so he is continually labouring to transcribe into himself all His imitable perfections--in particular, His justice, mercy, and truth, so eminently displayed in all His creatures. 5. Above all, remembering that God is love, he is conformed to the same likeness. He is gull of love to his neighbour, of universal love, not confined to one sect or party, not restrained to those who agree with him in opinions or in outward modes of worship, or to those who are allied to him by blood or recommended by nearness of place. Neither does he love those only that love him or that are endeared to him by intimacy of acquaintance. But his love resembles that of Him whose mercy is over all His works. It soars above all these scanty bounds, embracing neighbours and strangers, friends and enemies--yea, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward, the evil, and unthankful. For he loves every soul that God has made; every child of man, of whatever place or nation. And yet this universal benevolence does in no wise interfere with a peculiar regard for his relations, friends, and benefactors, a fervent love for his country, and the most endeared affection to all men of integrity, of clear and generous virtue. 6. His love, as to these, so to all mankind, is in itself generous and disinterested; springing from no view of advantage to himself, from no regard to profit or praise--no, nor even the pleasure of loving. This is the daughter, not the parent, of his affection. By experience he knows that social love, if it mean the love of our neighbour, is absolutely different from self-love, even of the most allowable kind--just as different as the objects at which they point. And yet it is sure that, if they are under due regulations, each will give additional force to the other till they mix together never to be divided. 7. And this universal, disinterested love is productive of all right affections. It is fruitful of gentleness, tenderness, sweetness, of humanity, courtesy, and affability. It makes a Christian rejoice in the virtues of all, and bear a part in their happiness, at the same time that he sympathizes with their pains and compassionates their infirmities. It creates modesty, condescension, prudence, together with calmness and evenness of temper. It is the parent of generosity, openness, and frankness, void of jealousy and suspicion. It begets candour, and willingness to believe and hope whatever is kind and friendly of every man, and invincible patience, never overcome of evil, but overcoming evil with good. 8. The same love constrains him to converse, not only with a strict regard to truth, but with artless sincerity and genuine simplicity, as one in whom there is no guile. And, not content with abstaining from all such expressions as are contrary to justice or truth, he endeavours to refrain from every unloving word, either to a present or of an absent person; in all his conversation aiming at this, either to improve himself in knowledge or virtue, or to make those with whom he converses some way wiser or better or happier than they were before. 9. The same love is productive of all right actions. It leads him into an earnest and steady discharge of all social offices, of whatever is due to relations of every kind--to his friends, to his country, and to any particular community whereof he is a member. It prevents his willingly hurting or grieving any man. It guides him into an uniform practice of justice and mercy, equally extensive with the principle whence it flows. It constrains him to do all possible good of every possible kind to all men; and makes him invariably resolved in every circumstance of life to do that, and that only, to others which, supposing he were himself in the same situation, he would desire they should do to him. 10. And as he is easy to others, so he is easy in himself. He is free from the painful swellings of pride, from the flames of anger, from the impetuous gusts of irregular self-will. He is no longer tortured with envy or malice, or with unreasonable and hurtful desire. He is no more enslaved to the pleasures of sense, but has the full power both over his mind and body, in a continued cheerful course of sobriety, of temperance and chastity. He knows how to use all things in their place, and yet is superior to them all. He stands above those low pleasures of imagination which captivate vulgar minds, whether arising from what mortals term greatness or from novelty or beauty. All these, too, he can taste, and still look upward, still aspire to nobler enjoyments. Neither is he a slave to fame; popular breath affects not him; he stands steady and collected in himself. 11. And he who seeks no praise cannot fear dispraise. Censure gives him no uneasiness, being conscious to himself that he would not willingly offend and that he has the approbation of the Lord of all. He cannot fear want, knowing in whose hand is the earth and the fullness thereof,and that it is impossible for Him to withhold from one that fears Him any manner of thing that is good. He cannot fear pain, knowing it will never be sent unless it be for his real advantage, and that then his strength will be proportioned to it, as it has always been in times past. He cannot fear death; being able to trust Him he loves with his soul as well as his body; yea, glad to leave the corruptible body in the dust, till it is raised incorruptible and immortal. So that, in honour or shame, in abundance or want, in ease or pain, in life or in death, always, and in all things, he has learned to be content, to be easy, thankful, happy. 12. He is happy in knowing there is a God, an intelligent Cause and Lord of all, and that he is not the produce either of blind chance or inexorable necessity. He is happy in the full assurance he has that this Creator and End of all things is a Being of boundless wisdom, of infinite power to execute all the designs of His wisdom, and of no less infinite goodness to direct all His power to the advantage of all His creatures. Nay, even the consideration of His immutable justice, rendering to all their due, of His unspotted holiness, of His all-sufficiency in Himself, and of that immense ocean of all perfections which centre in God from eternity to eternity, is a continual addition to the happiness of a Christian. 13. A farther addition is made thereto while, in contemplating even the things that surround him, that thought strikes warmly upon his heart-- These are Thy glorious works, Parent of good [Paradise Lost, v. 153.]; while he takes knowledge of the invisible things of God, even His eternal power and wisdom in the things that are seen--the heavens, the earth, the fowls of the air, the lilies of the field. How much more while, rejoicing in the constant care which He still takes of the work of His own hand, he breaks out in a transport of love and praise, ’O Lord our Governor, how excellent are Thy ways in all the earth! Thou that hast set Thy glory above the heavens!’ While he, as it were, sees the Lord sitting upon His throne, and ruling all things well; while he observes the general providence of God co-extended with His whole creation, and surveys all the effects of it in the heavens and earth, as a well-pleased spectator; while he sees the wisdom and goodness of His general government descending to every particular, so presiding over the whole universe as over a single person, so watching over every single person as if he were the whole universe;--how does he exult when he reviews the various traces of the Almighty goodness, in what has befallen himself in the several circumstances and changes of his own life! all which he now sees have been allotted to him, and dealt out in number, weight, and measure. With what triumph of soul, in surveying either the general or particular providence of God, does he observe every line pointing out an hereafter, every scene opening into eternity! 14. He is peculiarly and inexpressibly happy in the clearest and fullest conviction, ’This all-powerful, all-wise, all-gracious Being, this Governor of all, loves me. This Lover of my soul is always with me, is never absent--no, not for a moment. And I love Him: there is none in heaven but Thee, none on earth that I desire beside Thee! And He has given me to resemble Himself; He has stamped His image on my heart. And I live unto Him; I do only His will; I glorify Him with my body and my spirit. And it will not be long before I shall die unto Him; I shall die into the arms of God. And then farewell sin and pain; then it only remains that I should live with Him for ever.’ 15. This is the plain, naked portraiture of a Christian. But be not prejudiced against him for his name. Forgive his particularities of opinion and (what you think) superstitious modes of worship. These are circumstances but of small concern, and do not enter into the essence of his character. Cover them with a veil of love, and look at the substance--his tempers, his holiness, his happiness. Can calm reason conceive either a more amiable or a more desirable character Is it your own Away with names! Away with opinions! I care not what you are called. I ask not (it does not deserve a thought) what opinion you are of, so you are conscious to yourself that you are the man whom I have been (however faintly) describing. Do not you know you ought to be such Is the Governor of the world well pleased that you are not Do you (at least) desire it I would to God that desire may penetrate your inmost soul, and that you may have no rest in your spirit till you are, not only almost, but altogether a Christian! Section II. 1. The second point to be considered is, What is real, genuine Christianity whether we speak of it as a principle in the soul or as a scheme or system of doctrine. Christianity, taken in the latter sense, is that system of doctrine which describes the character above recited, which promises it shall be mine (provided I will not rest till I attain), and which tells me how I may attain it. 2, First. It describes this character in all its parts, and that in the most lively and affecting manner. The main lines of this picture are beautifully drawn in many passages of the Old Testament. These are filled up in the New, retouched and finished with all the art of God. The same we have in miniature more than once, particularly in the 13th chapter of the former Epistle to the Corinthians and in that discourse which St. Matthew records as delivered by our Lord at His entrance upon His public ministry. 3. Secondly. Christianity promises this character shall be mine, if I will not rest till I attain it. This is promised both in the Old Testament and the New. Indeed, the New is in effect all a promise; seeing every description of the servants of God mentioned therein has the nature of a command, in consequence of those general injunctions: ’Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ’ (1 Cor. xi. 1); ’Be ye followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises’ (Heb. vi. 12). And every command has the force of a promise in virtue of those general promises: ’A new heart will I give you; . . . and I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgements, and do them’ (Ezek. xxxvi. 26-7); ’This is the covenant that I will make after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts’ (Heb. viii. 10). Accordingly, when it is said, ’Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind’ (Matt. xxii. 37), it is not only a direction what I shall do, but a promise of what God will do in me; exactly equivalent with what is written elsewhere: ’The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed’ (alluding to the custom then in use), ’to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul’ (Deut. xxx. 6). 4. This being observed, it will readily appear, to every serious person who reads the New Testament with that care which the importance of the subject demands, that every particular branch of the preceding character is manifestly promised therein, either explicitly under the very form of a promise, or virtually under that of description or command. 5. Christianity tells me, in the third place, how I may attain the promise--namely, by faith. But what is faith Not an opinion, no more than it is a form of words; not any number of opinions put together, be they ever so true. A string of opinions is no more Christian faith than a string of beads is Christian holiness. It is not an assent to any opinion or any number of opinions. A man may assent to three or three-and-twenty creeds, he may assent to all the Old and New Testament (at least, as far as he understands them), and yet have no Christian faith at all. 6. The faith by which the promise is attained is represented by Christianity as a power, wrought by the Almighty in an immortal spirit inhabiting an house of clay, to see through that veil into the world of spirits, into things invisible and eternal; a power to discern those things which with eyes of flesh and blood no man hath seen or can see, either by reason of their nature, which (though they surround us on every side) is not perceivable by these gross senses, or by reason of their distance, as being yet afar off in the bosom of eternity. 7. This is Christian faith in the general notion of it. In its more particular notion, it is a divine evidence or conviction wrought in the heart that God is reconciled to me through His Son; inseparably joined with a confidence in Him as a gracious, reconciled Father, as for all things, so especially for all those good things which are invisible and eternal. To believe (in the Christian sense) is, then, to walk in the light of eternity, and to have a clear sight of and confidence in the Most High reconciled to me through the Son of His love. 8. Now, how highly desirable is such a faith, were it only on its own account! For how little does the wisest of men know of anything more than he can see with his eyes! What clouds and darkness cover the whole scene of things invisible and eternal! What does he know even of himself as to his invisible part what of his future manner of existence How melancholy an account does the prying, learned philosopher (perhaps the wisest and best of all heathens), the great, the venerable Marcus Antoninus, give of these things! What was the result of all his serious researches, of his high and deep contemplations ’Either dissipation, of the soul as well as the body, into the common, unthinking mass; or reabsorption into the universal fire, the unintelligent source of all things; or some unknown manner of conscious existence after the body sinks to rise no more.’ One of these three he supposed must succeed death; but which he had no light to determine. Poor Antoninus! With all his wealth, his honour, his power; with all his wisdom and philosophy,-- What points of knowledge did he gain That life is sacred all-and vain: Sacred, how high, and vain, how low He could not tell, but died to know.’ [Gambold’s Epitaph: where in line 2 it is ’was,’ not ’is’; and line 4 ’He knew not here, but dy’d to know.’] 9. He ’died to know’! And so must you, unless you are now a partaker of Christian faith. O consider this! Nay, and consider, not only how little you know of the immensity of the things that are beyond sense and time, but how uncertainly do you know even that little! How faintly glimmering a light is that you have! Can you properly be said to know any of these things Is that knowledge any more than bare conjecture And the reason is plain. You have no senses suitable to invisible or eternal objects. What desiderata, then, especially to the rational, the reflecting part of mankind, are these,--a more extensive knowledge of things invisible and eternal, a greater certainty in whatever knowledge of them we have, and (in order to both) faculties capable of discerning things invisible! 10. Is it not so Let impartial reason speak. Does not every thinking man want a window, not so much in his neighbour’s as in his own breast He wants an opening there, of whatever kind, that might let in light from eternity. He is pained to be thus feeling after God so darkly, so uncertainly; to know so little of God, and indeed so little of any beside material objects. He is concerned that he must see even that little, not directly, but in the dim, sullied glass of sense; and consequently so imperfectly and obscurely that it is all a mere enigma still. 11. Now, these very desiderata faith supplies. It gives a more extensive knowledge of things invisible, showing what eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither could it before enter into our heart to conceive. And all these it shows in the clearest light, with the fullest certainty and evidence. For it does not leave us to receive our notices of them by mere reflection from the dull glass of sense; but resolves a thousand enigmas of the highest concern by giving faculties suited to things invisible. Oh who would not wish for such a faith, were it only on these accounts! How much more, if by this I may receive the promise, I may attain all that holiness and happiness! 12. So Christianity tells me; and So I find it, may every real Christian say. I now am assured that these things are so: I experience them in my own breast. What Christianity (considered as a doctrine) promised is accomplished in my soul. And Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all those promises. It is holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Section III. 1. And this I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity. I do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind and in its degree. And yet I cannot set it on a level with this. It is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. But no length of time can possibly affect the strength of this internal evidence. It is equally strong, equally new, through the course of seventeen hundred years. It passes now, even as it has done from the beginning, directly from God into the believing soul. Do you suppose time will ever dry up this stream Oh no! It shall never be cut off: Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum. [Horace’s Epistles, I. ii. 43: ’It flows and will for ever flow.’] 2. Traditional evidence is of an extremely complicated nature, necessarily including so many and so various considerations, that only men of a strong and clear understanding can be sensible of its full force. On the contrary, how plain and simple is this! and how level to the lowest capacity! Is not this the sum--’One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see’! An argument so plain, that a peasant, a woman, a child may feel all its force. 3. The traditional evidence of Christianity stands, as it were, a great way off; and therefore, although it speaks loud and clear, yet makes a less lively impression. It gives us an account of what was transacted long ago in far distant times as well as places. Whereas the inward evidence is intimately present to all persons at all times and in all places. It is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, if thou believes" in the Lord Jesus Christ. ’This,’ then, ’is the record,’ this is the evidence, emphatically so called, ’that God hath given unto us eternal life; and this life is in His Son.’ 4. If, then, it were possible (which I conceive it is not) to shake the traditional evidence of Christianity, still he that has the internal evidence (and every true believer hath the witness or evidence in himself) would stand firm and unshaken. Still he could say to those who were striking at the external evidence, ’Beat on the sack of Anaxagoras.’ [Anaxagoras (500-458 B.C,), the most illustrious of the Ionic philosophers, had Euripides, Pericles, and possibly Socrates, in his philosophical school at Athens. He thought that all bodies were composed of atoms shaped by nous, or mind. He was indicted for impiety, and was only saved from death by the influence and eloquence of Pericles.] But you can no more hurt my evidence of Christianity than the tyrant could hurt the spirit of that wise man. 5. I have sometimes been almost inclined to believe that the wisdom of God has in most later ages permitted the external evidence of Christianity to be more or less clogged and encumbered for this very end, that men (of reflection especially) might not altogether rest there, but be constrained to look into themselves also and attend to the light shining in their hearts. Nay, it seems (if it may be allowed for us to pry so far into the reasons of the divine dispensations) that, particularly in this age, God suffers all kind of objections to be raised against the traditional evidence of Christianity, that men of understanding, though unwilling to give it up, yet, at the same time they defend this evidence, may not rest the whole strength of their cause thereon, but seek a deeper and firmer support for it. 6. Without this I cannot but doubt, whether they can long maintain their cause; whether, if they do not obey the loud call of God, and lay far more stress than they have hitherto done on this internal evidence of Christianity, they will not one after another give up the external, and (in heart at least) go over to those whom they are now contending with; so that in a century or two the people of England will be fairly divided into real Deists and real Christians. And I apprehend this would be no loss at all, but rather an advantage to the Christian cause; nay, perhaps it would be the speediest, yea the only effectual, way of bringing all reasonable Deists to be Christians. 7. May I be permitted to speak freely May I without offence ask of you that are called Christians, What real loss would you sustain in giving up your present opinion that the Christian system is of God Though you bear the name, you are not Christians: you have neither Christian faith nor love. You have no divine evidence of things unseen; you have not entered into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. You do not love God with all your heart; neither do you love your neighbour as yourself. You are neither happy nor holy. You have not learned in every state therewith to be content; to rejoice evermore, even in want, pain, death; and in everything to give thanks. You are not holy in heart; superior to pride, to anger, to foolish desires. Neither are you holy in life; you do not walk as Christ also walked. Does not the main of your Christianity lie in your opinion, decked with a few outward observances For as to morality, even honest, heathen morality (O let me utter a melancholy truth!), many of those whom you style Deists, there is reason to fear, have far more of it than you. 8. Go on, gentlemen, and prosper. Shame these nominal Christians out of that poor superstition which they call Christianity. Reason, rally, laugh them out of their dead, empty forms, void of spirit! of faith, of love. Convince them that such mean pageantry (for such it manifestly is, if there is nothing in the heart correspondent with the outward show) is absolutely unworthy, you need not say of God, but even of any man that is endued with common understanding. Show them that, while they are endeavouring to please God thus, they are only beating the air. Know your time; press on; push your victories, till you have conquered all that know not God. And then He, whom neither they nor you know now, shall rise and gird Himself with strength, and go forth in His almighty love, and sweetly conquer you all together. 9. Oh that the time were come! How do I long for you to be partakers of the exceeding great and precious promise! How am I pained when I hear any of you using those silly terms which the men of form have taught you, calling the mention of the only thing you want ’cant’! the deepest wisdom, the highest happiness ’enthusiasm’! What ignorance is this! How extremely despicable would it make you in the eyes of any but a Christian! But he cannot despise you who loves you as his own soul, who is ready to lay down his life for your sake. 10. Perhaps you will say, ’But this internal evidence of Christianity affects only those in whom the promise is fulfilled. It is no evidence to me.’ There is truth in this objection. It does affect them chiefly, but it does not affect them only. It cannot in the nature of things be so strong an evidence to others as it is to them. And yet it may bring a degree of evidence, it may reflect some light on you also. For (1) You see the beauty and loveliness of Christianity when it is rightly understood, and you are sure there is nothing to be desired in comparison of it. (2) You know the Scripture promises this, and says it is attained by faith, and by no other way. (3) You see clearly how desirable Christian faith is even on account of its own intrinsic value. (4) You are a witness that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way. The more you have laboured after virtue and happiness, the more convinced you are of this. Thus far, then, you need not lean upon other men; thus far you have personal experience. (5) What reasonable assurance can you have of things whereof you have not personal experience Suppose the question were, Can the blind be restored to sight This you have not yourself experienced. How, then, will you know that such a thing ever was Can there be an easier or surer way than to talk with one or some number of men who were blind but are now restored to sight They cannot be deceived as to the fact in question; the nature of the thing leaves no room for this. And if they are honest men (which you may learn from other circumstances), they will not deceive you. Now, transfer this to the case before us: and those who were blind, but now see--those who were sick many years, but now are healed--those who were miserable, but now are happy--will afford you also a very strong evidence of the truth of Christianity, as strong as can be in the nature of things, till you experience it in your own soul; and this, though it be allowed they are but plain men, and in general of weak understanding--nay, though some of them should be mistaken in other points, and hold opinions which cannot be defended. 11. All this may be allowed concerning the primitive Fathers; I mean particularly Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian; to whom I would add Macarius and Ephraim Syrus. I allow that some of these had not strong natural sense, that few of them had much learning, and none the assistances which our age enjoys in some respects above all that went before. Hence I doubt not but whoever will be at the pains of reading over their writings for that poor end will find many mistakes, many weak suppositions, and many ill-drawn conclusions. 12. And yet I exceedingly reverence them as well as their writings, and esteem them very highly in love. I reverence them, because they were Christians, such Christians as are above described. And I reverence their writings, because they describe true, genuine Christianity, and direct us to the strongest evidence of the Christian doctrine. Indeed, in addressing the heathens of those times, they intermix other arguments; particularly that drawn from the numerous miracles which were then performed in the Church, which they needed only to open their eyes and see daily wrought in the face of the sun. But still they never relinquish this: ’What the Scripture promises, I enjoy. Come and see what Christianity has done here, and acknowledge it is of God.’ I reverence these ancient Christians (with all their failings) the more, because I see so few Christians now; because I read so little in the writings of later times and hear so little of genuine Christianity; and because most of the modern Christians (so called), not content with being wholly ignorant of it, are deeply prejudiced against it, calling it ’enthusiasm’ and I know not what. That the God of power and love may make both them, and you and me, such Christians as those Fathers were, is the earnest prayer of, reverend sir, Your real friend and servant. January 24, 1749 To John Bennet LONDON, January 9, 1749. What can be done more for William Darney’s Societies [See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] than this First, that you should visit them once or twice in a quarter; and then, that either John Nelson or our Yorkshire preacher should go through them as often as possible. I am sending a messenger to Sir John Strange (the other counsel), lest the Lancashire cause should be neglected on occasion of Mr. Glanville’s death.[See Journal, iii. 328-9, 389; and letter of Aug. 26, 1748.] I wish you could talk yourself with James Hargrave. ’Tis very probable it would do good. I know not what to say concerning H. D. ’Tis an exceeding difficult case. I have no objection to your preaching in any meetinghouse. The place does not make the Dissenter. After you have once more talked freely and mildly to Sisters B-and C-, if they will not hear, you must let them go. [On the same page, and apparently part of the same letter, is the following:] To James Edmundson The great danger which I apprehend you to be in is that of healing your hurt slightly. It is God that has wounded you; and let Him heal the soul which hath sinned against Him. O beware that you never rest, or desire any rest, till Christ is revealed in your heart. You want nothing less than the eternal life which is in Him. And you will receive it if you faint not.--I am Your affectionate brother. [Edited by Jerry James (Pastor), and converted to HTML by Trent Friberg for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College (Nampa, ID).] ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: 36. 1750 ======================================================================== 1750 To ‘Amicus Veritatis’ SIR, -- 1. I did not see till to-day your letter of November 13 inserted in the Weekly Intelligencer.[The original appeared in the Bristol Weekly Intelligencer.] Of your former I had not designed to take any note. But I now send you a few thoughts upon both. 2. You affirm, first, that ‘Methodism injures the lower class of people by filling their heads with imaginary nonsense; whereas it would be better were they to spend the time they now do in dancing after the pipes of their instructors in their respective vocations.’ 3. I know, sir, you count Christianity imaginary nonsense. But I account it the wisdom of God and the power of God; and shall not fail (so far as I am able to fill~ therewith both the heads and hearts of all mankind. Yet I do not hinder either those of an higher or lower class from attending their respective vocations. Nor can they be charged with neglecting those who daily attend thereon, from six in the morning till seven in the evening. 4. You affirm, secondly: ‘Enthusiasm is the fountain from whence this evil (Methodism) flows’ I cannot allow this without some proof that either Christianity or Methodism (another name for the same thing) flows from enthusiasm or is any way contrary to reason. 5. You affirm thirdly: ‘These gloomy wretches (the Christians or Methodists) swallow whatever nonsense their leaders promulgate. Then from barren rocks and deserts they conjure up spirits and witches, angry brings and terrible devils.’ I conceive these pretty and lively assertions require no other answer than, They do not. 6. You affirm, fourthly: ‘They pretend heavenly revelations, inspirations, and divine missions, which has been the cant of the predecessors of this kind in all the ages,’ -- i.e. of those called prophets and apostles. Sir, your meaning is tolerably plain. But the proof of it you have forgot. Thus say you, they make an absolute conquest of the properties and souls of their believers. You are so good as to retract this in your second letter. So it may stand here as it is. 7. You affirm, fifthly: ‘This (Christianity or Methodism) has done infinite mischief to mankind. It has taught them to believe senseless doctrines and to practice idle tricks as religious duties’ Be pleased, sir, to instance in particulars; generals prove nothing. 8. You affirm, sixth: ‘God h not pleased with absurd opinions or ridiculous ceremonies.’ Agreed. But which are they The opinion that God was made man Or the ceremonies of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper 9. You affirm, seventh: ‘That the doing as we would be done by is the rule Christ, the great Author of our holy religion (for whom you have a very peculiar regard), recommends to His disciples; that God has given us passions and appetites; that to use these moderately is right, to indulge them immoderately is wrong.’ Observations undeniably true! ‘Tis much they were never made before. 10. This is the sum of the first testimony you have borne against error. In your second letter you undertake to prove, farther, ‘that the leaders and minority of the members are absolutely enthusiasts’ An enthusiast, you say, is one who implicitly entertains a set of religious principles which cannot be controlled by reason, strictly adhering to his own opinion, and thinking all who differ from him in an absolute state of perdition. Then by your own account I am no enthusiast. For (1) I did not implicitly entertain any set of religious principles. I weighed every principle of Christianity again and again, refusing to take it upon any man’s word. (2) I am still willing to be controlled by reason. Bring me stronger reasons for Infidefity than I have for receiving the Christian system, and I will come over to you to-morrow. (3) I do not think all who differ from me in an absolnte state of perdition; I believe many of them are in a state of salvation. Therefore according to your account, I am not an enthusiast. 11. By what arguments do you prove that I am Your first is, ‘I humbly imagine it is indisputable.’ Your second, ‘I never heard it once questioned.’ A third, ‘If the Methodists are not enthusiasts, the word in my opinion has no meaning’ All these I leave to stand in their full force. A fourth is, ‘They meet at midnight.’ (You should say, They sometimes continue till midnight praising God.) ‘They meet at five in the morning, winter and summer.’ Some of them do, and it conduces to bodily as well as spiritual health. ‘They meet twice or thrice more in every day of the year’ Sir, you know they do not. You know the bulk of the Methodists meet only twice on common days; and that most of them do not meet once a day, unless on Sunday. ‘Then their 1ovefeasts and confessing their sins to each other’ Sir you forget you are personating a Christian. You must not now condemn these things in the gross. If you do, the mask drops off. ‘All their other little tricks and rules,’ which you say none but a member can enumerate, are enumerated to your hand in a small tract entitled A Plain Account of the People called Methodists. [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.] 12. I am obliged to you for believing that I ‘have no sinister or lucrative views’ in what I do, and that ‘the collections made among us are applied justly to defray the necessary expenses of the Society.’ Yet I grant ‘this does not clear me of enthusiasm.’ But neither do you prove it upon me: no more than ‘the learned and honest Dr. Middleton [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749.] (as you style him) proves it upon ‘the Fathers of the primitive Church.’ How ‘learned’ he may be in other respects I know not. But this I take it upon me to say, either that he is not an ‘honest’ man or that he does not understand Greek. 13. A ‘virtuous and sober’ life (I mean an uniform practice of justice mercy, and truth) I allow is the ‘true test of a good conscience’ of the bring God and all mankind And in this practice I desire to be guided by right reason, under the influence of the Spirit of God. May He lead you and me into all truth! --I am, sir, Your humble servant. To John Bennet LONDON January 23, 1750. There ties before me a transcript from a letter of yours sent lately to John Haughton in Ireland. Some of the words are: ‘I was married to Grace Murray on Tuesday by the advice of Mr. C. Wesley and G. Whitefield. But when Mr. Wesley came to hear it and saw us, he was so enraged as if he had been mad, for he himself was inflamed with love and lust unto her.’ I saw you first at William Shents. [In Leeds on Oct. 6, 1749, three days after the marriage, when he kissed him and uttered no word of reproach. See letter of Nov. 3, 1749.] Was I then so enraged as if I had been mad Or was it when I saw her and you together in the chamber at Mr. Towers [See Journal, iii. 330.] How came you to know that I ‘was inflamed with lust’ Did your wife tell you so If she did not, you would not have so roundly affirmed it. If she did, she has made me a fair return. If you only, after having robbed me, had stabbed me to the heart, I might have perhaps endeavored to defend myself But I can now only cover my face and say, ‘Art thou also among them Art thou! my daughter!’ To Dr. Lavington, Bishop of Exeter Agedum! Pauca accipe contra. [Horace’s Satire, I. iv. 38: ‘Now hear a few things in reply.’] CANTERBURY, February 1, 1750. SIR, -- 1. In your late pamphlets you have undertaken to prove that Mr. Whitefield and I are gross enthusiasts, and that our whole ‘conduct is but a counterpart of the most wild fanaticisms of the most abominable communion in its most corrupt ages’ (Preface, p. 3). You endeavor to support this charge against us by quotations from our own writings compared with quotations from celebrated writers of the Romish communion. 2. It lies upon me to answer for one. But I must not burthen you with too long an answer, lest ‘for want either of leisure or inclination’ (page 5) you should not give this any more than my other tracts a reading. In order, therefore, to spare both you and myself, I shall consider only your First Part, and that as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations; but, leaving them to whom they may concern, shall only examine whether those you have made from my writings prove the charge of enthusiasm or no. This I conceive will be abundantly sufficient to decide the question between you and me. If these do prove the charge, I am cast; if they do not, if they are the words of truth and soberness, it will be an objection of no real weight against sentiments just in themselves, though they should also be found in the writings of Papists -- yea, of Mahometans or Pagans. 3. Let the eight pages you borrow stand as they are. I presume they will do neither good nor harm. In the tenth you say: ‘The Methodists act on the same plan with the Papists; not perhaps from compact and design, but a similar configuration and texture of brain or the fumes of imagination producing similar effects. From a commiseration of horror, arising from the grievous corruptions of the world, perhaps from a real motive of sincere piety, they both set out with warm pretences to a reformation.’ Sir, this is an uncommon thought -- that sincere piety should arise from the ‘configuration and texture of the brain’ I as well as that ‘pretences to a reformation’ should spring from ‘a real motive of sincere piety’! 4. You go on: ‘Both commonly begin their adventures with field-preaching’ (Enthusiasm, &c., p. 11). Sir, do you condemn field-preaching toto genere, as evil in itself Have a care! or you (I should say the gentleman that assists you) will speak a little too plain, and betray the real motives of his sincere antipathy to the people called Methodists. Or do you condemn the preaching on Hahham Mount -- in particular, to the colliers of Kingswood If you doubt whether this has done any real good, it is a very easy thing to be informed. And I leave it with all impartial men whether the good which has in fact been done by preaching there, and which could not possibly have been done any other way, does not abundantly ‘justify the irregularity of it’ (page 15). 5. But you think I am herein inconsistent with myself. For I say, ‘The uncommonness is the very circumstance that recommends it.’ (I mean, that recommended it to the colliers in Kingswood.) And yet I said but a page or two before, ‘We are not suffered to preach in the churches, else we should prefer them to any places whatsoever.’ Sir, I still aver both the one and the other. I do prefer the preaching in a church when I am suffered; and yet, when I am not, the wise providence of God overrules this very circumstance for good, many coming to hear because of the uncommonness of the thing who would otherwise not have heard at all. 6. Your second charge is that I ‘abuse the clergy, throw out so much gall of bitterness against them, and impute this black art of calumny to the Spirit and power given from God’ (page 15). Sir, I plead Not guilty to the whole charge. And you have not cited one line to support it. But if you could support it, what is this to the point in hand I presume calumny is not enthusiasm. Perhaps you will say, ‘But it is something as bad.’ True; but it is nothing to the purpose: even the imputing this to the Spirit of God, as you here represent it, is an instance of art, not of enthusiasm. 7. You charge me, thirdly, with ‘putting on a sanctified appearance, in order to draw followers, by a demure look, precise behavior, and other marks of external piety. For which reason,’ you say, ‘Mr. Wesley made and renewed that noble resolution not willingly to indulge himself in the least levity of behavior or in laughter -- no, not for a moment; to speak no word not tending to the glory of God, and not a little of worldly things.’ (Pages 18-19.) Sir, you miss the mark again. If this ‘sanctified appearance was put on to draw followers’; if it was for ‘this reason’ (as you flatly affirm it was) that ‘Mr. Wesley made and renewed that noble resolution’ (it was made eleven or twelve years before, about the time of my removal to Lincoln College), then it can be no instance of enthusiasm, and so does not fall within the design of your present work; unless your title-page does not belong to your book, for that confines you to the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 8. But to consider this point in another view: you accuse me of ‘putting on a sanctified appearance, a demure look, precise behavior, and other marks of external piety.’ How are you assured, sir, this was barely external, and that it was a bare appearance of sanctity You affirm this as from personal knowledge. Was you, then, acquainted with me three - or four - and-twenty years ago ‘He made and renewed that noble resolution’ in order to ‘draw followers.’ Sir, how do you know that Are you in God’s place, that you take upon you to be the searcher of hearts ‘That noble resolution not willingly to indulge himself in the least levity of behavior.’ Sir, I acquit you of having any concern in this matter. But I. appeal to all who have the love of God in their hearts whether this is not a rational, scriptural resolution, worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called. ‘Or in laughter -- no, not for a moment.’ No, nor ought I to indulge it at all, if I am conscious to myself it hurts my soul. In which let every man judge for himself. ‘To speak no word not tending to the glory of God.’ A peculiar instance of enthusiasm this! ‘And not a little of worldly things.’ The words immediately following are, ‘Others may, nay must. But what is that to me’ (words which in justice you ought to have inserted), who was then entirely disengaged from worldly business of every kind. Notwithstanding which, I have often since engaged therein when the order of Providence plainly required it. 9. Though I did not design to meddle with them, yet I must here take notice of three of your instances of Popish enthusiasm. The first is that ‘Mechtildis tortured herself for having spoken an idle word’ (page 19). (The point of comparison lies, not in torturing herself, but in her doing it on such an occasion.) The second, that ‘not a word fell from St. Katharine of Sienna that was not religious and holy.’ The third, that ‘the lips of Magdalen di Pazzi were never opened but to chant the praises of God.’ I would to God the comparison between the Methodists and Papists would hold in this respect! yea, that you and all the clergy in England were guilty of just such enthusiasm! 11. You cite as a fourth instance of my enthusiasm that I say, ‘A Methodist (a real Christian) cannot adorn himself on any pretence with gold or costly apparel’ (page 21). If this be enthusiasm, let the Apostle look to it. His words are clear and express. If you can find a pretence to set them aside, do. I cannot; nor do I desire it. 11. My ’ seeming contempt of money’ (page 26) you urge as a fifth instance of enthusiasm. Sir, I understand you. You was obliged to call it seeming, lest you should yourself confute the allegation brought in your title-page. But if it be only seeming, whatever it prove besides, it cannot prove that I am an enthusiast. 12. Hitherto you have succeeded extremely ill. You have brought five accusations against me, and have not been able to make one good. However, you are resolved to throw dirt enough that some may stick. So you are next to prove upon me ‘a restless impatience and insatiable thirst of traveling and undertaking dangerous voyages for the conversion of infidels; together with a declared contempt of all dangers, pains, and sufferings; and the designing, loving, and praying for ill usage, persecution, martyrdom, death, and hell’ (page 27). In order to prove this uncommon charge, you produce four scraps of sentences (page 31), which you mark as my words, though, as they stand in your book, they are neither sense nor grammar. But you do not refer to the page or even the treatise where any one of them may be found. Sir, it is well you hide your name, or you would be obliged to hide your face from every man of candor or even common humanity. 13. ‘Sometimes indeed,’ you say, ‘Mr. Wesley complains of the scoffs both of the great vulgar and the small’ (page 32); to prove which you disjoint and murder (as your manner is) another of my sentences. ‘But at other times the note is changed, and “till he is despised no man is in a state of salvation.”’ ‘The note is changed’! How so When did I say otherwise than I do at this day -- namely, ‘that none are children of God but those who are hated or despised by the children of the devil’ I must beg you, sir, in your Third Part to inform your reader that, whenever any solecism or mangled sentences appear in the quotations from my writings, they are not chargeable upon me; that if the sense be mine (which is not always; sometimes you do me too much honor even in this), yet I lay no claim to the manner of expression; the English is all your own. 14. ‘Corporal severities or mortification by tormenting the flesh’ (page 31) is the next thing you charge upon me. Almost two sentences you bring in proof of this. The one, ‘Our bed being wet’ (it was in a storm at sea), ‘I laid me down on the floor, and slept sound till morning; and I believe I shall not find it needful to go to bed, as it is called, any more.’ But whether I do or not, how will you prove that my motive is to ’ gain a reputation for sanctity’ I desire (if it be not too great a favor) a little evidence for this. The other fragment of a sentence speaks ‘of bearing cold on the naked head, rain and wind, frost and snow’ (page 32). True; but not as matter of ‘mortification by tormenting the flesh.’ Nothing less. These things are not spoken of there as voluntary instances of mortification (you yourself know perfectly well they are not, only you make free with your friend), but as some of the unavoidable inconveniences which attend preaching in the open air. Therefore you need not be so ‘sure that the Apostle condemns that ’afeda sat, “not sparing the body,” as useless and superstitious, and that it is a false show of humility’ (page 33). Humility is entirely out of the question, as well as chastity, in the case of hardships endured (but not properly chosen) out of love to the souls for which Christ died. 15. You add a word or two of my ‘ardent desire of going to hell,’ which, you think, I ‘adopted from the Jesuit Nieremberg’ (page 34). Sir, I know not the man. I am wholly a stranger both to his person and to his doctrine. But if this is his doctrine, I disclaim it from my heart. I ardently desire that both you and I may go to heaven. But ‘Mr. Wesley says, “A poor old man decided the question of disinterested love. He said, I do not care what place I am in: let God put me where He will or do, with me what He will, so I may set forth His honor and glory.”’ (Page 35.) He did so. And what then Do these words imply ‘an ardent desire of going to hell’ I do not suppose the going to hell ever entered into his thoughts. Nor has it any place in my notion of disinterested love. How you may understand that term I know not. But you will prove I have this desire, whether I will or no. You are sure this was my ‘original meaning (page 36), in the words cited by Mr. Church [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. II. 8.] -- Doom, if Thou canst, to endless pain, Or drive me from Thy face. ‘God’s power or justice,’ you say, ‘must be intended; because he speaks of God’s love in the very next lines -- But if Thy stronger love constrains, Let me be saved by grace.’ Sir, I will tell you a secret. Those lines are not mine. However, I will once more venture to defend them, and to aver that your consequence is good for nothing: ‘If this love is spoken of in the latter lines, then it is not in the former.’ No! Why not I take it to be spoken of in both; the plain meaning of which is, ‘If Thou art not love, I am content to perish. But if Thou art, let me find the effects thereof; let me be saved by grace.’ 16. You next accuse me of maintaining a stoical insensibility. This objection also you borrow from Mr. Church. You ought likewise to have taken notice that I had answered it and openly disowned that doctrine: I mean, according to the rules of common justice. But that is not your failing. 17. Part of your thirty-ninth page runs thus: ‘With respect to all this patient enduring hardships, &c., it has been remarked by learned authors that “some persons by constitutional temper have been fond of bearing the worst that could befall them; that others from a sturdy humor and the force of education have made light of the most exquisite tortures; that when enthusiasm comes in, in aid of this natural or acquired sturdiness, and men fancy they are upon God’s work and entitled to His rewards, they are immediately all on fire for rushing into sufferings and pain.”’ I take knowledge of your having faithfully abridged -- your own book, shall I say, or the learned Dr. Middleton’s But what is it you are endeavoring to prove Quorsum haec tam putida tendant [Horace’s Satires, II. vii. 21: ‘Whither tends this putid stuff’] The paragraph seems to point at me. But the plain, natural tendency of it is to invalidate that great argument for Christianity which is drawn from the constancy of the martyrs. Have you not here also spoken a little too plain Had you not better have kept the mask on a little longer Indeed, you lamely add, ’The solid and just comforts which a true martyr receives from above are groundlessly applied to the counterfeit.’ But this is not enough even to save appearances. 18. You subjoin a truly surprising thought: ‘It may, moreover, be observed that both ancient and modern enthusiasts always take care to secure some advantage by their sufferings’ (page 40). Oh rare enthusiasts! So they are not such fools neither, as they are vulgarly supposed to be. This is just of a piece with the ‘cunning epileptic demoniacs’ in your other performance. And do not you think (if you would but speak all that is in your heart, and let us into the whole secret) that there was a compact likewise between Bishop Hooper and his executioner, as well as between the ventriloquist and the exorcist [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749, IV. sect. III. to Dr. Conyers Middleton.] But what ‘advantage do they take care to secure’ a good salary a handsome fortune No; quite another matter: ‘free communications with God and fuller manifestations of His goodness’ (ibid.). I dare say you do not envy them, no more than you do those ‘self-interested enthusiasts’ of old who, were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.’ 19. You proceed to prove my enthusiasm from my notions of conversion. And here great allowances are to be made, because you are talking of things quite out of your sphere; you are got into an unknown world! Yet you still talk as magisterially as if you was only running down the Fathers of the primitive Church. And, first, you say I ‘represent conversion as sudden and instantaneous’ (ibid.). Soft and fair! Do you know what conversion is (A term, indeed, which I very rarely use, because it rarely occurs in the New Testament.) ‘Yes; it is to “start up perfect men at once”’ (page 41). Indeed, sir, it is not. A man is usually converted long before he is a perfect man. It is probable most of those Ephesians to whom St. Paul directed his Epistle were converted; yet they were not ‘come’ (few, if any) ‘to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.’ 20. I do not, sir, indeed I do not, undertake to make you understand these things. I am not so vain as to think it is in my power. It is the utmost of my hope to convince you, or at least those who read your works, that you understand just nothing about them. To put this out of dispute, you go on: ‘Thus faith and being born of God are said to be an instantaneous work, at once, and in a moment, as lightning. Justification, the same as regeneration, and having a lively faith, this always in a moment.’ (Ibid.) I know not which to admire most, the English or the sense, which you here father upon me; but in truth it is all your own: I do not thus confound faith and being born of God. I always speak of them as different things; it is you that thus jumble them together. It is you who discover justification also to be the same as regeneration and having a lively faith. I take them to be three different things -- so different as not ever to come under one genus. And yet it is true that each of these, ‘as far as I know,’ is at first experienced suddenly; although two of them (I leave you to find out which) gradually increase from that hour. 21. ‘After these sudden conversions,’ say you, ‘they receive their assurances of salvation’ (page 43). Sir, Mr. Bedford’s [See letter of Sept. 28, 1738.] ignorance in charging this doctrine upon me might be involuntary, and I am persuaded was real. But yours cannot be so. It must be voluntary, if it is not rather affected. For you had before you while you wrote the very tract wherein I corrected Mr. Bedford’s mistake and explicitly declared, ‘The assurance whereof I speak is not an assurance of salvation.’ And the very passages you cite from me prove the same; every one of which (as you yourself know in your own conscience) relates wholly and solely to present pardon, not to future salvation. Of Christian perfection (page 45) I shall not say anything to you, till you have learned a little heathen honesty. 22. That this is a lesson you have not yet learned appears also from your following section, wherein you roundly affirm, ‘Whatever they think, say, or do’ (that is, the Methodists, according to their own account) ‘is from God. And whatever opposeth is from the devil.’ I doubt not but Mr. Church believed this to be true when he asserted it. But this is no plea for you, who, having read the answer to Mr. Church, still assert what you know to be false. ‘Here we have,’ say you, ‘the true spirit and very essence of enthusiasm, which sets men above carnal reasoning and all conviction of plain Scripture’ (page 49). It may or may not: that is nothing to me. I am not above either reason or Scripture. To either of these I am ready to submit. But I cannot receive scurrilous invective instead of Scripture, nor pay the same regard to low buffoonery as to clear and cogent reasons. 23. With your two following pages I have nothing to do. But in the fifty-second I read as follows: ‘ “A Methodist,” says Mr. Wesley, “went to receive the sacrament, when God was pleased to let him see a crucified Savior.”’ Very well; and what is this brought to prove Why (1) that I am an enthusiast; (2) that I ‘encourage the notion of the real, corporal presence in the sacrifice of the Mass.’ How so why, ‘this is as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by Bellarmine’ (page 57). Very likely it may; and as good as several produced by you for the enthusiasm of the Methodists. 24. In that ‘seraphic rhapsody of divine love,’ as you term it, which you condemn in the lump as rant and madness, there are several scriptural expressions both from the Old and New Testament. At first I imagined you did not know them, those being books which you did not seem to be much acquainted with. But, upon laying circumstances together, I rather suppose you was glad of so handsome an opportunity to make as if you aimed at me, that you might have a home-stroke at some of those old enthusiasts. 25. The next words which you cite from me as a proof of my enthusiasm are, ‘The power of God was in an unusual manner present’ (page 61). I mean many found an unusual degree of that peace, joy, and love which St. Paul terms ‘the fruit of the Spirit.’ And all these, in conformity to his doctrine, I ascribe to the power of God. I know you, in conformity to your principles, ascribe them to the power of nature. But I still believe, according to the old, scriptural hypothesis, that whenever, in hearing the word of God, men are filled with peace and love, God ‘confirms that word by the Holy Ghost given unto those that hear it.’ 26. As a farther proof of my enthusiasm you mention ‘special directions, mission, and calls by immediate revelation’ (page 67); for an instance of which you cite those words, ‘I know and am assured that God sent forth His light and His truth.’ I did know this. But do I say ‘by immediate revelation’ Not a little about it. This is your own ingenious improvement upon my words. ‘However, it was by a special direction; for your own words in the same paragraph are, “From the direction I received from God this day, touching an affair of the greatest importance”’ (pages 68-9). What, are these words in the same paragraph with those, ‘I know and am assured God sent forth His light and His truth’ Why, then, do you tear the paragraph in two, and put part in your sixty-seventh, part in your sixty-eighth and sixty-ninth pages Oh for a plain reason -- to make it look like two instances of enthusiasm, otherwise it could have made but one at the most! But you cannot make out one till you have proved that these directions were by immediate revelation. I never affirmed they were. I now affirm they were not. Now, sir, make your best of them. You add: ‘Let me mention a few directions coming by way of command. Mr. Wesley says, “I came to Mr. Delamotte’s, where I expected a cool reception; but God had prepared the way before me.”’ (Page 69.) What, by a command to Mr. Delamotte Who told you so Not I, nor any one else, only your own fruitful imagination. 27. Your next discovery is more curious still -- that ‘itinerants order what they want at a public-house, and then tell the landlord that he will be damned if he takes anything of them’ (page 69). I was beating my brain to find out what itinerant this should be; as I could not but imagine some silly man or other, probably styling himself a Methodist, must somewhere or other have given some ground for a story so punctually delivered. In the midst of this a letter from Cornwall informed me it was I, -- I myself was the very man; and acquainted me with the place and the person to whom I said it. But, as there are some particulars in that letter (sent without a name) which I did not well understand, I transcribe a few words of it, in hopes that the author ‘will give me fuller information: ‘As to the Bishop’s declaring what the landlord of Mitchell says in respect to your behavior, I do not at all wonder at the story.’ ‘The Bishop’s declaring’! Whom can he mean Surely not the Right Reverend Dr. George Lavington, Lord Bishop of Exeter! When or to whom did he declare it at Truro in Cornwall or in Plymouth, at his Visitation to all the clergy who were assembled before God to receive his pastoral instructions His Lordship of Exeter must certainly have more regard to the dignity of the episcopal office! 28. But to proceed: I was not ‘offended with the Moravians’ for warning men ‘against mixing nature with grace’ (page 71), but for their doing it in such a manner as tended to destroy all the work of grace in their souls. I did not blame the thing itself, but their manner of doing it; and this you know perfectly well: but with you truth must always give way to wit -- at all events, you must have your jest. 29. Had you had any regard to truth or any desire to represent things as they really are, when you repeated Mr. Church’s objection concerning lots you would have acknowledged that I have answered it at large. When you have replied to that answer, I may add a word more. 30. You are sadly at a loss under the article of ecstasies and raptures to glean up anything that will serve your purpose. At last, from ten or twelve tracts, you pick out two lines; and those the same you had mentioned before; My soul was got up into the holy mount. I had no thought of coming down again into the body.’ And truly you might as well have let these alone; for if by ‘ecstasy’ you mean trance, here is no account of any such, but only of one ‘rejoicing’ in God ‘with joy unspeakable and full of glory.’ With the ‘girl of seven years old’ (page 77) I have nothing to do; though you honestly tack that relation to the other, in order to make me accountable for both. But all is fair toward a M Methodist. 31. What I assert concerning Peter Wright (page 79) is this: (1) that he gave me that relation (Whether I believed it or no, I did not say); (2) that he died within a month after. [] Now, sir, give us a cast of your office. From these two propositions extract a proof of my being an enthusiast. You may full as easily prove it from these as from the words you quote next: ‘God does now give remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and often in dreams and visions of God.’ ‘But afterwards,’ you say, ‘I speak more distrustfully’ (page 79). Indeed, I do not; but I guard against enthusiasm in those words, part of which you have recited. The whole paragraph runs thus: ‘From those words, “Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits whether they be of God,” I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings -- no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations, supposed to be made to their souls, any more than by their tears, or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature; they might be from God, and they might not; and were therefore not simply to be relied on, any more than simply to be condemned, but to be tried by a farther rule; to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony.’ Sir, can you show them a better way 32. The last proof that you produce of my enthusiasm is my ‘talking of the great work which God is now beginning to work upon earth’ (page 80). I own the fact. I do talk of such a work. But I deny the consequence; for if God has begun a great work, then the saying He has is no enthusiasm. To bring sinners to repentance, to save them from their sins, is allowed by all to be the work of God. Yea, and to save one sinner is a great work of God; much more to save many. But many sinners are saved from their sins at this day in London, in Bristol, in Kingswood, in Cornwall, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in Whitehaven, in many other parts of England, in Wales, in Ireland, in Scotland, upon the continent of Europe, in Asia, and in America. This I term ‘a great work of God’ -- so great as I have not read of for several ages. You ask how I know so great a work is wrought now – ‘by inspiration’ No; but by common sense. I know it by the evidence of my own eyes and ears. I have seen a considerable part of it; and I have abundant testimony, such as excludes all possible doubt, for what I have not seen. 33. But you are so far from acknowledging anything of this, as to conclude in full triumph that ’this new dispensation is a composition of enthusiasm, superstition, and imposture’ (page 81). It is not dear what you mean by a new dispensation. But the clear and undeniable fact stands thus: A few years ago Great Britain and Ireland were covered with vice from sea to sea. Very little of even the form of religion was left, and still less of the power of it. Out of this darkness God commanded light to shine. In a short space He called thousands of sinners to repentance. They were not only reformed from their outward vices, but likewise changed in their dispositions and tempers; filled with ‘a serious, sober sense of true religion,’ with love to God and all mankind, with an holy faith, producing good works of every kind, works both of piety and mercy. What could the god of this world do in such a case to prevent the spreading of this ‘serious, sober religion’ The same that he has done from the beginning of the world. To hinder the light of those whom God hath thus changed from shining before men he gave them all in general a nickname: he called them Methodists. And this name, as insignificant as it was in itself, effectually answered his intention. For by this means that light was soon obscured by prejudice which could not be withstood by Scripture or reason. By the odious and ridiculous ideas affixed to that name they were condemned in the gross without ever being heard. So that now any scribbler, with a middling share of low wit, not encumbered with good nature or modesty, may raise a laugh on those whom he cannot confute, and run them down whom he dares not look in the face. By this means even a computer of Methodists and Papists may blaspheme the great work of God, not only without blame, but with applause --- at least from readers of his own stamp. But it is high time, sir, you should leave your skulking-place. Come out, and let us look each other in the face. I have little leisure and less inclination for controversy. Yet I promise, if you will set your name to your Third Part, I will answer all that shall concern me in that as well as the preceding. Till then I remain, sir, Your friend and well-wisher. PS. -- When you come to relate those ‘horrid and shocking things,’ there may be a danger you are not aware of. Even you yourself may fall (as little as you intend or suspect it) into seriousness. And I am afraid, if once you put off your fool’s coat, if you stand naked before cool and sober reason, you yourself may appear as inconsiderable a creature (to use your own phrase) ‘as if your name was Perronet.’ To Christopher Hopper LONDON February 6, 1750. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- John Bennet has wrote foolishly both to Newcastle and to Ireland. [] If you do not help him, he will hurt you. I wish he would give Mr. Carmichael the guinea I promised, and send the rest of the book-money he has in his hands to me. To John Bennet LONDON, February 9, 1750. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Poor William Darney! I suspected as much (although I could hardly believe it), and therefore purposely wrote in the manner I did. If he could be so weak as to show any one that letter he must take it for his pains. As to those Societies unless they desire it I have no desire to see them any more. I have employment enough elsewhere. So that, if they will acquit me of a part of my charge, I shall thank them and bless God. I have wrote to Mr. Grimshaw this afternoon. I dare not consent to any person’s talking nonsense either in verse or prose to any who remain under my inspection. What account do you hear of Eleazer Webster How does he behave [See letter of Nov. 25, 1748.] There has been little order in the Yorkshire Societies yet, and this has occasioned their want of money. If they are regulated thoroughly, that want will cease. But I should think they should not yet attempt so expensive a work. There can be no good understanding between you and me so long as you encourage those tale, bearers. A villain most certainly he was whoever sent you that account from London. I doubt he is the same person I have traced through several parts of England -- a smooth, fawning, bad man, and not only a tale-bearer, but a liar and slanderer. Such are enough to separate chief friends. From the time I left you I have continually set a watch before my lips. I spoke my heart once, and no more, between Cheshire and London, where my brother had spoke; there I spoke, just as much as I believed the glory of God required. And all to whom I spoke said with one voice, ‘You are still as much prejudiced in favor of her as ever.’ I have been equally wary in all my letters. Even when the copy of your letter was sent me from Limerick, the sharpest word I wrote in answer was, ‘John Bennet is not wise.’ My brothel beware you do not hurt yourself. I have not found God so present with me for so long a lime, ever since I was twelve years old. [When he was a boy at Charterhouse. This throws welcome light on his religious life at school. See sect. 14 of letter in Dec. 1751 to Dr. Lavington.] If I have any choice of anything left, it is that God would lighten my burden as to these Societies, if He sees good, by taking me to Himself. Adieu! To Mrs. Bennet [On the same sheet he wrote these few words to Mrs. Bennet:] MY DEAR SISTER, -- God forbid that I should cease to pray for you as long as I am in the body. This morning my eyes were filled with tears of joy from an hope that my time here is short. Many times in a day I commend you to God. May His grace supply all your wants! To James Brewster LONDON, February 22, 1750. SIR, -- I return you my sincere thanks for your plain dealing, and doubt not but it springs from an upright heart. With regard to my political principles, I have never had any doubt since I read Mr. Higden’s View of the English Constitution, which I look upon as one of the best-wrote books I have ever seen in the English tongue. [William Higden (died 1715); Prebendary of Canterbury 1713; defended taking oaths to the Revolution monarchy 1709 and 1710.] Yet I do not approve of the imposing that oath, no more than of many other things which yet are not mentioned in the Appeal. The design of that tract not only did not require but did not admit of my mentioning them; for I was there arguing with every man on his own allowed principles, not contesting the principles of any man. Besides my conscience not only did not require but forbade my mentioning this in a tract of that nature. I dare not thus ‘speak evil’ of the rulers of my people whether they, deserve it or not. John Baptist no more authorizes me to do this than it does. He did not tell the faults of Herod to the multitude but to Herod himself. If occasion were given, I trust God would enable me to ‘go and do like-wise.’ I admit none but those to our lovefeasts who have ‘the love of God’ already ‘shed abroad in their hearts,’ because all the psalms and prayers and exhortations at that time are suited to them, and them alone. Any farther advices which you are pleased to favor me with will be acceptable to, sir, Your very humble servant. To the Sheffield Society LONDON February 23, [1750]. I do not find that John Maddern makes any complaints of Sheffield. You did most of you run well. Why should you turn back The prize and the crown are before you.O let not your hands hang down! Begin afresh. Set out with one heart. Let no more angel or bitterness, or clamour, or evil-speaking be ever found among you. Let the leaders be as parents to all in their classes, watching over them in love bearing their infirmities, praying with them and for them, ready to do and suffer all things for their sake. --I am, &. To Joseph Cownley DUBLIN, April 12, 1750. MY DEAR BROTHR, -- I doubt you are in a great deal more danger from honor than from dishonor. So it is with me. I always find there is most hazard in sailing upon smooth watch When the winds blow and the seas rage, even the sleepers will rise and call upon God. From Newcastle to London and from London to Bristol God is everywhere reviving His work. I find it is so now in Dublin; although there has been great imprudence in some whereby grievous wolves have lately crept in amongst us, not sparing the flock; by whom some souls have been utterly destroyed, and others wounded who are not yet recovered. Those who ought to have stood in the gap did not; but I trust they will be wiser for the time to come. After a season I think it will be highly expedient for you to labor in Ireland again. Mr. Lunell has been on the brink of the grave by a fever. Yesterday we had hopes of his recovery. I see a danger you are in, which perhaps you do not see yourself. Is it not most pleasing to me as well as you to be always preaching of the love of God And is there not a time when we are peculiarly led thereto, and find a peculiar blessing therein Without doubt so it is. But yet it would be utterly wrong and unscriptural to preach of nothing else. Let the law always prepare for the gospel. I scarce ever spoke more earnestly here of the love of God in Christ than last night; but it was after I had been tearing the unawakened in pieces. Go thou and do likewise. It is true the love of God in Christ alone feeds His children; but even they are to be guided as well as fed -- yea, and o~en physicked too: and the bulk of our hearers must be purged before they are fed; else we only feed the disease Beware of all honey. It is the best extreme; but it is an extreme. – I am Your affectionate brother. To Gilbert Boyce BANDON, May 22, 1750. DEAR SIR, -- I do not think either the Church of England, or the People called Methodist or any other particular Society under heaven to be the True Church of Christ. For that Church is but one and contains all the true believers on earth. But I conceive every society of true believers to be a branch of the one true Church of Christ. ‘Tis no wonder that young and unlearned preachers use some improper expressions. I trust, upon friendly advice, they will lay them aside. And as they grow in years they will increase in knowledge. I have neither inclination nor time to draw the saw of controversy. But a few here remarks I would make in order to our understanding and (I hope) loving one another the better. You think the mode of baptism is ‘necessary to salvation’: I deny that even baptism itself is so; if it were, every Quaker must be damned which I can in no wise believe. I hold nothing to be (strictly speaking) necessary to salvation but the mind which was in Christ. If I did not think you had a measure of this, I could one love you as an heathen man or a publican. They who believe with the faith working by love are God’s children. I don’t wonder that God permits (not causes) smaller evils among these when I observe far greater evils among them; for sin is an infinitely greater evil than ignorance. I do not conceive that unity in the outward modes of worship is so necessary among the children of God that they cannot be children of God without it, although I once thought it was. I do make use (so far as I know) of all the means of grace God has ordained exactly as God has ordained them. But here is your grand mistake: you think my design is ‘to form a Church.’ No: I have no such design. It is not my deign or desire that any who accept of my help should leave the Church of which they are now member. Were I converting Indians, I would take every step St. Paul took: but I am not; therefore some of those steps I am not to take. Therefore I still join with the Church of England so far, as I can; at the same time that I and my friends use several prudential helps which our Church neither enjoins nor forbids, as being in themselves of a purely indifferent nature. What I affirm of the generality both of teachers and people in the Church of England, I affirm of teaches and people of every other denomination -- I mean so far as I have known them; and I have known not a few both in Europe and America. I never saw an unmixed communion yet, unless perhaps among the Moravian Brethren or the Methodists. Yet that God does bless us even when we receive the Lord’s Supper at St. Paul’s, I can prove by numberless instances. If I were in the Church of Rome, I would conform to all her doctrines and practices as far as they were not contrary to plain Scripture. And, according to the best of my judgment, I conform so far only to those of the Church of England. I have largely explained myself in the third volume of Sermons touching the stress which I judge is to be laid on opinions. This likewise I have learned by dear experience. However, I thank God that I have learned it at any price. I am not conscious of embracing any opinion or practice which is not agreeable to the Word of God and I do believe the doctrine, worship, and discipline (so far as it goes) of the Church of England to be agreeable thereto. I wish your zeal was better employed than in persuading men to be either dipped or sprinkled. I will employ mine by the grace of God in persuading them to love God with all their hearts and their neighbor as themselves. I cannot answer it to God to spend any part of that precious time, every hour of which I can employ in what directly tends to the promoting this love among men, in oppugning or defending this or that form of Church government. I have ‘proved all things’ of that kind for more than twenty years: I now ‘hold fast that which is good’ -- that which in my judgment is not only not contrary to Scripture but strictly agreeable thereto But I upon fixed principle absolutely refuse to enter into a formal controversy upon the head. Herein I also am at a point. And if on this account you judge me to be a Papist or a Turk, I cannot help it. I am thoroughly convinced that you did not speak from anger but from a zeal for your own opinion and mode of worship; and it might be worth while for another man to dispute these prints with you. But for me it is not. I am called to other work; not to make Church of England men or Baptists, but Christians, men of faith and love. That God may fill you therewith is the prayer of, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brothen To tie Mayor of Cork BANDON, May 27, 1750. MR. MAYOR, -- An hour ago I received A Letter to Mr. Butler, just reprinted at Cork. The publishers assert, ‘It was brought down from Dublin, to be distributed among the Society; but Mr. Wesley called in as many as he could.’ Both these assertions are absolutely false. I read some lines of that letter when I was in Dublin, but never read it over before this morning. Who the author of it is I know not; but this I know, I never called in one, neither concerned myself about it, much less brought any down to distribute amongst the Society. Yet I cannot but return my hearty thanks to the gentlemen who have distributed them through the town. I believe it will do more good than they are sensible of; for though I dislike its condemning the magistrates and clergy in general (several of whom were not concerned in the late proceedings), yet I think the reasoning is strong and deal and that the facts referred to therein are not at all misrepresented well sufficiently appear in later time. I fear God and honor the King. I earnestly desire to be at peace with all men. I have not willingly given any offence either to the magistrates, the clergy, or any of the inhabitants of the city of Cork; neither do I desire anything of them but to be treated, I will not say as a clergyman, a gentleman, or a Christian, but with such justice and humanity as are due to a Jew, a Turk, or a Pagan. -- I am sir, Your obedient servant. To Edward Perronet IRELAND, [May] 1750. I have abundance of complaints to make as well as to hear. I have scarce any one on whom I can depend when I am an hundred miles off. ’Tis well if I do not run away soon, and leave them to cut and shuffle for themselves. Here is a glorious people; but oh! where are the shepherds The Society at Cork have fairly [Probably after the terrible riots in May. He left Ireland on July 22.] sent me word that they will take care of themselves and erect themselves into a Dissenting congregation. I am weary of these sons of Zeruiah; they are too hard for me. Dear Ted, stand fast, whether I stand or fall. [In another letter he says:] Charles and you behave as I want you to do; but you cannot or will not preach where I desire. Others can and will preach where I desire; but they do not behave as I want them to do. I have a fine time between the one and the other. [And again in a third:] I think both Charles and you have in the general a right sense of what it is to serve as sons in the gospel; and if all our helpers had had the same, the work of God would have prospered better both in England and Ireland. [About a fortnight afterwards he writes thus on the same subject:] You put the thing right. I have not one preacher with me, and not six in England, whose wills are broken enough to serve me as sons in the gospel. Come on, now. you have broken the ice, and tell me the other half of your mind. I always blamed you for speaking too little, not too much. When you spoke most freely, as at Whitehaven, [In Sept. 1749 (Journal, iii 430.)] it was best for us both. I did not always disbelieve when I said nothing. But I would not attempt a thing till I could carry it. Tu qued scis, nescis is an useful rule, till I can remedy what I know. As you observe many things are remedied already; and many more will be. But you consider I have none to second me. They who should do it start aside as a broken bow. [For the letter of June 8,1750, to the Rev. John Baily, of Kilcully, Cork, see pp. 272-294.] To John Baily LIMERICK, June 8, 1750. REVEREND SIR, -- 1. Why do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing both as to the matter and form with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, ‘I am but a plain, simple man,’ and ‘The doctrine you teach is only a revival of the old Antinomian heresy, I think they call it,’ I presume it is only a pious fraud. But how came so plain and simple a man to know the meaning of the Greek word Philalethes Sir, this is not of a piece. If you did not care to own your child, had not you better have subscribed the second (as well as the first) letter George Fisher [The letter thus subscribed was published in Cork on May 30, 1750.] 2. I confess you have timed your performance well. When the other pointless thing was published, I came unluckily to Cork on the selfsame day. But you might now suppose I was at a convenient distance. However, I will not plead this as an excuse for taking no notice of your last favor; although, to say the truth, I scarce know how to answer it, as you write in a language I am not accustomed to. Both Dr. Tucker, Dr. Church, and all the other gentlemen who have wrote to me in public for some years have wrote as gentlemen, having some regard to their own, whatever my character was. But as you fight in the dark, you regard not what weapons you use. We are not, therefore, on even terms: I cannot answer you in kind; I am constrained to leave this to your good allies of Blackpool and Fair Lane. [Celebrated parts of Cork.] I shall first state the facts on which the present controversy turns, and then consider the most material parts of your performance. I. I am to state the facts. But here I am under a great disadvantage, having few of my papers by me. Excuse me, therefore, if I do not give so full an account now, as I may possibly do hereafter; if I only give you for the present the extracts of some papers which were lately put into my hands, 1. ’ THOMAS JONES, of Cork, merchant, deposes, ‘That on May 3, 1749, Nicholas Butler, ballad-singer, came before the house of this deponent, and assembled a large mob: that this deponent went to Daniel Crone, Esq., then Mayor of Cork, and desired that he would put a stop to those riots; asking at the same time whether he gave the said Butler leave to go about in this manner: that Mr. Mayor said he neither gave him leave, neither did he hinder him: that in the evening Butler gathered a larger mob than before, and went to the house where the people called Methodists were assembled to hear the word of God, and as they came out threw dirt and hurt several of them. That on May 4 this deponent with some others went to the Mayor and told what had been done; adding, “If your Worship pleases only to speak three words to Butler, it will all be over”: that the Mayor gave his word and honor there should be no more of it, he would put an entire stop to it: that, notwithstanding, a larger mob than ever came to the house the same evening: that they threw much dirt and many stones at the people, both while they were in the house and when they came out: that the mob then fell upon them, both on men and women, with clubs, hangers, and swords; so that many of them were much wounded and lost a considerable quantity of blood. ‘That on May 5 this deponent informed the Mayor of all, and also that Butler had openly declared there should be a greater mob than ever there was that night: that the Mayor promised he would prevent it: that in the evening Butler did bring a greater mob than ever: that this deponent, hearing the Mayor designed to go out of the way, set two men to watch him, and when the riot was begun went to the ale-house and inquired for him: that the woman of the house denying he was there, this deponent insisted he was, declared he would not go till he had seen him, and began searching the house: that Mr. Mayor then appearing, he demanded his assistance to suppress a riotous mob: that when the Mayor came in sight of them, he beckoned to Butler, who immediately came down from the place where he stood: that the Mayor then went with this deponent, and looked on many of the people covered with dirt and blood: that some of them still remained in the house, fearing their lives, till James Chatterton and John Reilly, Esqrs., Sheriffs of Cork, and Hugh Millard, jun., Esq., Alderman, turned them out to the mob and nailed up the doors.’ 2. ‘ELIZABETH HOLLERAN, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on May 3, as she was going down to Castle Street, she saw Nicholas Butler on a table, with ballads in one hand and a Bible in the other: that she expressed some concern thereat; on which Sheriff Reilly ordered his bailiff to carry her to Bridewell: that afterward the bailiff came and said his master ordered she should be carried to jail: and that she continued in jail from May 3, about eight in the evening, till between ten and twelve on May 5.’ 3. ‘JOHN STOCKDALE, of Cork, tallow-chandler, deposes, ‘That on May 5, while he and others were assembled to hear the word of God, Nicholas Butler came down to the house where they were, with a very numerous mob: that when this deponent came out, they threw all manner of dirt and abundance of stones at him: that they then beat, bruised, and cut him in several places; that, seeing his wife on the ground and the mob abusing her still, he called out and besought them not to kill his wife: that on this one of them struck him with a large stick, as did also many others, so that he was hurt in several parts, and his face in a gore of blood.’ 4. ‘ DANIEL SULLIVAN, of Cork, baker, deposes, ‘That every day but one, from the 6th to the 16th of May, Nicholas Butler assembled a riotous mob before this deponent’s house: that they abused all who came into the shop, to the great damage of this deponent’s business: that on or about the 15th Butler swore he would bring a mob the next day and pull down his house: that accordingly on the 16th he did bring a large mob, and beat or abused all that came to the house: that the Mayor walked by while the mob was so employed, but did not hinder them: that afterwards they broke his windows, threw dirt and stones into his shop, and spoiled a great quantity of his goods. ‘Daniel Sullivan is ready to depose farther, ‘That from the 16th of May to the 28th the mob gathered every day before his house: that on Sunday, 28, Butler swore they would come the next day and pull down the house of that heretic dog, and called aloud to the mob, “Let the heretic dogs indict you; I will bring you all off without a farthing cost.” ‘That accordingly on May 29 Butler came with a greater mob than before: that he went to the Mayor and begged him to come, which he for some time refused to do, but after much importunity rose up and walked with him down the street: that when they were in the midst of the mob, the Mayor said aloud, “It is your own fault for entertaining these preachers. If you will turn them out of your house, I will engage there shall be no more harm done; but if you will not turn them out, you must take what you will get”: that upon this the mob set up an huzza and threw stones faster than before: that he said, “This is fine usage under a Protestant Government! If I had a priest saying mass in every room of it, my house would not be touched”: that the Mayor replied, “The priests are tolerated, but you are not; you talk too much; go in, and shut up your doors”: that, seeing no remedy, he did so; and the mob continued breaking the windows and throwing stones in till near twelve at night. ‘That on May 31 the said Sullivan and two more went and informed the Mayor of what the mob was then doing: that it was not without great importunity they brought him as far as the Exchange: that he would go no farther, nor send any help, though some that were much bruised and wounded came by: that some hours after, when the mob had finished their work, he sent a party of soldiers to guard the walls. 5. ‘JOHN STOCKDALE deposes farther, ‘That on May 31 he with others was quietly hearing the word of God, when Butler and his mob came down to the house: that, as they came out, the mob threw showers of dirt and stones: that many were hurt, many beat, bruised, and cut; among whom was this deponent, who was so bruised and cut that the effusion of blood from his head could not be stopped for a considerable time.’ 6. ‘JOAN M’NERNEY, of Cork, deposes, That on the 31st of May last, as this deponent with others was hearing a sermon, Butler came down with a large mob: that the stones and dirt, coming in fast, obliged the congregation to shut the doors and lock themselves in: that the mob broke open the door; on which this deponent endeavored to escape through a window: that, not being able to do it, he returned into the house, where he saw the mob tear up the pews, benches, and floor; part of which they afterwards burned in the open street, and carried away part for their own use.’ 7. ‘DANIEL SULLIVAN is ready to depose farther, ’That Butler with a large mob went about from street to street and from house to house, abusing, threatening, and beating whomsoever he pleased, from June 1 to the 16th, when they assaulted, bruised, and cut Ann Jenkins; and from the 16th to the 30th, when a woman whom they had beaten miscarried and narrowly escaped with life.’ 8. Some of the particulars were as follows :- ‘THOMAS BURNET, of Cork, nailer, deposes, ‘That on or about the 12th of June, as this deponent was at work in his master’s shop, Nicholas Butler came with a great mob to the door, and, seeing this deponent, told him he was an heretic dog, and his soul was burning in hell: that this deponent asking, "Why do you use me thus” Butler took up a stone and struck him so violently on the side that he was thereby rendered incapable of working for upwards of a week: that he hit this deponent’s wife with another stone without any kind of provocation; which so hurt her that she was obliged to take to her bed, and has not been right well since. ‘ANN COOSHEA, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on or about the 12th of June, as she was standing at her father’s door, Nicholas Butler with a riotous mob began to abuse this deponent and her family, calling them heretic bitches, saying they were damned and all their souls were in hell: that then, without any provocation, he took up a great stone and threw it at this deponent, which struck her on the head with such force that it deprived her of her senses for some time. ‘ANN WRIGHT, Of Cork, deposes, ‘That on or about the 12th of June, as this deponent was in her own house, Butler and his mob came before her door, calling her and her family heretic bitches, and swearing he would make her house hotter than hell-fire: that he threw dirt and stones at them, hit her in the face, dashed all the goods about which she had in her window, and she really believes would have dashed out her brains had she not quitted her shop and fled for her life. ‘MARGARET GRIFFIN, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on the 24th of June, as this deponent was about her business, Butler and his mob came up, took hold on her, tore her clothes, struck her several times, and cut her mouth: that, after she broke from him, he and his mob pursued her to her house, and would have broken in had not some neighbors interposed: that he had beat and abused her several times before, and one of those times to such a degree that she was all in a gore of blood and continued spitting blood for several days after. ‘JACOB CONNER, clothier, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on the 24th of June, as he was employed in his lawful business, Butler and his mob came up and, without any manner of provocation, fell upon him: that they beat him till they caused such an effusion of blood as could not be stopped for a considerable time: and that he verily believes, had not a gentleman interposed, they would have killed him on the spot.’ 9. ‘ANN HUGHES, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on the 29th of June she asked Nicholas Butler why he broke open her house on the 21st: that hereon he called her many abusive names (being attended with his usual mob), dragged her up and down, tore her clothes in pieces, and with his sword stabbed and cut her in both her arms. ‘DANIEL FILTS, blacksmith, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on the 29th of June Butler and a riotous mob came before his door, called him many abusive names, drew his hanger, and threatened to stab him: that he and his mob the next day assaulted the house of this deponent with drawn swords: and that he is persuaded, had not one who came by prevented, they would have taken away his life.’ 10. ‘MARY FULLER, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on the 30th of June Butler at the head of his mob came between nine and ten at night to the deponent’s shop with a naked sword in his hand: that he swore he would cleave the deponent’s skull, and immediately made a full stroke at her head; whereupon she was obliged to fly for her life, leaving her shop and goods to the mob, many of which they hacked and hewed with their swords, to her no small loss and damage. ‘HENRY DUNKLE, joiner, of Cork, deposes, ‘That on the 30th of June, as he was standing at the widow Fuller’s shop window, he saw Butler accompanied with a large mob, who stopped before her shop: that, after he had grossly abused her, he made a full stroke with his hanger at her head, which must have cleft her in two had not this deponent received the guard of the hanger on his shoulder: that presently after, the said Butler seized upon this deponent: that he seized him by the collar with one hand, and with the other held the hanger over his head, calling him all manner of names and tearing his shirt and clothes: and that, had it not been for the timely assistance of some neighbors, he verily believes he should have been torn in pieces. ‘MARGARET TRIMNELL, Of Cork, deposes, ‘That on the 30th of June John Austin and Nicholas Butler with a numerous mob came to her shop: that, after calling her many names, Austin struck her with his club on the right arm, so that it has been black ever since from the shoulder to the elbow: that Butler came next, and with a great stick struck her a violent blow across the back: that many of them then drew their swords, which they carried under their coats, and cut and hacked her goods, part of which they threw out into the street, while others of them threw dirt and stones into the shop, to the considerable damage of her goods and loss of this deponent.’ 11. It was not for those who had any regard either to their persons or goods to oppose Mr. Butler after this. So the poor people patiently suffered whatever he and his mob were pleased to inflict upon them till the Assizes drew on, at which they doubted not to find a sufficient though late relief. Accordingly twenty-eight depositions were taken (from the foul copies of some of which the preceding account is mostly transcribed), and laid before the Grand Jury, August 19. But they did not find any one of these bills. Instead of this, they made that memorable presentment which is worthy to be preserved in the annals of Ireland to all succeeding generations: ‘We find and present Charles Wesley to be a person of ill fame, a vagabond, and a common disturber of His Majesty’s peace; and we pray he may be transported. ‘We find and present James Williams, &c, ‘We find and present Robert Swindle, &c. ‘We find and present Jonathan Reeves, &c. ‘We find and present James Wheatly, &c. ‘We find and present John Larwood, &c. ‘We find and present Joseph M’Auliff, &c. ‘We find and present Charles Skelton, &c. ‘We find and present William Tooker, &c. ‘We find and present Daniel Sullivan, &c.’ 12. Mr. Butler and his mob were now in higher spirits than ever. They scoured the streets day and night, frequently hallooing as they went along, ‘Five pounds for a Swaddler’s [A name first given to John Cennick, from his preaching on those words, ‘Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes, lying in a manger.’ See Journal, iii. 472; C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 457; and letter of July 3, 1756.] head!’ their chief declaring to them all he had full liberty now to do whatever he would, even to murder, if he pleased; as Mr. Swain, of North Abbey, and others are ready to testify. 13. The Sessions, held at Cork on the 5th of October following, produced another memorable presentment: ‘We find and present John Horton to be a person of ill fame, a vagabond, and a common disturber of His Majesty’s peace; and we pray that he may be transported.’ But, complaint being made of this above as wholly illegal, it vanished into air. 14. Some time after, Mr. Butler removed to Dublin, and began to sing his ballads there. But having little success, he returned to Cork, and in January began to scour the streets again, pursuing all of ‘this way’ with a large mob at his heels, armed with swords, staves, and pistols. Complaint was made of this to William Holmes, Esq., the present Mayor of Cork. But there was no removal of the thing complained of: the riots were not suppressed nay, they not only continued, but increased. 15. From the beginning of February to the end His Majesty’s peace was preserved just as before; of which it may be proper to subjoin two or three instances for the information of all thinking men: ‘WILLIAM JEWELL, clothier, of Shundon Church Lane, deposes, ‘That Nicholas Butler with a riotous mob several times assaulted this deponent’s house: that particularly on the 23rd of February he came thither with a large mob, armed with clubs and other weapons: that several of the rioters entered the house, and swore the first who resisted they would blow their brains out: that the deponent’s wife, endeavoring to stop them, was assaulted and beaten by the said Butler; who then ordered his men to break the deponent’s windows, which they did with stones of a considerable weight. ’MARY’ PHILIPS, of St. Peter’s Church Lane, deposes, ‘That on the 26th of February, about seven in the evening, Nicholas Butler came to her house with a large mob, and asked where her husband was: that as soon as she appeared he first abused her in the grossest terms, and then struck her on the head so that it stunned her; and she verily believes, had not some within thrust to and fastened the door, she should have been murdered on the spot.’ It may suffice for the present to add one instance more: ‘ELIZABETH GARDELET, wife of Joseph Gardelet, corporal in Colonel Pawlet’s regiment, Captain Charlton’s company, deposes, ‘That on February 28, as she was going out of her lodgings, she was met by Butler and his mob: that Butler, without any manner of provocation, immediately fell upon her, striking her with both his fists on the side of the head, which knocked her head against the wall: that she endeavored to escape from him; but he pursued her and struck her several times in the face: that she ran into the schoolyard for shelter; but he followed, and caught hold of her, saying, “You whore, you stand on consecrated ground,’ and threw her with such force across the lane that she was driven against the opposite wall: that, when she had recovered herself a little, she made the best of her way to her lodging; but Butler still pursued, and overtook her as she was going up the stairs: that he struck her with his fist on the stomach, which stroke knocked her down backwards: that, falling with the small of her back against the edge of one of the stairs, she was not able to rise again: that her pains immediately came upon her, and about two in the morning she miscarried.’ 16. These, with several more depositions to the same effect, were in April laid before the Grand Jury. Yet they did not find any of these bills. But they found one against Daniel Sullivan the younger (no preacher, but an hearer of the people called Methodists), who, when Butler and his mob were discharging a shower of stones upon him, fired a pistol without any ball over their heads. If any man has wrote this story to England in a quite different manner, and fixed it on a young Methodist preacher, let him be ashamed in the presence of God and man, unless shame and he have shook hands and parted. 17. Several of the persons presented as vagabonds in autumn appeared at the Lent Assizes. But, none appearing against them, they were discharged, with honor to themselves and shame to their prosecutors; who, by bringing the matter to a judicial determination, plainly showed there is a law even for Methodists; and gave His Majesty’s Judge a full occasion to declare the utter illegality of all riots, and the inexcusableness of tolerating (much more causing) them on any pretence whatsoever. 18. It was now generally believed there would be no more riots in Cork; although I cannot say that was my opinion. On May 19 I accepted the repeated invitation of Mr. Alderman Pembrock, and came to his house. Understanding the place where the preaching usually was would by no means contain those who desired to hear me, at eight in the morning I went to Hammond’s Marsh. The congregation was large and deeply attentive. A few of the rabble gathered at a distance; but by little and little they drew near and mixed with the congregation. So that I have seldom seen a more quiet and orderly assembly at any church in England or Ireland. 19. In the afternoon, a report being spread abroad that the Mayor designed to hinder my preaching on the Marsh, I desired Mr. Skelton and Jones to wait upon him and inquire concerning it. Mr. Skelton asked if my preaching there would be offensive to him; adding, ‘If it would, Mr. Wesley would not do it.’ He replied warmly, ‘Sir, I will have no mobbing.’ Mr. Skelton said, ‘Sir, there was none this morning.’ He answered, ‘There was. Are there not churches and meeting-houses enough I will have no more mobs and riots.’ Mr. Skelton replied, ‘Sir, neither Mr. Wesley nor they that heard him made either mobs or riots.’ He answered plain, ‘I will have no more preaching; and if Mr. Wesley attempts to preach, I am prepared for him.’ I did not conceive till now that there was any real meaning in what a gentleman said some time since; who, being told, ‘Sir, King George tolerates Methodists,’ replied, ‘Sir, you shall find the Mayor is King of Cork.’ 20. I began preaching in our own house soon after five. Mr. Mayor meantime was walking in the ‘Change, where he gave orders to the drummers of the town and to his sergeants -- doubtless to go down and keep the peace! They came down with an innumerable mob to the house. They continued drumming and I continued preaching till I had finished my discourse. When I came out, the mob immediately closed me in. I desired one of the sergeants to protect me from the mob; but he replied, ‘Sir, I have no orders to do that.’ When I came into the street, they threw whatever came to hand. I walked on straight through the midst of them, looking every man in the face, and they opened to the right and left, till I came near Dant’s Bridge. A large party had taken possession of this, one of whom was bawling’ out, ‘Now, heigh for the Romans!’ When I came up, these likewise shrunk back, and I walked through them into Mr. Jenkins’s house. But many of the congregation were more roughly handled; particularly Mr. Jones, who was covered with dirt, and escaped with his life almost by miracle. The main body of the mob then went to the house, brought out all the seats and benches, tore up the floor, the door, the frames of the windows, and whatever of woodwork remained, part of which they carried off for their own use, and the rest they burnt in the open street. 21. Monday, 2L I rode on to Bandon. From three in the afternoon till after seven the mob of Cork marched in grand procession, and then burnt me in effigy near Dant’s Bridge. Tuesday, 22. The mob and drummers were moving again between three and four in the morning. The same evening the mob came down to Hammond’s Marsh, but stood at a distance from Mr. Stockdale’s house, till the drums beat and the Mayor’s sergeants beckoned to them, on which they drew up and began the attack. The Mayor, being sent for, came with a party of soldiers. Mr. Stockdale earnestly desired that he would disperse the mob, or at least leave the soldiers there to protect them from the rioters. But he took them all away with him; on which the mob went on and broke all the glass and most of the window-frames in pieces. 22. Wednesday, 23. The mob was still patrolling the streets, abusing all that were called Methodists, and threatening to murder them and pull down their houses if they did not leave ‘this way.’ Thursday, 24. They again assaulted Mr. Stockdale’s house, broke down the boards he had nailed up against the windows, destroyed what little remained of the window-frames and shutters, and damaged a considerable part of his goods. Friday, 25, and again on Saturday, 26, one Roger O’Ferrall fixed up an advertisement at the public Exchange (as he had also done for several days before) that he was ready to head any mob in order to pull down any house that should dare to harbor a Swaddler. 23. Sunday, 27. I wrote the following letter to the Mayor. [See letter of May 27, 1750.] II. 1. Your performance is dated May 28, the most material parts of which I am now to consider. It contains (1) a charge against the Methodist preachers; (2) a defense of the Corporation and clergy of Cork. With regard to your charge against those preachers, may I take the liberty to inquire why you drop six out of the eleven that have been at Cork--namely, Mr. Swindells, wheatIcy, Larwood, Skelton, Tucker, and Haughton Can you glean up no story concerning these or is it out of mere compassion that you spare them 2. But, before I proceed, I must beg leave to ask, who is this evidence against the other five Why, one that neither dares show his face nor tell his name or the place of his abode; one that is ashamed (and truly not without cause) of the dirty work he is employed in, so that we could not even conjecture who he was but that his speech bewrayeth him. How much credit is due to such an evidence let any man of reason judge. 3. This worthy witness falls foul upon Mr. Cownley, and miserably murders a tale he has got by the end (page 13). Sir, Mr. M[assiot] is nothing obliged to you for bringing the character of his niece into question. He is perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cownley acted in that whole affair with the strictest regard both to honor and conscience. You next aver that Mr. Reeves ‘asked a young woman whether she had a mind to go to hell with her father’ (page 16). It is possible. I will neither deny nor affirm it without some better proof. But suppose he did; unless I know the circumstances of the case, I could not say whether he spoke right or wrong. 4. But what is this to the ‘monstrous, shocking, amazing blasphemy spoken by Mr. Charles Wesley who one day,’ you say, ‘preaching on Hammond’s Marsh, called out, “Has any of you got the Spirit” and when none answered said, “I am sure some of you have got it; for I feel virtue go out of me”’ (page 18). Sir, do you expect any one to believe this story I doubt it will not pass even at Cork; unless with your wise friend who said, ‘Methodists! Aye, they are the people who place all their religion in wearing long whiskers.’ 5. In the same page you attack Mr. Williams for applying those words, ‘I thy Maker am thy husband.’ Sir, by the same rule that you conclude ‘these expressions could only flow from a mind full of lascivious ideas,’ you may conclude the 45th Psalm to be only a wanton sonnet and the Canticles a counterpart to Rochester’s poems. [John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester (1647-80), poet and libertine, friend of Charles II and the second Duke of Buckingham, wrote amorous lyrics.] But you say he likewise’ made use of unwarrantable expressions, particularly with regard to faith and good works, and the next day denied that he had used them’ (pages 10-11). Sir, your word is not proof of this. Be pleased to produce proper vouchers of the facts, and I will then give a farther answer. Likewise, as to his ‘indecent and irreverent behavior at church, turning all the preacher said into ridicule, so that numbers asked in your hearing why the churchwardens did not put the profane, wicked scoundrel in the stocks,’ my present answer is, I doubt the facts. Will your ‘men of undoubted character’ be so good as to attest them 6. Of all these, Mr. Williams, Cownley, Reeves, Haughton, Larwood, Skelton, Swindells, Tucker, and Wheatley, you pronounce in the lump that they are ‘a parcel of vagabond, illiterate babblers’ (pages 3-4), of whom ‘everybody that has the least share of reason must know’ that, though ‘they amuse the populace with nonsense, ribaldry, and blasphemy, they are not capable of writing orthography or good sense.’ Sir, that is not an adjudged case. Some who have a little share of reason think they are capable both of speaking and writing good sense. But if they are not, if they cannot write or read, they can save souls from death; they can by the grace of God bring sinners from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God. 7. But they ‘made a woman plunder her poor old husband, and another absent herself from her husband and children’ (pages 24-5), Pray, what are their names, where do they live, and how may one come to the speech of them I have heard so many plausible tales of this kind which on examination vanished away, that I cannot believe one word of this till I have more proof than your bare assertion. 8. So far I have been pleading for others. But I am now called to answer for myself; for ‘Theophilus [A letter signed ’Theophilus’ appeared in the Gentleman’s Magaxine, 1751, p. 115, affirming that Whitefield and others had taught ‘that man by nature is half brute and half devil.’ See Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 228.] and John Wesley,’ say you, ‘seem to me the same individual person’ (page 4). They may seem so to you, but not to any who knows either my style or manner of writing. Besides, if it had been mine, it would have borne my name; for I do not love fighting in the dark. But were not ‘a great number’ of those books ‘brought from Dublin to be dispersed throughout the city’ Not by me, not by my order, nor to my knowledge. However, I thank you again for dispersing them. 9. But ‘while charity stands in the front of Christian graces, the author of such a book can have none of that grace; for you must allow the vulgar to think’ (page 16). Malapropos enough, a lively saying; but, for any use it is of, it may stand either in the front or rear of the sentence. The argument itself is something new. A man knocks me down; I cry, ‘Help I help I or I shall be murdered!’ He replies, ‘While charity stands in the front of Christian graces, the author of such a cry can have none of that grace.’ So now you have shown to all the world ‘the uncharitable and consequently unchristian spirit of Methodism.’ What l because the Methodists cry out for help before you have beat out their brains What grimace is this! His Majesty’s quiet, loyal, Protestant subjects are abused, insulted, outraged, beaten, covered with dirt, rolled in the mire, bruised, wounded with swords and hangers, murdered, have their houses broke open, their goods destroyed, or carried away before their face; and all this in open day, in the face of the sun, yet without any remedy! And those who treat them thus are ‘charitable’ men! brimful of a Christian spirit ! But if they who are so treated appeal to the common sense and reason of mankind, you gravely cry, ‘See the uncharitable, the unchristian spirit of Methodism!’ 10. You proceed: ‘But pray what are those facts which you say are not misrepresented Do you mean that Butler was hired and paid by the Corporation and clergy’ or ‘that this’ remarkably loyal’ city is disaffected to the present Government’ and that ‘a Papist was supported, nay hired, by the Chief Magistrate to walk the streets, threatening bloodshed and murder Declare openly whether these are the facts.’ Sir, I understand you well; but for the present I beg to be excused. There is a time and a place for all things. 11. I rejoice to hear the city of Cork is so ‘remarkably loyal,’ so entirely ‘well-affected to the present Government.’ I presume you mean this chiefly of the Friendly Society (in whom the power of the city is now lodged) erected some time since in opposition to that body of Jacobites commonly called ‘The Hanover Club.’ I suppose that zealous anti-Methodist who some days ago stabbed the Methodist preacher in the street, and then cried out, ‘Damn King George and all his armies!’ did this as a specimen of his ‘eminent loyalty.’ It cannot be denied that this loyal subject of King George, Simon Rawlins by name, was, upon oath made of those words, committed to jail on May 31; and it was not till six days after, that he walked in procession through the town, with drums beating and colors flying, and declared at the head of his mob he would never rest till he had driven all these false prophets out of Cork. How sincere they were in their good wishes to King George and his armies they gave a clear proof the 10th of this instant June, when, as ten or twelve soldiers were walking along in a very quiet and inoffensive manner, the mob fell upon them, swore they would have their lives, knocked them down, and beat them to such a degree that on June x2 one of them died of his wounds and another was not then expected to live many hours. 12. But you have more proofs of my uncharitableness -- that is, supposing I am the author of that pamphlet; for you read there, ‘Riches, ease, and honor are what the clergy set their hearts upon; but the souls for whom Christ died they leave to the tender mercies of hell.’ Sir, can you deny it Is it not true, literally true, concerning some of the clergy You ask, ‘But ought we to condemn all for the faults of a few’ (page 20). I answer, No; no more than I will condemn all in the affair of Cork for the faults of a few. It is you that do this; and if it were as you say, if they were all concerned in the late proceedings, then it would be no uncharitableness to say, ‘They were in a miserable state indeed’; then they would doubtless be ‘kicking against the pricks, contending with heaven, fighting against God.’ 13. I come now to the general charge against me, independent on the letter to Mr. Butler. And, first, you charge me with ‘a frontless assurance and a well-dissembled hypocrisy’ (page 22). Sir, I thank you. This is as kind as if you was to call me (with Mr. Williams) ’ a profane, wicked scoundrel.’ I am not careful to answer in this matter: shortly we shall both stand at a higher bar. 14. You charge me, secondly, with being an ‘hare-brained enthusiast’ (page 7). Sir, I am your most obedient servant. But you will prove me an enthusiast; ‘for you say’ (those are your words) ‘you are sent of God to inform mankind of some other revelation of His will than what has been left by Christ and His Apostles’ (page 28). Not so. I never said any such thing. When I do this, then call for miracles; but at present-your demand is quite unreasonable: there is no room for it at all. What I advance, I prove by the words of Christ or His Apostles. If not, let it fall to the ground. 15. You charge me, thirdly, with being employed in ‘promoting the cause of arbitrary Popish power’ (page 7). Sir, I plead, Not guilty. Produce your witnesses. Prove this, and I will allow all the rest. You charge me, fourthly, with holding ‘midnight assemblies’ (page 24). Sir, did you never see the word ‘Vigil’ in your Common Prayer Book Do you know what it means If not, permit me to tell you that it was customary with the ancient Christians to spend whole nights in prayer, and that these nights were termed Vigiliae, or Vigils. Therefore, for spending a part of some nights in this manner, in public and solemn prayer, we have not only the authority of our own national Church, but of the universal Church in the earliest ages. 16. You charge me, fifthly, with ‘being the cause of all that Butler has done’ (page 17). True; just as Latimer and Ridley (if I may dare to name myself with those venerable men) were the cause of all that Bishop Bonner did. In this sense the charge is true. It has pleased God (unto Him be all the glory!) even by my preaching or writings to convince some of the old Christian scriptural doctrine, which till then they knew not. And while they declared this to others you showed them the same love as Edmund of London did to their forefathers. Only the expressions of your love were not quite the same, because (blessed be God) you had not the same power. 17. You affirm, sixthly, that I ‘rob and plunder the poor, so as to leave them neither bread to eat nor raiment to put on’ (page 8). An heavy charge, but without all color of truth -- yea, just the reverse is true. Abundance of those in Cork, Bandon, Limerick, Dublin, as well as in all parts of England, who a few years ago, either through sloth or profuseness, had not bread to eat or raiment to put on, have now, by means of the preachers called Methodists, a sufficiency of both. Since, by hearing these, they have learned to fear God, they have learned also to work with their hands, as well as to cut off every needless expense, to be good stewards of the mammon of unrighteousness. 18. You assert, seventhly, that I am ‘myself as fond of riches as the most worldly clergyman’ (page 21). ‘Two thousand pence a week! a fine yearly revenue from assurance and salvation tickets!’ (page 8). I answer: (1) What do you mean by ‘assurance and salvation tickets’ Is not the very expression a mixture of nonsense and blasphemy (2) How strangely did you under-rate my revenue when you wrote in the person of George Fisher! You then allowed me only an hundred pounds a year, What is this to two thousand pence a week (3) ‘There is not a clergyman,’ you say, ‘who would not willingly exchange his livings for your yearly penny contributions’ (page 21). And no wonder: for, according to a late computation, they amount to no less every year than eight hundred eighty-six thousand pounds, besides some odd shillings and pence; in comparison of which the revenue of his Grace of Armagh or of Canterbury is a very trifle. And yet, sir, so great is my regard for you and my gratitude for your late services that, if you will only resign your curacy of Christ’s Church, I will make over to you my whole revenue in Ireland. 19. But ‘the honor’ I gain, you think, is even ‘greater than the profit.’ Alas, sir, I have not generosity enough to relish it! I was always of Juvenal’s mind, -- Gloria quantalibet, quid erit, si gloria tanrum est[ Satires, vii. 81: ‘What is glory without profit too’] And especially while there are so many drawbacks, so many dead flies in the pot of ointment. Sheer honor might taste tolerably well; but there is gall with the honey, and less of the honey than the gall. Pray, sir, what think you Have I more honor or dishonor Do more people praise or blame me How is it in Cork nay (to go no farther) among your own little circle of acquaintance Where you hear one commend, do not ten cry out, ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth’ Above all, I do not love honor with dry blows. I do not find it will cure broken bones. But perhaps you may think I glory in these. Oh how should I have gloried, then, if your good friends at Dant’s Bridge had burnt my person instead of my effigy! We are here to set religion out of the question. You do not suppose I have anything to do with that. Why, if so, I should rather leave you the honor, and myself sleep in an whole skin. On that supposition I quite agree with the epigrammatist: Virgihi in tumulo, divini praemia vatis, Explicat en viridem laurea laeta comam. Quid te defunctum juvat haec Felicior olim Sub patulae fagi tegmine vivus eras. [‘See, the green laurel rears her graceful head O’er Virgil’s tomb! But can this cheer the dead Happier by far thou wast of old, when laid Beneath thy spreading beech’s ample shade!’] 20. Your last charge is that ‘I profess myself to be a member of the Established Church, and yet act contrary to the commands of my spiritual governors and stab the Church to the very vitals’ (page 27). I answer: (1) What ‘spiritual governor’ has commanded me not to preach in any part of His Majesty’s dominions I know not one to this very day, either in England or Ireland. (2) What is it to ‘stab the Church to the very vitals’ Why, to deny her fundamental doctrines. And do I or you do this Let any one who has read her Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies judge which of us two denies that ‘we are justified by faith alone’; that every believer has ‘the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit’; that all who are strong in faith do ‘perfectly love Him and worthily magnify His holy name’: he that denies this is ‘the treacherous son who stabs this affectionate and tender mother.’ If you deny it, you have already disowned the Church. But, as for me, I neither can nor will; though I know you sincerely desire I should. Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridae. [Virgil’s Aeneid, ii. 104: ‘This Ithacus desires, And Atreus’ sons with vast rewards shall buy.’] But I choose to stay in the Church, were it only to reprove those who ‘betray’ her ‘with a kiss.’ 21. I come now to your defense of the Corporation and clergy. But sure such a defense was never seen before. For whereas I had said, ‘I dislike the condemning the magistrates or clergy in general, because several of them’ (so I charitably supposed) ‘were not concerned in the late proceedings,’ you answer, ‘Pray by all means point them out, that they may be distinguished by some mark of honor above their brethren’ (pages 29-30). What do you mean If you mean anything at all, it must be that they were all concerned in the late proceedings. Sir, if they were (of which I own you are a better judge than I), was it needful to declare this to all the world especially in so plain terms as these Did not your zeal here a little outrun your wisdom 22. ‘But the magistrate,’ you say, was only ‘endeavoring to secure the peace of the city’ (page 6). A very extraordinary way of securing peace! Truly, sir, I cannot yet believe, not even on your word, that ‘all the magistrates except one’ (pages 29-30) were concerned in this method of securing peace. Much less can I believe that ‘all the clergy’ were concerned in thus ‘endeavoring to bring back their flock led astray by these hirelings’ (an unlucky word) ‘into the right fold.’ 23. Of the clergy you add, ‘What need have they to rage and foam at your preaching Suppose you could delude the greater part of their flocks, this could not affect their temporal interest.’ (Page 7.) We do not desire it should. We only desire to delude all mankind (if you will term it a delusion) into a serious concern for their eternal interest, for a treasure which none can take away. Having now both stated the facts to which you referred, and considered the most material parts of your performance, I have only to subjoin a few obvious reflections, naturally arising from a view of those uncommon occurrences, partly with regard to the motives of those who were active therein, partly to their manner of acting. 1. With regard to the former, every reasonable man will naturally inquire on what motives could any, either of the clergy or the Corporation, ever think of opposing that preaching by which so many notoriously vicious men have been brought to an eminently virtuous life and conversation. You supply us yourself with one unexceptionable answer: ‘Those of the clergy with whom I have conversed freely own they have not learning sufficient to comprehend your scheme of religion’ (page 30). If they have not, I am sorry for them. My scheme of religion is this: Love is the fulfilling of the law. From the true love of God and man, directly flows every Christian grace, every holy and happy temper; and from these springs uniform holiness of conversation, in conformity to those great rules, ‘Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God,’ and ‘Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them.’ But this, you say, ‘those of the clergy with whom you converse have not learning enough to comprehend.’ Consequently their ignorance or not understanding our doctrine is the reason why they oppose us. 2. I learn from you that ignorance of another kind is a second reason why some of the clergy oppose us: they, like you, think us enemies to the Church. The natural consequence is that, in proportion to their zeal for the Church, their zeal against us will be. 3. The zeal which many of them have for orthodoxy, or right opinions, is a third reason for opposing us. For they judge us heterodox in several points, maintainers of strange opinions. And the truth is, the old doctrines of the Reformation are now quite new in the world. Hence those who revive them cannot fail to be opposed by those of the clergy who know them not. 4. Fourthly. Their honor is touched when others pretend to know what they do not know themselves, especially when unlearned and (otherwise) ignorant men lay claim to any such knowledge. ‘What is the tendency of all this,’ as you observe on another head, ‘but to work in men’s minds a mean opinion of the clergy’ But who can tamely suffer this None but those who have the mind that was in Christ Jesus. 5. Again: will not some say, ‘Master, by thus acting, thou reproachest us’ by preaching sixteen or eighteen times a week, and by a thousand other things of the same kind Is not this in effect reproaching us, as if we were lazy and indolent as if we had not a sufficient love to the souls of those committed to our charge 6. May there not likewise be some (perhaps unobserved) envy in the breast even of men that fear God How much more in them that do not, when they hear of the great success of these preachers, of the esteem and honor that are paid to them by the people, and the immense riches which they acquire! What wonder if this occasions a zeal which is not the flame of fervent love 7. Add to this a desire in some of the inferior clergy of pleasing their superiors; supposing these (which is no impossible supposition) are first influenced by any of these motives. Add the imprudence of some that hear those preachers, and perhaps needlessly provoke their parochial ministers. And when all these things are considered, none need be at a loss for the motives on which many of the clergy have opposed us. 8. But from what motives can any of the Corporation oppose us I must beg the gentlemen of this body to observe that I dare by no means lump them all together, as their awkward defender has done. But this I may say without offence, there are some even among you who are not so remarkably loyal as others, not so eminently well-affected to the present Government. Now, these cannot but observe (gentlemen, I speak plain, for I am to deliver my own soul in the sight of God) that, wherever we preach, many who were his enemies before became zealous friends to His Majesty. The instances glare both in England and Ireland. Those, therefore, who are not so zealously his friends have a strong motive to oppose us; though it cannot be expected they should own this to be the motive on which they act. 9. Others may have been prejudiced by the artful misrepresentations these have made, or by those they have frequently heard from the pulpit. Indeed, this has been the grand fountain of popular prejudice. In every part both of England and Ireland the clergy, where they were inclined so to do, have most effectually stirred up the people. 10. There has been another reason assigned for the opposition that was made to me in particular at Cork -- namely, that the Mayor was offended at my preaching on Hammond’s Marsh, and therefore resolved I should not preach at all; whereas, if I had not preached abroad, he would have given me leave to preach in the house. Would Mr. Mayor have given me leave to preach in my own house I return him most humble thanks. But should he be so courteous as to make me the offer even now, I should not accept it on any such terms. Greater men than he have endeavored to hinder me from calling sinners to repentance in that open and public manner; but hitherto it has been all lost labor. They have never yet been able to prevail; nor ever will, till they can conquer King George and his armies. To curse them is not enough. 11. Lastly. Some (I hope but a few) do cordially believe that ‘private vices are public benefits.’ I myself heard this in Cork when I was there last. These consequently think us the destroyers of their city, by so lessening the number of their public benefactors, the gluttons, the drunkards, the dram-drinkers, the Sabbath-breakers, the common swearers, the cheats of every kind, and the followers of that ancient and honorable trade, adultery and fornication. 12. These are the undeniable motives to this opposition. I come now to the manner of it. When some gentlemen inquired of one of the bishops in England, ‘My Lord, what must we do to stop these new preachers’ he answered, ‘If they preach contrary to Scripture, confute them by Scripture; if contrary to reason, confute them by reason. But beware you use no other weapons than these, either in opposing error or defending the truth.’ Would to God this rule had been followed at Cork I But how little has it been thought of there! The opposition was begun with lies of all kinds, frequently delivered in the name of God; so that never was anything so ill-judged as for you to ask, ‘Does Christianity encourage its professors to make use of lies, invectives, or low, mean abuse, and scurrility, to carry on its interest’ No, sir, it does not. I disclaim and abhor every weapon of this kind. But with these have the Methodist preachers been opposed in Cork above any other place. In England, in all Ireland, have I neither heard nor read any like those gross, palpable lies, those low, Billingsgate invectives, and that inexpressibly mean abuse and base scurrility which the opposers of Methodism (so called) have continually made use of, and which has been the strength of their cause from the beginning. 13. If it be not so, let the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Cork (for he too has openly entered the lists against the Methodists), the Rev. Dr. Tisdale, or any other whom his lordship shall appoint, meet me on even ground, writing as a gentleman to a gentleman, a scholar to a scholar, a clergyman to a clergyman. Let him thus show me wherein I have preached or written amiss, and I will stand reproved before all the world. 14. But let not his lordship or any other continue to put persecution in the place of reason; either private persecution stirring up husbands to threaten or beat their wives, parents their children, masters their servants; gentlemen to ruin their tenants, laborers, or tradesmen, by turning them out of their farms or cottages, employing or buying of them no more because they worship God according to their own conscience; or open, barefaced, noonday, Cork persecution, breaking open the houses of His Majesty’s Protestant subjects, destroying their goods, spoiling or tearing the very clothes from their backs; striking, bruising, wounding, murdering them in the streets; dragging them through the mire, without any regard to age or sex; not sparing even those of tender years--no, nor women, though great with child; but, with more than Pagan or Mahometan barbarity, destroying infants that were yet unborn. 15. Ought these things so to be Are they right before God or man Are they to the honor of our nation I appeal unto Caesar -- unto His gracious Majesty King George, and to the Governors under him, both in England and Ireland. I appeal to all true, disinterested lovers of this their native country. Is this the way to make it a flourishing nation happy at home, amiable and honorable abroad Men of Ireland, judge! Nay, and is there not some weight in that additional consideration--that this is not a concern of a private nature Rather, is it not a common cause If the dams are once broken down, if you tamely give up the fundamental laws of your country, if these are openly violated in the case of your fellow subjects, how soon may the case be your own! For what protection then have any of you left for either your liberty or property what security for either your goods or lives, if a riotous mob is to be both judge, jury, and executioner 16. Protestants! What is become of that liberty of conscience for which your forefathers spent their blood Is it not an empty shadow, a mere, unmeaning name, if these things are suffered among you Romans, such of you as are calm and candid men, do you approve of these proceedings I cannot think you yourselves would use such methods of convincing us, if we think amiss. Christians of all denominations, can you reconcile this to our royal law, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ O tell it not in Gath! Let it not be named among those who are enemies to the Christian cause, lest that worthy name whereby we are called be still more blasphemed among the heathen! To Thomas Walsh [DUBLIN, June 19,] 1750 My DEAR BROTHR, -- It is hard to judge what God has called you to till trial is made. Therefore, when you have an opportunity you may go to Shronell, and spend two or three days with the people there. Speak to them in Irish. To Joshua Strangman BIRR, June 28, 1750. You did not expect this from me; but I am constrained to write, for you are much upon my heart. God has given you strong desires, and you see the nature of religion. But, O my friend, do you experience it In some measure I hope you do. Yet I am often afraid lest the good seed should be choked. Whom have you to stir you up to press you forward to strengthen your hands in God Do not most who speak to you think you religious enough God forbid you should think so yourself! O what is the fairest form of godliness either the Methodist form or the Quaker form I want you to experience all the power, all the life, all the spirit of religion; to be all dead to the world, all alive to God; a stranger, a sojourner on earth, but an inhabitant of heaven; living in eternity, walking in eternity. Possibly I may not see you any more till we meet in our own country, for my day is far spent. Take this, then, as a little token of the affection wherewith I am Your sincere friend and brother. To John Bennet [June 1750] You do entirely right in speaking your mind freely. To keep anything back is indeed to poison our own soul. It was chiefly this -- the being close, the not speaking your mind -- which had wellnigh overthrown you. If you had opened yourself at the beginning either to --- or any other things would not have gone so far. But it is the artifice of the devil to make us disaffected to those very persons who might be of the greatest use to our soul. It is a great blessing that you are thus far delivered. But you are not beyond the danger of a relapse nor will you be (I fear) till you are farther from home. It is not good (no, not for your body) to be so long in one place. I believe it would help you every way, for a while either to change with --- or come to London. Write freely. Peace be with you. Adieu. To Mrs. Gallatin DUBLIN, July 19, 1750. MADAM, -- I did not receive your favor of June 24 before last night. By what means it was delayed I know not. The reason why we refused for several years to license any of the places wherein we preached was this. [Wesley was reluctant to license his meeting-places; but the action of his opponents compelled such a course in many cases. See Journal vii. 339; Large Minutes 1770 Works, viii. 331.] We supposed it could not be done without styling ourselves Dissenters. But the Recorder of Chester showed us this was a mistake and procured a license for Thomas Sidebotham’s house in that county, although he (then as well as at all other times) professes himself a member of the Established Church. Since then we have licensed the house at Leeds and some others. The manner of doing it is this. At the Quarter Sessions a note with these or the like words is presented to the Justices: ‘A. B. desires his house in C. D. may be licensed for public worship.’ By order of the Bench this is registered, and sixpence paid to the clerk. I cannot doubt but a blessing has attended Mr. Whitefield’s ministry in Manchester. [Whitefield wrote from Manchester on June 8 to Lady Gertrude Hotham: ‘Thousands and thousands for some time past have flocked to hear the Word every day, and the power of God has attended it in a glorious manner.’] It is necessary for me to visit the Societies in the West of England, unless my brother can exchange with me. He proposed going into the North himself. If he visits Cornwall, I can go northward; and if I do, I shall certainly do myself the pleasure to wait upon Mr. Gallatin and you. I expected Mr. Hopper here on Tuesday night. [Christopher Hopper went with Wesley to Ireland on April 6, 1750. He arrived in Dublin soon after this letter was written, spent a few days there, and sailed with Wesley for England on June 22. He reached Bristol on the 25th, and went thence to Newcastle. See Wesley’s Veterans i. 135; and letter of Feb. 6.] If he had come, we might have embarked together for Bristol, and he would have gone by Manchester to Newcastle. I do not know but he may do so still. I trust you will never be ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but that He who has supported you hitherto will do it to the end. – I am, madam, Your most obedient servant. To Mrs. Gallatin, In Manchester. To Ebenezer Blackwell DUBLIN, July 21, 1750. DEAR SIR, -- I have had so hurrying a time for two or three months, as I scarce ever had before - such a mixture of storms and clear sunshine, of huge applause and huge opposition. Indeed, the Irish in general keep no bounds I think there is not such another nation in Europe so Impetuous in their love and in their hate. That any of the Methodist preachers are alive is a clear proof of an overruling Providence; for we know not where we are safe. A week or two ago in a time of perfect peace twenty people assaulted one of our preachers, and a few that were riding with him, near Limerick. He asked their captain what they intended to do, who calmly answered, ‘To murder you!’ and accordingly presented a pistol, which snapped twice or thrice Mr. Fenwick [Michael Fenwick, See letter of Sept. 12, 1755.] then rode away. The other pursued and fired after him, but could not overtake him. Three of his companions they left for dead. But some neighboring Justice of the Peace did not take it well; so they procured the cut-throats to be apprehended; and it is supposed they will be in danger of transportation, though murder is a venial sin in Ireland. -- I am, dear sir. To Mrs. Madan LONDON November 9, 1750. There h much difficulty in knowing how to act in such a situation as yours is. You are not at liberty to choose what is, absolutely speaking, the most excellent way, which is to cut off all superfluity of every kind -- to expend all our time and all our substance in such a manner as will most conduce to the glory of God and our own eternal happiness. Nor is it easy to say how far you may vary from this: Something must be allowed to the circumstances you are in. But who can say how much Only the Spirit of God, only the unction from above which teacheth us of all things. But perhaps this in general may be said -- all the time you can redeem from fashionable folly you should redeem. Consequentially it is right to throw away as little as possible of that precious talent on dressing, visits of form, useless diversions, and trifling conversation. Hebert well observes: If so thou spend thy time, the sun will cry Against thee; for his light was only lent. [The Temple, The Church Porch, XIV, where it reads ‘If those take up thy day.’] And I can’t but think if you earnestly cry to Him who with every temptation can make a way to escape, [Mrs. Madan here adds a note: ‘And this, I bless God without any alteration of worldly circumstances or my situation of life, was done.’] He will deliver you from abundance of that impertinence which has hithero swallowed up so many of your precious moments. To Dr. Lavington, Bishop of Exeter Ecce iterum Crispinus! [Juvenals Satires, iv. 1: ‘Again Crispinus comes!’] LONDON November 27, 1750. MY LORD, -- 1. I was grieved when I read the following words in the Third Part of the Enthusiasm of Methodist and Papists Compared [See letters of Feb. 1, 1750, and Dec. 1751, to him.]: ‘A sensible, honest woman told the Bishop of Exeter, in presence of several witness, that Mr. John Wesley came to her house and questioned her whether she had “an assurance of her salvation.” Her answer was that “she hoped she should be saved but had no absolute assurance of it.” “Why, then,” replied he, “you are in hell, you are damned already.” This so terrified the poor woman, who was then with child, that she was grievously aired of miscarrying, and could not in a long time recover her right mind. For this, and the Methodists asking her to live upon free cost, she determined to admit no more of them into her house. So much is her own account to his Lordship, on whose authority it is here published.’ 2. This renewed the concern I felt some time since when I was informed (in letters which I have still by me of your Lordship’s publishing this account, both at Plymouth in Devonshire and at Truro in Cornwall, before the clergy assembled from all parts of those counties, at the solemn season of your Lordship’s visiting your diocese. But I was not informed that your Lordship showed a deep concern for the honor of God, which you supposed to be so dreadfully violated, or a tender compassion for a presbyter whom you believed to be rushing into everlasting destruction. 3. In order to be more fully informed, on Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I called at Mr. Morgan’s at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the ‘honest, sensible woman.’ I immediately asked, ‘Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me’ (So the story ran in the First Part of the Comparison; it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) ‘Or did you or he ever affirm’ (another circumstance related at Truro) ‘that I was rude with your maid’ She replied vehemently, ‘Sir, I never said you was or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbors.’ She added: ‘When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word that he would dine at our house; but he did not, being invited to a neighboring gentleman’s He sent for me thither and said, “Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down Do you know Mr. Wesley Did not he tell you you would be damned if you took any money of him And did not he offer rudeness to your maid” I told him, “No, my Lord; he never said any such thing to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him; but a man told me once (who, I was told, was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”’ 4. This is her own account given to me. And an account it is irreconcilably different (notwithstanding some small resemblance in the last circumstance) from that she is affirmed to have given your Lordship. Whether she did give that account to your Lordship or no, your Lordship knows best. That the comparer affirms it is no proof at all, since he will affirm anything that suits his purpose. 5. Yet I was sorry to see your Lordship’s authority cited on such an occasion; inasmuch as many of his readers, not considering the man, may think your Lordship did really countenance such a writer; -- one that turns the most serious, the most awful, the most venerable things into mere farce; that makes the most essential parts of real, experimental religion matter of low buffoonery; that, beginning at the very rise of it in the soul, namely, ‘repentance towards God, a broken and a contrite heart,’ goes on to ‘faith in our Lord Jesus Christ’ whereby ‘he that believeth is born of God,’ to ‘the love of God shed abroad in the heart,’ attended with ‘peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,’ to our subsequent ‘wrestling not’ only ‘with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places,’ and thence to ‘perfect love’ the ‘loving the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength’; and treats on every one of these sacred topics with the spirit and air of a merry-andrew. What advantage the common enemies of Christianity may reap from this your Lordship cannot be insensible. 6. Your Lordship cannot but discern how the whole tenor of his hook tends to destroy the Holy Scriptures, to render them vile in the eyes of the people, to make them stink in the nostrils of infidels. For instance: after reading his labored ridicule of the sorrow and fear which usually attend the first repentance (called by St. Chrysostom as well as a thousand other writers ‘the pangs or throes of the new birth’), what can an infidel think of those and the like expressions in Scripture’ I have roared for the very disquietness of my heart; fearfulness and trembling are come upon me and an horrible dread hath overwhelmed me’ After his flood of satire on all kind of conflicts with Satan, what judgment can a Deist form of what St. Paul speaks concerning the various wrestlings of a Christian with the wicked one Above all, how will his bringing the lewd heathen poets to expose the pure and spiritual love of God naturally cause them to look with the same eyes on the most elevated passages of the inspired writings! What can be more diverting to them than to apply his p ’t ‘bitter-sweet of love,’ to many expressions in the Canticles (On which undoubtedly he supposes the fair Circassian to be a very just paraphrase!) ‘Aye,’ say they, ‘the very case: “Stay me with apples; for I am sick of love.”’ 7. Probably the comparer will reply: ‘No; I do not ridicule the things themselves --repentance, the new birth, the fight of faith, or the love of God; all which I know are essential to religion, -- but only the folly and the enthusiasm which are blended with these by the Methodists.’ But how poor a pretence is this! Had this ready been the case how carefully would he have drawn the line under each of these heads -- between the sober religion of a Christian and the enthusiasm of a Methodist! But has he done this Does he take particular care to show under each what is true as well as what is fake religion where the former ends and the latter begins what are the proper boundaries of each Your Lordship knows he does not so much as endeavor it or take any pains about it, but indiscriminately pours the flood out of his unclean mouth upon all repentance, faith, love and holiness. 8. Your Lordship will please to observe that I do not here touch in the least on the merits of the cause. Be the Methodists what they may, fools, madmen, enthusiasts, knaves, impostors, Papists, or anything yet your Lordship perceives this does not in any degree affect the point in question: still it behooves every Christian, nay, every reasonable heathen, to consider the subject he is upon, and to take care not to bring this into contempt (especially if it be of the last importance), however inexcusable or contemptible his opponents may be. 9. This consideration, my Lord, dwelt much upon my mind when I read the former parts of the Comparison. I immediately saw there was no encountering a buffoon by serious reason and argument. This would naturally have furnished both him and his admirers with fresh matter of ridicule. On the other hand, if I should let myself down to a level with him by a less serious manner of writing than I was accustomed to, I was afraid of debasing the dignity of the subject -- nay, and I knew not but I might catch something of his spirit. I remembered the advice, ‘Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him’ (Prov. xxvi. 4). And yet I saw there must be an exception in some cases, as the words immediately following show: ‘Answer a fool according to his foly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.’ I conceive as if he had said, ‘Yet it is needful in some cases to “answer a fool according to his folly,” otherwise he will be “wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.’” I therefore constrained myself to approach, as near as I dared, to his own manner of writing. And I trust the occasion will plead my excuse with your Lordship and all reasonable men. 10. One good effect of my thus meeting him on his own ground is visible already. Instead of endeavoring to defend he entirely gives up the First Part of his Comparison. Indeed, I did not expect this, when I observed that the Third Part was addressed to me. I took it for granted that he had therein aimed at something like a reply to my answer; but, going on, I found myself quite mistaken. He never once attempts a reply to one page, any otherwise than by screaming out, ‘Pettiness, scurrility, effrontery,’ and in subjoining that deep remark, ‘Paper and time would be wasted on such stuff’ (Third Part, Preface, p. 15). 11. I cannot but account it another good effect that he is something less confident than he was before. He is likewise not more angry or more bitter, for that cannot be, but a few degrees more serious. So that I plainly perceive this is the way I am to take if I should have leisure to answer the Third Part; although it is far from my desire to write in this manner: it is as contrary to my inclination as to my custom. 12. But is it possible that a person of your Lordship’s character should countenance such a performance as this It cannot be your Lordship’s desire to pour contempt on all that is truly venerable among men! to stab Christianity to the heart under the color of opposing enthusiasm, and to increase and give a sanction to the profaneness which already overspreads our land as a flood! 13. Were the Methodists ever so bad, yet are they not too despicable and inconsiderable for your Lordship’ notice ‘Against whom is the King of Israel come out against a flea against a partridge upon the mountains ‘Such they undoubtedly are, ff that representation of them be just which the comparer has given. Against whom (if your Lordship espouses his cause) are you stirring up the supreme power of the nation Against whom does your Lordship arm the ministers of all denominations, particularly our brethren of the Established Church inciting them to point us out to their several congregations as not fit to live upon the earth. The effects of this have already appeared in many parts both of Devonshire and Cornwall. Nor have I known any considerable riot in any part of England for which such preaching did net pave the way. 14. I beg leave to ask, Would it be a satisfaction to your Lordship if national persecution were to return Does your Lordship desire to revive the old laws de haeretico comburendo [‘Concerning the burning of heretics.’] Would your Lordship rejoice to see the Methodists themselves tied to so many stakes in Smithfield Or would you applaud the execution, though not so legally or decently performed by the mob of Exeter Plymouth Dock, or Launceston My Lord, what profit would there be in our blood Would it be an addition to your Lordship’s happiness, or any advantage to the Protestant cause, or any honor either to our Church or nation 15. The comparer, doubtless, would answer: ‘Yes; for it would prevent the horrid consequences of your preaching.’ My Lord, give me leave to say once more, I willingly put the whole cause upon this issue. What are the general consequences of our preaching Are there more tares or wheat more good men destroyed (as Mr. Church once supposed) or wicked men saved The last places in your Lordship’s diocese where we began constant preaching are near Liskeard in Cornwall and at Tiverton in Devonshire. Now, let any man inquire here (1) what kind of people were those a year ago who now constantly hear this preaching (2) what are the main doctrines the Methodists have been teaching this twelvemonth (3) what effect have these doctrines had upon their hearers And if you do not find (1) that the greater part of these were a year or two ago notoriously wicked men; (2) yet the main doctrines they have heard since were, ‘Love God and your neighbor, and carefully keep His commandments’; and (3) that they have since exercised themselves herein and continue so to do; -- I say, if any reasonable man, who will be at the pains to inquire, does not find this to be an unquestionable fact, I will openly acknowledge myself an enthusiast or whatever rise he shah please to style me. 16. I beg leave to conclude the address to your Lordship with a few more words transcribed from the same letter. ‘Allow Mr. Wesley,’ says Mr. Church, ‘but these few points, and he will defend his conduct beyond exception.’ [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. vi. 9.] That is most true. If I have indeed been advancing nothing but the true knowledge and love of God; if God has made me an instrument in reforming many sinners and brining them to inward and pure religion; and if many of these continue holy to this day and free from all willful sin, --t hen may I, even I, use those awful words, ‘He that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent me.’ But I never expect the world to allow me one of these points. However, I must go on as God shall enable me. I must lay out whatsoever talents He entrusts me with (whether others will believe I do it or no) in advancing the true Christian knowledge of God, and the love and fear of God among men; in reforming (if so be it please Him to use me still) those who are yet without God in the world; and in propagating inward and pure religion, ‘righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ Sincerely wishing your Lordship all happiness in time and in eternity, I remain Your Lordship’s most obedient servant. To George James Stonehouse COOKHAM, November 27 1750. DEAR SIR, -- Several times I have designed to speak to you at large concerning some things which have given me uneasiness. And more than once I have begun to speak, but your good humor quite disarmed me; so that I could not prevail upon myself to give you pain, even to remove a greater evil. But I cannot delay any longer, and therefore take this way (as less liable to disappointment) of laying before you with all freedom and unreserve the naked sentiments of my heart. You seem to admire the Moravians much. I love them, but cannot admire them (although I did once, perhaps more than you do now); and that for the following reasons :-- First. I do not admire the names they assume to themselves. They commonly style themselves ‘The Brethren’ or ‘The Moravian Church.’ Now, the former of these, ‘The Brethren,’ either implies that they are the only Christians in the world (as they were who were so styled in the days of the Apostles), or at least that they are the best Christians in the world, and therefore deserve to be emphatically so called. But is not even this a very high encomium upon themselves I should, therefore, more admire a more modest appellation. ‘But why should they not call themselves the Moravian Church’ Because they are not the Moravian Church; no more (at the utmost) than a part is the whole, than the Romish Church is the Church of Christ. A congregation assembled in St. Paul’s might with greater propriety style themselves the Church of England -- yea, with far greater: (1) because these are all Englishmen born; (2) because they have been baptized as members of the Church of England; and (3) because as far as they know, they adhere both to her doctrine and discipline. Whereas (1) Not a tenth part of Count Zinzendorf’s Brethren are so much as Moravian born; not two thousand out of twenty thousand (quaere, if two hundred adults if fifty men). (2) Not one-tenth of them were baptized as members of the Moravian Church (perhaps not one till they left Moravia), but as members of the Romish Church. (3) They do not adhere either to the doctrines or discipline of the Moravian Church. They have many doctrines which the Church never held and an entirely new scheme and discipline. (4) The true Moravian Church, of which this is a very small part, if it be any part at all, is still subsisting not in Endand or Germany, but in Polish Prussia.’ Therefore I cannot admire their assuming the name to themselves; I cannot reconcile it either with modesty or sincerity. If you say, ‘But the Parliament has allowed it,’ I answer, I am sorry for it. The putting so palpable a cheat upon so august an assembly, with regard to a notorios matter of fact, I conceive does not redound to their own any more than to the honor of our nation. If you add, ‘But you yourself once styled them thus,’ I grant I did; but I did it in ignorance. I took it on their word; and I now freely and openly testify my mistake. Secondly. I do not admire their doctrine in the particulars that follow: 1. That we are to do nothing in order to salvation, but barely to believe. 2. That there is but one duty now, but one command--to believe in Christ. 3. That Christ has taken away all other commands and duties, having wholly abolished the law. (The sermon Count Zinzendorf preached at Fetter Lane on John viii. 11 places this in a strong light. He roundly began: ‘Christ says, I came not to destroy the law. But He did destroy the law. The law condemned this woman to death; but He did not condemn her. And God Himself does not keep the law. The law forbids lying; but God said, Forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed; yet Nineveh was not destroyed.’) 4. That there is no such thing as degrees in faith or weak faith; since he has no faith who has any doubt or fear. (How to reconcile this with whith what I heard the Count assert at large, ‘that a man may have justifying faith and not know it,’ I cannot tell.) 5. That we are sanctified wholly the moment we are justified, and are neither more nor less holy to the day of our death. 6. That a believer has no holiness in himself at all; all his holiness being imputed, not inherent. 7. That a man may feel a peace that passeth all understanding may rejoice with joy fun of glory, and have the love of God and of all mankind, with dominion over all sin; and yet all this may be only nature, animal spirits, or the force of imagination. 8. That if a man regards prayer, or searching the Scriptures, or communicating as matter of duty; if he judges himself obliged to do these things, or is troubled when he neglects them, -- he is in bondage, he is under the law, he has no faith, but is still seeking salvation by works. 9. That, therefore, till we believe, we ought to be still - that is, not to pray, search the Scriptures, or communicate. 10. That their Church cannot err, and of consequence ought to be implicitly believed and obeyed. Thirdly. I approve many things in their practice; yet even this I cannot admire in the following instances: 1. I do not admire their conforming to the word by useless, trifling conversation; by suffering sin upon their brother, without reproving even that which is gross and open; by levity in the general tenor of their behavior, not walking as under the eye of the great God; and, lastly, by joining in the most trifling diversions in order to do good. 2. I do not admire their dose, dark, reserved behavior, particularly toward strangers. The spirit of secrecy is the spirit of their community, often leading even into guile and dissimulation. One may observe in them much cunning, much art, much evasion and disguise. They often appear to be what they are not, and not to be what they are. They so study to become all things to all men, as to take the color and shape of any that are near them directly contrary to that openness, frankness, and plainness of speech so manifest in the Apostles and primitive Christians. 3. I do not admire their confining their beneficence to the narrow bounds of their own Society. This seems the more liable to exception as they boast of possessing so immense riches. In his late book the Count particularly mentions how many hundred thousand florins a single member of their Church has lately expended and how many hundred thousand crowns of yearly rent the nobility and gentry only of his Society enjoy in one single country. Meantime do they, all put together, expend one hundred thousand, yea, one thousand or one hundred, in feeding the hungry or clothing the naked of any sorry but their own 4. I do not admire the manner wherein they treat their opponents. I cannot reconcile it either to love, humility or sincerity. Is utter contempt or settled disdain consistent with love or humility And can it consist with sincerity to deny any charge which they know in their conscience is true to say those quotations are unjust which are literally copied from their own books to affirm their doctrines am mis-represented when their own sense is given in their own words to cry, ‘Poor man! He is quite dark; he is utterly blind; he knows nothing of our doctrines!’ though they cannot point out one mistake this blind man has made or confute one assertion he has advanced Fourthly. I least of all admire the effects their doctrine has had on some who have lately begun to hear them. For – 1. It has utterly destroyed their faith, their inward ‘evidence of things not seen,’ the deep conviction they once had that the Lamb of God had taken away their sins. Those who before had the witness in themselves of redemption in the blood of Christ, who had the Spirit of God clearly witnessing with their spirit that they were the children of God, after hearing these but a few times, began to doubt; then reasoned themselves into utter darkness; and in a while affirmed, first, that they had no faith now (which was true), and soon after, that they never had any. And this was not the accidental but natural effect of that doctrine that there are no degrees in faith, and that none has any faith who is liable at any time to any degree of doubt or fear; as well as of that dark, unintelligible, unscriptural manner wherein they affect to speak of it. I expect you will answer: ‘Nay, they are the most plain, simple preachers of any in the whole world. Simplicity is their peculiar excellence.’ I grant one sort of simplicity is; a single specimen whereof may suffice. One of their eminent preachers, describing at Fetter Lane ‘the childhood of the Lamb,’ observed that ‘His mother might send Him out one morning for a halfpenny-worth of milk; that, making haste back, He might fall and break the porringer; and that He might work a miracle to make it whole again, and gather up the milk into it.’ Now, can you really admire this kind of Simplicity or think it does honor to ‘God manifest in the flesh’ 2. Their preaching has destroyed the love of God in many souls; which was the natural effect of destroying their faith, as well as of teaching them to grieve the Holy Spirit of God by ascribing His gift to imagination and animal spirits; and of perplexing them with senseless, unscriptural cautions against the selfish love of God; in which it is not easy to say whether nonsense or blasphemy is the chief ingredient. 3. This preaching has greatly impaired, if not destroyed, the love of their neighbor in many souls. They no longer burn with love to all mankind, with desire to do good to all. They are straitened in their own bowels, their love is confined to narrower and narrower bounds, till at length they have no desire or thought of doing good to any but those of their own community. If a man was before a zealous member of our Church, groaning for the prosperity of our Zion, it is past; all that zeal is at an end: he regards the Church of England no more than the Church of Rome; his tears no longer fall, his prayers no longer ascend, that God may shine upon her desolations. The friends that were once as his own soul are now more to him than other men. All the bands of that formerly endeared affection are as threads of tow that have touched the fire. Even the ties of filial tenderness are dissolved. The child regards not his own parent; he no longer regards he womb that bare or the paps that gave him suck. Recent instances of this also are not wanting. I will particularize if required. Yea, the son leave his aged father, daughter her mother, in want of the necessities of life. I know the persons; I have myself relieved them more than once: for that was ‘corban’ whereby they should have been profited. 4. These humble preachers utterly destroy the humility of their hearers, who are quickly wiser than all their former teachers; not because they ‘keep Thy commandments’ (as the poor man under the law said), but because they allow no commandments at all. In a few days they are ‘wiser in their own eyes than seven men that can render a reason.’ ‘Render a reason! Aye, there it is. Your carnal reason destroys you. You are for reason: I am for faith.’ I am for both. For faith to perfect my reason, that, by the Spirit of God not putting out the eyes of my understanding, but enlightening them more and more, I may ‘be ready to give’ a clear scriptural ‘answer to every man that asketh’ me ‘a reason of the hope that is in’ me. 5. This preaching destroys true, genuine simplicity. Let a plain, open-hearted man, who hates controversy and loves the religion of the heart, go but a few times to Fetter Lane, and he begins to dispute with every man he meets; he draws the sword and throws away the scabbard; and if he happens to be hard-pressed by Scripture or reason, he has as many turns and fetches as a Jesuit; so that it is out of the power of a common man even to understand, much more to confute him. 6. Lastly, I have known a short attendance on this preaching destroy both gratitude, justice, mercy, and truth. Take one only, but a terrible proof of this. One whom you know was remarkably exact in keeping his word. He is now (after hearing them but a few months) as remarkable for breaking it; being infinitely more afraid of a legal than of a lying spirit! more jealous of the works of the law than of the works of the devil! He was cutting off every possible expense in order to do justice to all men: he is now expending large sums in mere superfluities. He was merciful after his power if not beyond his power -- Listening attentive to the wretch’s cry, The groan low-murmured and the whispered sigh. [From the Poems of Samuel Wesley jun., ‘To the Memory of Dr. Gastrell Bishop of Chester.’ The original reads thus: Listening attentive to the wretch’s cry, The griefs low-whispered, and the stifled sigh. See W.H. S. v. 115.] But the bowels of his compassion are now shut up; he has been in works too long already; so now, to prove his faith, he lets the poor brother starve, for whom Christ died! If he loved any one under the sun more than his own soul, it was the instrument by whom God had raised him from the dead; he assured him to the utmost of his power; he would defend him even before princes. But he is now unconcerned whether he sinks or swims; he troubles not himself about it. Indeed, he gives him -- good words; that is, before his face: but behind his back he can himself rail at him by the hour, and vehemently maintain, not that he is mistaken in a few smaller point, but that he ‘preaches another God, not Jesus Christ.’ Art thou the man If you are not go and hear the Germans again next Sunday. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Bennet had written unadvisedly to John Haughton one of the preachers in Ireland (see letters of February 6 and 9). He replied to Wesley on March 5 that he had sent for a copy of it. In September 1785, when Grace Bennet wrote to the Rev. Charles Manning, Vicar of Hayes, Middlesex, she says of Wesley ‘I love and honor him as a father, and shall do while I have a being’ She was left a widow in 1759, with five sons the youngest of them not yet seven. Wesley saw Mrs. Bennet only once after the week of March-April 1752, when she visited one of her sons in London in 1788. See Telford’s Wesley, p. 250; and letter of March 12, 1751. [2] George Lavington (1684-1762) was made Bishop of Exeter in 1747. Miss Wedgwood says: ‘Bishop Lavington, the anonymous author’ (of The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared), ‘deserves to be coupled with the men who flung dead cats and rotten eggs at the Methodists, not with those who assailed their tenets with arguments, or even serious rebuke’ (John Wesley, p. 313). It is pleasant to add that in August 1752, a fortnight before the Bishop’s death, Wesley was at Exeter Cathedral, and writes: ‘I was well pleased to partake of the Lord’s supper with my old opponent Bishop Lavington. Oh may we sit down together in the kingdom of our Father!’ (Journal, iv. 527). See letter of November 27, 1750, to him. [3] Christopher Hopper had given up his portion as schoolmaster because Methodist work in the Dales made such demand on his time. At the end of 1749 he left home for Bristol, preaching at Manchester and other places on his way. John Bennet upbraids Wesley on March 6 for having enclosed the following letter in one to Adam Oldham of Manchester, who had read it and handed it about. Bennet adds, ‘I cannot but think you had a design to blacken my character amongst the people.’ He had been asked in Manchester, ‘What is there between Mr. Wesley and you Surely something is amiss! ‘Bennet went into Cheshire, hoping to see Hopper, but found that, to meet other calls, he and John Brown had ‘gone away in haste, and the people were neglected.’ Oldham left the Society for a time; but Charles Wesley readmitted him and his wife on October 31, 1756. [4] William Darney, a Scots peddler and shoemaker, began to preach about Bradford in 1745. He was a Calvinist, of blunt manners, but with great energy and perseverance. He formed Religious Societies in Yorkshire and Lancashire and found a friend and patron in William Grimshaw, Curate of Haworth, who gave out hymns and prayed at his services, and was called ‘Mad Grimshaw, Scotch Will’s clerk.’ He published some verse, exceedingly rude and unpolished. At Darney’s earnest request Wesley began examining his Societies on May 4, 1747. After talking with him, Charles Wesley refused to admit Darney to the Coherence of preachers in Leeds on September 11, 1751; and he was told that unless he abstained from railing begging and printing nonsense he would not be allowed to preach in any of the Methodist Societies and meeting-houses. Bennet replied to Wesley’s letter on March 6: ‘The Yorkshire Societies want regulating and putting into order. I began to inspect the classes when I was there, but soon found the task too great, unless I could have stayed a month or more.’ He reports that his circuit enlarges daily, and that he has to fide nearly two hundred miles a fortnight. He suggests that a preaching-house should be built at Manchester, where ‘I doubt not but Brother Hopper has been an instrument of great good to some.’ See Journal, iii. 293-4n; Jackson’s Charles Wesley, i. 583; and letter of January 9, 1749. [5] In the Arminian Magazine for 1779 a letter appears from ‘Mr. J. Brewster, a friendly Nonjuror.’ It is dated ’Stoke-Green near Windsor Feb. 15, 1750’ He says: ‘Until I happily met with your Appeal, no one in the kingdom entertained stronger prejudices against you than myself’ The Earnest Appeal leads him to ask that volumes i.-iv. of the Sermons and i. and ii. of the Divine Poems should be sent to ‘our exemplary sister Margaret Groom,’ who would pay for them and deliver them to him. Mr. Brewster was not a member of the Church of England, but had thought that Wesley’s principles and practices tended to sap the constitution ‘of your mother the Church of England.’ In printing the letter Wesley adds a note: ‘And could Mr. Brewster think that I had no better work than to write against the Oath of Abjuration Truly it had never once came into my mind!’ He did not publish this reply which was found amongst the papers of Bishop Eden. See Methodist Recorder Winter Number 1899 p. 53. [6] Thee were the early days of what was to become a great Methodist center. George Story speaks of a revival at Sheffield in 1749 but found the Methodists there few and feeble John Maddrtn a Cornishman traveled from 1742 to 1756 and was English master at Kingswood till 1760. He was present at the Conference of 1747. Wesley sheltered in ‘Mrs. Madderns house’ during the Falmouth riot of July 4, 1745. See Journal, iii. 190; Everett’s Methodism in Sheffield, p. 77; Wesley’ s Veterans ii. 233; and letter of July 28, 1762. [7] Joseph Cownley had labored in Ireland in 1748-49, and was now in Newcastle. Roger Ball the Antinomian teacher, had insinuated himself into the Dublin Society and had done much mischief Wesley marveled that only three persons were turned out of the way. See Journal, iii. 453; C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 129, 131-7; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland i. 62; and letter of January 10, 1756. [8] Gilbert Boyce was Baptist minister at Coningsby, on the edge of the Fens. Wesley was his guest on July 5, 1748 and had a close discussion on Baptism with him for an hour and a half (Journal ii. 360). A correspondence followed, and this is Wesley’s reply to certain positions maintained by his friend. In 1770 Boyce published ‘an abstract of what I sent to him many years ago in manuscript’: A Serious Reply to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley in particular and to the People called Methodists in general; in much love and Christian friendship recommended to his and their very Serous Consideration: by Gilbert Boyce (Boston: C. Preston). It consists of 198 pages and is an answer to the letters, ‘to something you said to me when you was at my house’ and to particular passages in Wesley’s Notes upon the New Testament. Boyce had said, ‘I do not know whether I ever heard any people more positive and dogmatical in my life than some of Wesley’s followers’; and he contrasts Wesley’s ways of speaking with those of certain preachers ‘who have not, it is evident, yet rightly learned that important lesson humility.’ As to his views on Baptism, he says: ‘You are entirely mistaken; I think no such thing. It is not so much the mode of baptism as baptism itself I insist upon…. You call that baptism which is no baptism, nor hath any resemblance or likeness to it’ (See page 28 of his book) He really denies the validity of infant baptism. Wesley’s third volume of Sermons (1750) contains the one on the Catholic Spirit. It is not ‘an indifference to all opinions,’ but love to ‘all, of whatever opinion or worship or congregation, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; who love God and man; who, rejoicing to please and fearing to offend God, are careful to abstain from evil and zealous of good works’ (Works, v. 502-4). [9] Nicholas Butler, a ballad-singer, had gone through the streets of Cork on May 3, 1749, dressed in a parson’s gown and bands, with ballads in one hand and a Bible in the other, calling on the people to exterminate the Methodist heretics; and many outrages followed. On May 20, 1750 when Wesley was preaching, the Mayor came with the city drummed and an immense rabble. The drumming went on all the time Wesley preached and as he left he was hemmed in by the crowd. He escaped; but the mob wrecked the preaching-room for the third time and next day burnt Wesley in effigy. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland i. 64; and letters of June 17, 1749, and June 8 1750. [10] Edward and Charles were the sons of the Rein Vincent Perronet. They were men of education and zeal, and were a valuable addition to the band of Wesleyan preachers. In 1755 they took an active part in the agitation for the administration of the Sacrament by Methodist preachers. Edward Perronet settled in Canterbury, where he became minister of an Independent Church. See Tyrman’s Wesley, ii. 254; and letter of June 20, 1755. Whitehead in his Life of Wesley, ii. 259-60, gives these extracts from the letters lent to him by Mr. Shrubsole, into whose hands they came after Edward Perronet’s death in 1792. [11] This letter to the Rector of Kilcully, Cork, is dated June 8; but it was transcribed on the 16th, when Wesley rested after what he thought the longest day’s journey he ever rode -- about ninety miles. Mr. Baily’s slanders in letters signed ‘George Fisher’ and ‘Philalethes’ were of the coarsest. They were published in Cork in 1750. The depositions concerning the Butler riots throw a lurid light on that time of outrage. Dr. Josiah Tucker (1712-99), Vicar of All Saints’, Bristol, was domestic chaplain to Bishop Butler, and was made Dean of Gloucester in 1758. Wesley was much comforted by his sermon at All Saints’ on Good Friday 1740, and by his ‘affectionate seriousness’ in the Communion Service (Journal, ii. 341). The Principles of a Methodist, Wesley’s first appearance ‘in controversy properly so called,’ was an answer to Tucker’s Brief History of the Principles of Methodism, 1742 (Works, viii. 359-74; Green’s Bibliography, No. 35, and Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 150). -- Joseph Cownley preached in Cork at the end of November 1748 at the peril of his life, and traveled in Ireland until the autumn of 1749. He returned six months later. -- Dr. Jemmett Brown, Bishop of Cork and Ross, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam, received Charles Wesley very graciously on August 26, 1748, and invited him to dinner; but he was afterwards unfriendly to the Methodists. -- Dr. Tisdale may have been the son of Dr. W. Tisdale, Vicar of Belfast, who died in 1735. [12] Thomas Walsh was living at Newmarket, eight miles from Limerick where he joined the Methodist Society on September 29, 1749. Wesley visited the village on June 4, 1750 when Walsh asked his advice as to preaching, which ‘he sweetly and humbly gave me: adding, withal, that I might write to him afterwards. I did so giving him a brief account of my conversion to God, and of what I experienced in my soul concerning preaching. His answer was as follows.’ Walsh went in July to Shronell with one of his brothers and a friend, and became one of Wesley’s most gifted and saintly preachers. See Wesley’s Veterans v. 34-5; and letter of April 5, 1758, n. [13] Mr. Strangeman was a Quaker living at Mountmellick. Wesley talked with him for two hours on June 27, 1749. He afterwards married Ann Toft, of Leek Staffs; and Wesley dined with him there in 1774. See, Journal iii, 407, vi. 33; Wesleyan Methodist Magazene, 1874, p. 767; W.H.S. v. 224. [14] Whittefield had been in Newcastle in September 1749 where his visit had borne much fruit. Bennet wrote to him to complain of Wesley’s discipline and doctrine. Whitefield sent a wise reply on June 29 1750. ‘Home’ seems to refer to the Chester and Lancashire Round where he was very useful. Bennet spoke bitterly of Wesley at Bolton and accused him of preaching nothing but Popery. See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 42; and letter of November 3, 1749. [15] This letter was the beginning of a happy friendship. Colonel Gallatin was then stationed in Manchester. In 1751 he was at Musselburgh. At his invitation Wesley visited Scotland with Christopher Hopper, and preached at Musselburgh. Mrs. Gallatin was at West Street on November 25, 1753, and thought Wesley ‘would have expired at the altar.’ Charles Wesley stayed with Captain Gallatin at Lakenham, near Norwich, in July 1754. On December 18, 1778, Wesley visited the Colonel in London: ‘The fine gentleman, the soldier, is clean gone sunk into a feeble, decrepit old man; not able to rise off his seat, and hardly able to speak.’ Charles Wesley’s hymn on his death calls him ‘Our bosom friend,’ ‘gentle, generous and sincere.’ See Journal, iii. 523; C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 96. [16] Wesley had been in Ireland since April 6. On June 21 he wrote in his Journal (iii. 479), ‘Oh who should drag me into a great city, if I did not know there is another world! How gladly could I spend the remainder of a busy life in solitude and retirement!’ [17] Mrs. Madan (Judah Cowper) was the wife of Colonel Madan and mother of the Rev. Martin Madan and Mrs. Mitland (see letter of May 12, 1763). She says in her notes for her daughter: ‘Being in the year 1750 under many inexpressible difficulties from a conviction (which I bless God had been some years gaining ground in my heart) of the infinite importance of religion, I entreated a few lines from that person who had by God’s grace been the instrument of much good to my soul to instruct and direct me. The world and every discouragement threatened me. The everlasting consequence of a better and God’s gracious invitation to sinners in His sacred Word encouraged and called me. This, my dear Maria, may perhaps give you some idea of the state of my mind, when my honored friend the truly Revd. Mr. John Wesley sent me as follows in answer to my request.’ See W.H.S. v. 141-6, where there is also an account of Wesley’s visit to them at Hertingfordbury Park in 1752. [18] This is probably George James Stonehouse, who had been Vicar of Islington, but sold the living to join the Moravians to whose Stillness he had become a convert. Wesley visited him on August 23, 1781. ‘Perhaps, if I had his immense fortune, I might be as great an oddity as he.’ See Journal, iii. 3, v. 442, 522, vi. 331. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: 37. 1751 ======================================================================== 1751 SIX CRITICAL YEARS FEBRUARY 4, 1751, TO DECEMBER 22, 1756 To Ebenezer Blackwell LONDON February 4, 1751. DEAR SIR, -- The money you left in my hands was disposed of as follows: s. d. To the Lending Stock . . . . 2 2 0 To Eliz. Brooks, expecting daily to have her goods seized for rent. . . 1 1 0 To Eliz. Room a poor widow) for rent. . 0 5 0 Toward clothing Mary Middleton and another poor woman, almost naked . 0 10 0 To John Edger, a poor weaver, out of work . 0 5 0 To Lucy Jones, a poor orphan . . . 0 2 0 To a poor family, for food and fuel . . 0 5 0 To Christopher Brown, out of business . 0 2 6 To an ancient woman in great distress . 0 2 6 Distributed among several sick families . 0 10 0 5 5 0 I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL March 5, 1751. DEAR SIR, -- After an extremely troublesome day I reached Chippenham last night, twenty miles short of Bristol, and came hither between ten and eleven this morning at least as well as when I left London. The note delivered to me on Sunday night, which ran in these words, ‘I am not determined when I shall leave London,’ convinces me that I must not expect to see the writer of it at our approaching Conference. This is indeed deserting me at my utmost need, just when the Philistines are upon me. But I am content; for I am well assured the Lord is not departed from me. Is it not best to let all these things sleep to let him do just what he will do; and to say nothing myself good or bad, concerning it, till his mind is more cool and able to bear it I persuade myself neither Mrs. Blackwell, nor Mr. Lloyd [Samuel Lloyd, whose name Wesley sometimes spells ‘Loyd.’] or you will be wanting in your good offices. And will you not likewise advise and comfort her who is now likely to stand in need of every help You see how bold a beggar I am. I can’t be satisfied yet, without asking you to do more for dear sir, Your most affectionate servant. To Mr. Blackwell, In Change Alley. To John Bennet BRISTOL March 12, 1751. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Our building obliges me to return to London. So that my journey into the North must be deferred a little longer. I expect to leave London on the 27th instant; to be at Wednesbury the 31st, and at Alpraham on Thursday, April 4; whence I think (at present) to go on to Munchester. The Saturday following I am to be at Whitehaven. The Wednesday and Thursday in Easter week I can spend wherever you think proper. I propose taking Leeds in my return from Newcastle. We should all have been glad to see you here. I hope you both enjoy health both of body and mind. -- I am Your affectionate brother. PS. -- Perhaps you could spare time to visit Newcastle this spring. I should be glad to see Mr. Bodily. [This seems to be John Baddeley, Rector of Hayfield. See note to letter of Oct. 31, 1755.] To his Wife TETSWORTH, 42 miles from London. March 27, 1751. MY DEAR MOLLY, -- Do I write too soon Have not you above all the people in the world a right to hear from me as soon as possibly I can You have surely a fight to every proof of love I can give and to all the little help which is in my power. For you have given me even your own self. O how can we praise God enough for making us helps meet for each other! I am utterly astonished at His goodness. Let not only our lips but our lives show forth His praise! Will you be so kind as to send word to T. Butts [Thomas Butts had been the Wesleys’ traveling companion. On April 19, 1744, Charles Wesley sent him to Wednesbury with 60, which he had collected for the sufferers in the riots. He traveled with John Wesley in Sept. 1746. On Feb. 8, 1753, proposals were made for devolving all temporal affairs on the Stewards, and a circular was sent out in which Thomas Butts and William Briggs announced that they had been invested with the care of printing and publishing. A letter from Butts to Wesley (Arminian Mag. 1779, p. 258) dated Oct. 31, 1750, on ‘The duty of all to pay their debts,’ shows that he was ‘honest as honesty itself.’ Mrs. Hannah Butts, on whom Charles Wesley wrote some memorial verses, may have been his wife. He seems to have retired about 1759.] that Mr. Williams [Anthony Williams was a Bristol Methodist, at whose house Wesley was a frequent guest in 1739. He may have lent Wesley this money to pay Richard Thyer. See Journal Diary, ii. 175, 181.] of Bristol will draw upon him in a few days for twenty pounds (which I paid Rd. Thyer in full), and that he may call upon you for the money If you still have a desire to make your will, Brother Briggs [William Briggs, of the Customs House had been for some time a Methodist preacher. He was a leader at the Foundry in 1745. See heading to letter of Feb. 25, 1769.] can write it for you. It requires no form of law -- no, nor even stamp paper. But if you apprehend any difficulty, Mr. I’Anson [Wesley’s legal friend and advisor. See W.H.S. v. 230-7.] will rejoice to advise you, either for my sake or your own. My dear, forward the business with Mr. Blisson [Mr. Wesleys trustee. See the next three letters.] and the stating the accounts by Mr. Crook [Mr. Crook was evidently making some account of Mrs. Wesley’s affairs. See next letter.] as much as possible. But O let no business of any kind hinder the intercourse between God and your soul! Neither let anything prevent your spending at least one hour a day in private reading, prayer, and meditation. To hear you do this constantly will give a particular satisfaction to him who blesses God that he is Ever Yours. If any letter comes to you directed to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, [See address at end of next letter.] open it: it is for yourself. Dear Love, adieu! To Mrs. Wesley, In Threadneedle Street, London. To his Wife EVERSHAM, March 30, 1751. MY DEAR LOVE, -- Methinks it is a long, long time since I wrote to you. So it seems, because while I am writing I see you before me: I can imagine that I am sitting just by you, And see and hear you all the while Softly speak and sweetly smile. Oh what a mystery is this! That I am enabled to give you up to God without one murmuring or uneasy thought! Oh who h so great a God as our God Who is so wise, so merciful My dear Molly, who can have such reason to praise Him as we have And I chiefly, to whom He has given an help so meet for me, as well as power to enjoy you to His glory, and to let you go whenever He calls. Mrs. Seward, [Probably the widow of William Seward, Whitefield’s friend and helper in Georgia (see letter of May 8, 1739). Mr. Keech had been buried on March 20, and ‘his widow and daughter were sorrowing; but not as without hope, neither did they refrain from the preaching one day. So let my surviving friends sorrow for me’ (Journal, iii. 518).] Mrs. Keech, and many more here desire to be tenderly remembered to you. The first day you was here one of them said, ‘There is a wife for Mr. John Wesley,’ and earnestly affirmed ‘it would be so.’ And when the newspaper came, they all agreed ‘you was the person.’ Now, my deal is the time for you to overcome evil with good. Conquer Sally Clay and Sister Aspernell [Two devoted London Methodists. See Journal, vi. 9-10, 390; and letter of Nov. 9, 1755, to Mr. Gillespie.] altogether, with as many more as come in your way. Oh if God would give us Mr. Blisson too! Spare no pains. Let not the interview Mr. Lloyd spoke of [See next letter.] be forgotten or delayed. I hope Mr. Crook [See previous letter.] is entered upon his business, and that you find him capable of it. He had grace too once! Whatever you do, do not lose your hour of retirement. And then in particular let my dearest friend remember me! I hope my dear Jenny [Jenny Vazeille, his step-daughter.] gains ground. To the Revd. Mr. John Wesley, [This line was not in Wesley’s hand-writing. See postscript to previous letter.] In Threadneedle Street, London. Franked by [Sir] J. Rushout, [M.P. for Evesham]. To Ebenezer Blackwell MANCHESTER, April 7, 1751. DEAR SIR, -- You must blame yourself, ff your never denying me anything makes me ask more and more. But I am not assured whether it is proper for you to comply with what I am going to mention now. If it is, I know you will do it, although it will not be a pleasing task. Mr. Lloyd thinks it absolutely needful that a friend or two of my wife should meet Mr. Blisson and a friend or two of his, in order to persuade him (if it can be done) to come to an account as to what remains in his hand. If Mr. Lloyd and you would take this trouble on yourselves, I do not doubt but the affair would end well. We have hitherto had a very rough but a very prosperous journey. I only want more time; there being so many cams to various parts that I cannot possibly answer them all between this and Whitsuntide. O what reason have we to put forth all our strength! For what a Master do we serve! I trust we shah never be weary of His service. And why should we ever be ashamed of it I am persuaded Mrs. Blackwell and you do not forget me nor her that is as my own soul. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Ebenezer Blackwell LEEDS, May 14. 1751. DEAR SIR, -- I am inclined to think Mr. Lloyd has hit upon the expedient which, if anything can, will induce Mr. Blisson to come to an amicable conclusion. I have wrote such a state of the case as he advised, and hope God will give a blessing to it. I am much obliged both to Mrs. Blackwell and you on my own and on my wife’s account. She has many trials; but not one more than God knows, and knows to be profitable for hen I believe you have been and will be a means of removing some. If these outward encumbrances were removed, it might be a means of her spending more time with me; which would probably be useful as well as agreeable to her. As the providence of God has called you to be continually engaged in outward things, I trust you will find Him continually present with you, that you may look through all, and Serve with careful Martha’s hands And loving Mary’s heart. I am glad Mrs. Dewal has not forgotten me. I hope you all remember at the throne of grace, dear sir, Your most affectionate servant. To his Wife [Leeds, May 15 1751] MY DEAR MOLLY, -- Love is talkative. Theref[ore I can’t wait] any longer. For it is two w[eeks since] the former part of my last [letter] for you but [one]. And I found [such] nearness to you, that I could [not wait]. I hope, my Dear Love, that [you go] in the morning, and that you will dispatch all the [business] that nothing may hinder. [But] if God sees it will be [not so, may we] both say, Not as I will. . . . I suppose you kn[ow] . . . Dearest Love, adieu. Pray enclose Brother Armitage’s [letter]. Frank, and send it immediate[ly]. To the Rector and Fellows of Lincoln College Ego Johannes Wesley, Collegii Lincolniensis in Academia Oxoniensi Sodus, quicquid mihi juris est in praedicta Societate, ejusdem Rectori et Sociis sponte ac libere resigno: Ills universis et singulis perpetuam pacem ac omnimodam in Christo felicitatem exoptans. JOHANNES WESLEY. [‘LONDON, June 1, 1751. ‘I, John Wesley, Fellow of Lincoln College Oxford, do hereby spontaneously and freely resign whatever fights I possess in the aforesaid Society to the Rector and Fellows of the same; wishing to all and each of them perpetual peace and every species of felicity in Christ. ‘JOHN WESLEY,’] Londini: Kalendis Junei: Anno Salutis Milleslmo, Septingentesimo, Quinquagesimo Primo. To James Wheatley BRISTOL, June 25 1751. Because you have wrought folly in Israel, grieved the Holy Spirit of God, betrayed your own soul into temptation and sin, and the souls of many others, whom you ought, even at the peril of your own life, to have guarded against all sin; because you have given occasion to the enemies of God, whenever they shall know these things, to blaspheme the ways and truth of God: We can in no wise receive you as a fellow laborer till we see clear proofs of your real and deep repentance. Of this you have given us no proof yet. You have not so much as named one single person in all England or Ireland with whom you have behaved ill, except those we knew before. The last and lowest proof of such repentance which we can receive is that: that, till our next Conference (which we hope will be in October), you abstain both from preaching and from practicing physic. If you do not, we are clear; we cannot answer for the consequences. JOHN WESLEY. CHARLES WESLEY. [Wheatley’s immorality ‘put my brother and me,’ says Charles Wesley, ‘upon a resolution of strictly examining into the life and moral behavior of every preacher in connection with us; and the office fell upon me.’ He set out for this purpose on June 29. His brother wrote frequently to him during these anxious weeks. Dr. Whitehead has preserved some fragments of Wesley’s letters which show how jealously the brothers watched over their band of helpers. See Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 266--70. July 17. -- I fear for C.S. [Charles Skelton. He left Wesley in April 1754, intending to settle at Bury, but became an Independent minister in Southwark. See Journal, iii. 403, 470; iv. 93, 295.] and J.C. [Joseph Cownley, one of Wesley’s best preachers. He died on Oct. 8, 1792. See Wesley’s Veterans iv. 122-69; and letter of Sept. 20, 1746.] more and more. I have heard they frequently and bitterly rail against the Church. [On this Charles puts the following query:] What assurance can we have that they will not forsake it, at least when we are dead Ought we to admit any man for a preacher till we can trust his invariable attachment to the Church July 20. -- The Societies both must and shall maintain the preachers we send among them, or I will preach among them no more. The least that I can say to any of these preachers is, ‘Give yourself wholly to the work, and you shall have food to eat and raiment to put on.’ And I cannot see that any preacher is called to any people who will not thus maintain him. Almost everything depends on you and me: let nothing damp or hinder us: only let us be alive, and put forth all our strength. July 24. -- As to the preachers, my counsel is, not to check the young ones without strong necessity. If we lay some aside, we must have a supply; and of the two I prefer grace before gifts. [Charles Wesley asks:] Are not both indispensably necessary Has not the cause suffered, in Ireland especially, through the insufficiency of the preachers Should we not first regulate, reform, and bring into discipline the preachers we have before we look for more Should we not also watch and labor, to prevent the mischief which the discarded preachers may occasion July 27. -- What is it that has eaten out the heart of half our preachers, particularly those in Ireland Absolutely idleness; their not bring constantly employed. I see it plainer and plainer. Therefore I beg you will inquire of each, ‘How do you spend your time from morning to evening’ And give him his choice, ‘Either follow your trade, or resolve before God to spend the same hours in reading, &c., [Wesley did his utmost to rouse and help his preachers to cultivate their minds. In Lent 1749 he met seventeen of them at Kingswood, and read lectures to them as he used to do to his pupils at Oxford.] which you used to spend in working.’ [London], August 3. -- I heartily concur with you in dealing with all, not only with disorderly walkers, but also triflers, aa, ppa, the effeminate and busybodies, as with M. F. [See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 90-1. He heard Michael Fenwick preach at Leeds () on Aug. 5. ‘It was beyond description.... I talked closely with him, utterly averse to working, and told him plainly he should either labor with his hands or preach no more. He hardly complied, though he confessed it was his ruin, his having been taken off his business. I answered I would repair the supposed injury, by setting him up again in his shop.’ See letter of Sept. 12, 1755. See also ibid. p. 94: ‘I heard J. J., the drummer, again, and liked him worse than at first’] I spoke to one this morning, so that I was even amazed at myself. [London], August 8. -- We must have forty itinerant preachers, or drop some of our Societies. You cannot so well judge of this without seeing the letters I receive from all parts. [London], August 15. -- If our preachers do not, nor will not, spend all their time in study and saving souls, they must be employed dose in other work or perish. [London], August 17. -- C. S. pleads for a kind of aristocracy, and says you and I should do nothing without the consent of all the preachers; otherwise we govern arbitrarily, to which they cannot submit. Whence is this [Cullompton], August 24. -- Oh that you and I may arise and stand upright! [See next letter for Charles Wesley’s verdict.] I quite agree with you: let us have but six, so we are all one. I have sent one more home to his work. We may trust God to send forth more laborers; only be not unwilling to receive them, when there is reasonable proof that He has sent them. [Wesley says on Aug. 21 that in Wiltshire and Devonshire he ‘found more and more proof that the poor wretch [Wheatley] whom we had lately disowned was continually laboring to poison our other preachers’ See Journal, iii. 535.] To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL, July 3, 1751. DEAR SIR, -- Before I left London I wrote to Mr. Butterfield, [See letter of April 16, 1752.] informing him of two families which are in great distress. As I have heard nothing since, I suppose the letter miscarried; unless my ominous name prevented its meeting with success. However, I have done my part, and it is only a little labor lost. Nay, in one sense it is not lost; for if we only desire to help one another, the willing mind cannot lose its reward. My brother left us on Saturday. He designed to be at Worcester to-day, and then to proceed slowly towards Scotland. His mind seemed to be altogether changed before he went. He was quite free and open to us, and pressed us much to make use of his house in his absence, just as if it were our own. There is a fair prospect on every side. The people of Bristol in general are much alive to God and they are so united together that the men of false tongues can make no impression upon them. Do you know what is the mater with John Jones [See letter of April 16 1748.] I suppose he will speak freely to you. He seems to be much troubled at something, and I doubt, offended. I know, ff you can remove that trouble, it will be a pleasure to you to do it. We join in good wishes both to Mrs. Blackwell and you. --I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To Richard Bailey, Vicar of Wrangle LONDON August 15, 1751. REVEREND SIR, -- 1. I take the liberty to inform you that a poor man, late of your parish, was with me some time since, as were two others a few days ago, who live in or near Wrangle. If what they affirmed was true, you was very nearly concerned in some late transactions there. The short was this: that a riotous mob at several times, particularly on the 7th of July and the 4th of the month, violently assaulted a ‘company of quiet people, struck many of them, beat down other, and dragged some away, whom, after abusing them in various ways, they threw into drains or other deep waters, to the endangering of their lives; that, not content with this, they broke open an house, dragged a poor man out of bed, and drove him out of the house naked, and also greatly damaged the goods, at the same time threatening to give them all the same or worse usage if they did not desist from that worship of God which they believed to be right and good. 2. The poor sufferers, I am informed, applied for redress to a neighboring Justice of the Peace. But they could have none -- so far from it, that the Justice himself told them the treatment was good enough for them, and that if they went on (i worshipping God according to their own conscience) the mob should use them so again. 3. I allow some of those people might behave with passion or ill manners. But if they did was there any proportion at all between the fault and the punishment Or, whatever punishment was due, does the law dire~ that a riotous mob should be the inflictors of it 4. I allow also that this gentleman supposed the doctrines of the Methodists (so called) to be extremely bad. But is he assured of this Has he read their writings If not, why does he pass sentence before he hears the evidence If he has, and thinks them wrong, yet is this a method of confuting to be used in a Christian -- a Protestant country particularly in England, where every man may think for himself, as he must give an account for himself to God 5. The sum of our doctrine with regard to inward religion (so far as I understand it) is comprised in two points -- the loving God with all our hearts and the loving our neighbor as ourselves; and with regard to outward religion, in two more -- the doing all to the glory of God, and the doing to all what we would desire in like circumstances should be done to us. I believe no one will easy confute this by Scripture and sound reason, or prove that we preach or hold any other doctrine as necessary to salvation. 6. I thought it my duty, sir, though a stranger to you, to say thus much, and to request two things of you: (1) that the damage these poor people have sustained may be repaired; and (2) that they may for the time to come be allowed to enjoy the privilege of Englishmen -- to serve God according to the dictates of their own conscience. On these conditions they am heartily wiling to forrget all that is past. Wishing you all happiness, spiritual, and temporal, I remain, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To a Friend [SALISBURY], August 21, 1751. I see plainly the spirit of Ham, if not of Korah, has fully possessed several of our preachers. So much the more freely and firmly do I acquiesce in the determination of my brother, ‘that it is far better for us to have ten or six preachers who are alive to God, sound in the faith, and of one heart with us and with one another, than fifty of whom we have no such assurance.’ To John Downes LONDON, November 7, 1751. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your first hindrance is easily removed. Most of the preachers have now all they want. So might you have had if you had spoken to the Stewards, or (in case of their neglect) to me. As to your second bodily weakness is a good reason for a temporary retirement. Your third observation, that the people in general do not practice what they hear, is a melancholy truth. But what then Is this a sufficient cause why either you or I should leave them why we should give them up to their own heart’s lusts, and let them follow their own imaginations In no wise; especially while them are some among them whose conversation is worthy of the gospel of Christ. I grant also some of the preachers themselves do not adorn the gospel. Therefore we have been constrained to lay some of them aside, and some others are departed of themselves. [See letter of July 17.] Let us that remain be doubly in earnest. You should make an excursion (as to Alnwick) now and then. Is not John Fenwick a proper person to relieve James Tucker at Whitehaven If you think he is, pray send him thither forthwith. My love to your father and mother. I entreat you tell me without reserve what you think of C. Skelton. [See letters of July 17 Aug. 17.] Is his heart with us, or is it not Peace be with you. Adieu. To John Dowries LONDON, November, 7, 1751. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I think you write to me as ff you did not care to write. I am glad you went to Alnwick. [See previous letter.] The method you took of talking with each person in the Society apart, I hear, has been greatly blessed to them. I do not see how you could have dealt more favorably with Thomas Grumble [See W.H.S. vii. 65.] than you did. If he will leave the Society, he must leave it. But if he does, you are clear. I know not what to do more for poor Jenny Keith. [Jenny Keith was a Scotswoman who came to the Orphan House Newcastle, to escape persecution, and was there known as ‘Holy Mary.’ She married James Bowmaker, a master builder at Alnwick, and died in 1752. She kept her religious life to the end. See Tyerman’s Wesley, i. 542.] Alas, from what a height is she fallen! What a burning and shining light was she six or seven years ago! But thus it ever was. Many of the first shall be last, and many of the last first. How are you employed from five in the morning till nine at night For I suppose you want eight hours’ sleep. What becomes of logic and Latin Is your soul alive and more athirst for God -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Bennet [November 1751.] You judge quite right that one of our brethren ought to be at the Assizes at Chester. The most proper person of all others (if you receive this time enough) is John Bennet. It will be an exceeding great check to those who would otherwise blaspheme the gospel. That circumstance should be declared in open court, -- that this man was no Methodist; that the Germans have declared above two years agone in the pubic newspapers [See Journal, iii. 434-5. The Moravians wrote to the Daily Post in Sept. 1749, pointing out that they were not Methodists.] that they have nothing to do with the Methodists; and that therefore, whatever the Germans do, the Methodists are no more to answer for it than the Presbyterians. Stand fast. To his Brother Charles [LONDON], December 4 1751. On some points it is easier to write than to speak, especially where there is danger of warmth on either side. In what respect do you judge it needful to break my power and to reduce my authority within due bounds I am quite ready to part with the whole or any part of it. It is no pleasure to me, nor ever was. There is another tender point which I would just touch on. The quarterly contribution of classes (something more than two hundred a year) is to keep the preachers and to defray all the expenses of the house. But for this it did never yet suffice. For you, therefore (who have an hundred and fifty pounds a year to maintain only two persons), [100 a year was guaranteed to Charles at his marriage. He had no child in 1751.] to take any part of this seems to me utterly unreasonable. I could not do it, if it were my own case: I should account it robbery -- yea, robbing the Spittle. [Spittle (or spital), hospital for ‘poor folks diseased’ or for lepers (Brewers Dic. Of Phrase and Fable).] I have often wondered how either your conscience or your sense of honor could bear it; especially as you know I am almost continually distressed for money, who am expected to make up the deficiencies of this as well as all the other funds. I am willing (if our judgments differ) to refer this or anything else, to Mr. Perronet or Mr. Blackwell. I desire only to spend and be spent in the work which God has given me to do. Adieu. To John Downes LONDON, December 10, 1751. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I thank C. Herrington for his letter. [Is ‘C. Herrington’ Brother Errington See letter of Jan. 8, 1757.] He should not fail to write whenever he sees occasion. If you are straitened for preachers, could not you make use of George Atchinson from Stockton for a time I suppose James Tucker also is now with you. [From Whitehaven. See letter of Nov. 7.] He is, I verily believe, honest of heart; but a little too wise h his own eyes. Speak plainly to him, if you should ever hear that anything is amiss in his preaching or conversation. Brother Reeves will be here in a day or two. But he cannot return into the North yet. I wish you would regulate a little at a time, as you find your health will permit. But you must carefully guard against any irregularity, either as to food, sleep, or labor. Your water should be neithr quite warm (for fear of relaxing the tone of your stomach) nor quite cold. Of all flesh, mutton is the best for you; of all vegetables turnips, potatoes, and apples (roasted, boiled, or baked) if you can bear them. Take care you do not lose anything you have learned already, whether you learn more or not. You must needs be here (if alive) the 1st of March at our Conference. [The Conference was held in Leeds in May; but the name of John Downes is among those attached to the agreement given in the Journal iv. 9, and dated Jan. 29, 1752.] None will he present but those we invite. How apt is the corruptible body to press down the soul! But all shall work together for good. Now you can sympathize a little with me. We must expect no thanks from man. Evil for good will be our constant portion here. But it is well. The Lord is at hand. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell () LONDON December 20, 1751. MY DEAR FRIEND, -- The point you speak of in your letter of September 21 is of a very important nature. I have had many serious thoughts concerning it, particularly for some months last past; therefore I was not willing to speak hastily or slightly of it, but rather delayed till I could consider it thoroughly. I mean by ‘preaching the gospel’ preaching the love of God to sinners preaching the life, death, resurrection and intercession of Christ, with all the blessings which in consequence thereof are freely given to true befievers. By ‘preaching the law’ I mean explaining and enforcing the commands of Christ briefly compiled in the Sermon on the Mount. Now, it is certain preaching the gospdel to penitent sinners ‘begets faith’; that it ‘sustains and increases spiritual life in true believers.’ Nay, sometimes it ‘teaches and guides’ them that believe; yea, and ‘convinces them that believe not.’ So far all are agreed. But what is the stated means of feeding and comforting believers What is the means, as of begetting spiritual life where it is not, so of sustaining and increasing it where it is Here they devide. Some think preaching the law only; other, preaching the gospel only. I think neither the one nor the other; but duly mixing both, in every place, if not in every sermon. I think the right method of preaching is this. At our first beginning to preach at any place, after a general declaration of the love of God to sinners and His willingness that they should be saved, to preach the law in the strongest, the closest the most searching manner possible; only intermixing the gospel here and there, and showing it, as it were, afar off. After more and more persons are convinced of sin, we may mix more and more of the gospel, in order to beget faith, to raise into spiritual life those whom the law hath rain; but this is not to be done too hastily neither. Therefore it is not expedient wholly to omit the law; not only because we may web suppose that many of our hearers are still unconvinced, but because otherwise there is danger that many who are convinced will heal their own wounds slightly: therefore it is only in private converse with a thoroughly convinced sinner that we should preach nothing but the gospel. If, indeed, we could suppose an whole congregation to be thus convinced, we should need to preach only the gospel; and the same we might do if our whole congregation were supposed to be newly justified. But when these grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, a wise builder would preach the law to them again; only taking particular care to place every part of it in a gospel light, as not only a command but a privilege also, as a branch of the glorious liberty of the sons of God. He would take equal care to remind them that this is not the cause but the fruit of their acceptance with God; that other cause, ‘other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ’; that we are still forgiven and accepted, only for the sake of what He hath done and suffered for us; and that all true obedience springs from love to Him, grounded on His first loving us. He would labor, therefore, in preaching any part of the law, to keep the love of Christ continually before their eyes; that thence they might draw fresh life, vigor and strength to run the way of His commandments. Thus would he preach the law even to those who were pressing on to the mark. But to those who were careless or drawing back he would preach it in another manner, nearly as he did before they were convinced of sin. To those meanwhile who were earnest but feeble-minded he would preach the gospel chiefly yet variously intermixing more or less of the law, according to their various necessities. By preaching the law in the manner above described, he would teach them how to walk in Him whom they had received. Yea, and the same means (the main point wherein it seems your mistake lies) would both sustain and increase their spiritual life. For the commands are food as well as the promises; food equally wholesome, equally substantial. Thee also, duly applied, not only direct but likewise nourish and strengthen the soul. Of this you appear not to have the least conception; therefore I will endeavor to explain it. I ask, then, Do not all the children of God experience that, when God gives them to see deeper into His blessed law, whenever He gives a new degree of light, He gives likewise a new degree of strength Now I see He that loves me bids me do this. And now I fed I can do it through Christ strengthening me. Thus fight and strength are given by the same means, and frequently in the same moment; although sometimes there is a space between: for instance, I hear the command, ‘Let your communication be always in grace, meet to minister grace to the hearers.’ God gives me more light into this command. I see the exceeding height and depth of it. At the same time I see by the same light from above) how far I have fallen short. I am ashamed; I am humbled before God. I earnestly desire to keep it better; I pray to Him that hath loved me for more strength, and I have the petition I ask of Him. Thus the law not only convicts the unbeliever and enlightens the believing soul, but also conveys food to a believer, sustains and increases his spiritual life and strength. And if it increases his spiritual life and strength, it cannot but increase his comfort also. For doubtless the more we are alive to God, the more we shah rejoice in Him; the greater measure of His strength we receive, the greater will be our consolation also. And all this, I conceive, is clearly declared in one single passage of Scripture: ‘The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. More to he desired am they than gold, yea, than much fine gold ; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.’ They are both food and medicine; they both refresh, strengthen, and nourish the soul. Not that I would advise to preach the law without the gospel, any more than the gospel without the law. Undoubtedly both should be preached in their turn; yea, both at once, or both in one. All the conditional promises are instances of this. They are law and gospel mixed together. According to this model, I should advise every preacher continually to preach the law -- the law grafted upon, tempered by, and animated with the spirit of the gospel. I advise him to declare explain, and enforce every command of God. But meantime to declare in every sermon (and the more explicitly the better) that the flint and great command to a Christian is, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ’: that Christ is all in all, our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; that all life, love, strength are from Him alone, and all freely given to us through faith. And it will ever be found that the law thus preached both enlightens and strengthens the soul; that it both nourishes and teaches; that it is the guide, ‘ food, medicine, and stay’ of the believing soul. Thus all the Apostles built up believers: witness all the Epistles of St. Paul, James, Peter, and John. And upon this plan all the Methodists first set out. In this manner not only my brother and I, but Mr. Maxfield, Nelson, James Jones, Westall, and Reeves all preached at the beginning. By this preaching it pleased God to work those mighty effects in London, Bristol, Kingswood, Yorkshire, and Newcastle. By means of this twenty-nine persons received remission of fins in one day at Bristol only, [On May 21, 1739. Thomas Maxfield was one of the number. See letter of the 28th of that month.] most of them while I was opening and enforcing our Lord’s Sermon upon the Mount. In this manner John Downes, John Bennet, John Haughton, and all the other Methodists preached, till James Wheatley [For the trouble with James Wheatley, see letter of June 25.] came among them, who never was clear, perhaps not sound, in the faith. According to his understanding was his preaching -- an unconnected rhapsody of unmeaning words like Sir John Suckling’s Verses, smooth and soft as cream, In which was neither depth nor stream. Yet (to the utter reproach of the Methodist congregations) this man became a most popular preacher. He was admired more and more wherever he went, till he went over the second time into Ireland and conversed more intimately than before with some of the Moravian preachers. The consequence was that he leaned more and more both to their doctrine and manner of preaching. At first several of our preachers complained of this; but in the space of a few months (so incredible is the force of soft words) he by slow and imperceptible degrees brought almost all the preachers then in the kingdom to think and speak like himself. These, returning to England, spread the contagion to some others of their brethren. But still the far greater part of the Methodist preaches thought and spoke as they had done from the beginning. This is the plain fact. As to the fruit of this new manner of preaching (entirely new to the Methodists), speaking much of the promises, little of the commands (even to unbelievers, and still less to believers), you think it has done great good; I think it has done great harm. I think it has done great harm to the preaches; not only to James Wheatley himself, but to those who have learned of him -- David Trathen, [See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 127, where it is ‘Tratham.’] Thomas Webb, Robert Swindells, and John Madden. I fear to others also; all of whom are but shadows of what they were: most of them have exalted themselves above measure, as if they only ‘preached Christ, preached the gospel.’ And as highly as they have exalted themselves, so deeply have they despised their brethren; calling them ‘legal preachers, legal wretches’; and (by a cant name) ‘Doctors’ or ‘Doctors of Divinity.’ They have not a little despised their ministers also for ‘countenancing the Doctors,’ as they termed them. They have made their faults (real or supposed) common topics of conversation: hereby cherishing in themselves the very spirit of Ham; yea, of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. [See letter of Aug. 21.] I think it has likewise done great harm to their hearers, diffusing among them their own prejudice against the other preachers; against their ministers, me in particular (of which you have been an undeniable instance); against the scriptural Methodist manner of preaching Christ, so that they could no longer bear sound doctrine -- they could no longer hear the plain old truth with profit or pleasure, nay hardly with patience. After hearing such preachers for a time, you yourself (need we father witnesses) could find in my preaching ‘no food for your soul,’ nothing to ‘strengthen you in the way,’ no ‘inward experience of a believer’; ‘it was all barren and dry’: that is, you had no taste for mine or John Nelson’s preaching; it nether refreshed nor nourished you. Why, this is the very thing I assert: that the ‘gospel preachers’ so called corrupt their hearers; they vitiate their taste, so that they cannot relish sound doctrine; and spoil their appetite, so that they cannot turn it into nourishment; they, as it were, feed them with sweetmeats, till the genuine wine of the kingdom seems quite insipid to them. They give them cordial upon cordial, which make them all life and spirit for the present; but meantime their appetite is destroyed, so that they can neither retain nor digest the pure milk of the Word. Hence it is that (according to the constant observation I have made in all parts both of England and Ireland) preachers of this kind (though quite the contrary appears at firs) spread death, not life, among their hearers. As soon as that flow of spirits goes off, they are without life, without power, without any strength or rigor of soul; and it is extremely difficult to recover them, because they still cry out, ‘Cordials, cordials!’ of which they have had too much already, and have no taste for the food which is convenient for them. Nay, they have an utter aversion to it, and that confirmed by principle, having been taught to call it husks, if not poison. How much more to those bitters which are previously needful to restore their decayed appetite! This was the very case when I went last into the North. For some time before my coming John Downes had scarce been able to preach at all: the three others in the Round were such as styled themselves ‘gospel preachers.’ When I came to review the Societies, with great expectation of finding a vast increase, I found most of them lessened by one third; one entirely broken up; that of Newcastle itself was less by an hundred members than when I visited it before; and of those that remained, the far greater number in every place were cold, weary, heartless and dead. Such were the blessed effects of this gospel-preaching, of this new method of preaching Christ! On the other hand, when in my return I took an account of the Societies in Yorkshire, chiefly under the care of John Nelson, one of the old way, in whose preaching you could find no life, no food, I found them all alive, strong and vigorous of soul, believing loving, and praising God their Savior, and increased in number from eighteen or nineteen hundred to upwards of three thousand. [Wesley says on May 17 of this year: ‘I preached in the new house at Birstall, already too small for even a weekday’s congregation’ (Journal, iii. 526).] These had been continually fed with that wholesome food which you could nether relish nor digest. From the beginning they had been taught both the law and the gospel. ‘God loves you: therefore love and obey Him. Christ died for you: therefore die to sin. Christ has risen: themfore rise in the image of God. Christ liveth evermore: therefore live to God, till you live with Him in glory.’ So we preached; and so you believed. This is the scriptural way, the Methodist way, the true way. God grant we may never turn therefrom, to the right hand or to the left. -- I am, my dear friend Your ever affectionate brother. To John Downes LONDON, December 28, 1751. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your letter is the picture of your heart. It is honest and upright. I believe a journey to London will do you good. If you could borrow an horse to Leeds, you may take my mare from thence, which is in Brother Shent’s keeping. [] As you ride slow, and not many miles a day, I suppose she would bring you hither very well; and when you are here, we can easily find means to supply your other wants. I think it is ill husbandry for you to work with your hands in order to get money, because you may be better employed. But if you will work, come and superintend my printing. I will give you forty pounds for the first year, and it will cost me nothing so to do. Afterwards, if need be, I will increase your salary; and still you may preach as often as you can preach. However, come, whether you print, or preach, or not. Peace be with your spifit. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Dr. Lavington, Bishop Of Exeter LONDON, December 1751. SIR, -- 1. You have undertaken to prove (as I observed in my former letter, a few sentences of which I beg leave to repeat) that the ‘whole conduct of the Methodists is but a counterpart of the most wild fanaticisms of Popery’ (Preface to the First Part, p. 3). You endeavor to support this charge by quotations from our own writings, compared with quotations from Popish authors. It lies upon me to answer for one. But in order to spare both you and myself, I shall at present consider only your Second Part, and that as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations, but (leaving them to whom they may concern) shall examine whether those you have made from my writings prove the charge for which they were made or no. If they do, I submit. But if they do not, if they are ‘the words of truth and soberness,’ it is an objection of no real weight against any sentiment, just in itself, though it should also be found in the writings of Papists -- yea, of Mahometans or Pagans. 2. In your first section, in order to prove the ‘vain boasting of the Methodists,’ you quote a part of the following sentence: ‘When hath religion, I will not say since the Reformation, but since the time of Constantine the Great, made so large a progress in any nation within so short a space’ (I beg any impartial person to read the whole passage, from the eighty-fourth to the ninetieth page of the third Appeal. [A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part III. See Works, viii. 205-9.]) I repeat the question, giving the glory to God; and, I trust, without either boasting or enthusiasm. In your second you cite (and murder) four or five lines from one of my Journals ’as instances of the persuasive eloquence of the Methodist preachers’ (pages 1, 9). But it unfortunately happens that neither of the sentences you quote were spoke by any preacher at all. You know full well the one was used only in a private letter, the other by a woman on a bed of sickness. 3. You next undertake to prove ’the most insufferable pride and vanity of the Methodists’ (sect. iii. p. 12, &c.). For this end you quote five passages from my Journals and one from the third Appeal. The first was wrote in the anguish of my heart, to which I gave vent (between God and my own soul) by breaking out, not into ‘confidence or boasting,’ as you term it, but into those expressions of bitter sorrow, ‘I went to America to convert the Indians; but oh, who shall convert me’ (Journal, i. 418). Some of the words which follow you have picked out, and very honestly laid before your reader, without either the beginning or end, or one word of the occasion or manner wherein they were spoken. Your next quotation is equally fair and generous: ‘Are they read in philosophy So was I, &c.’ (i. 422, &c.). This whole ‘string of self-commendation,’ as you call it, being there brought, ex professo, to prove that, notwithstanding all this, which I once piqued myself upon, I was at that hour in a state of damnation! The third is a plain narrative of the manner wherein many of Bristol expressed their joy on my coming unexpectedly into the room after I had been some time at London (ii. 457). And this, I conceive, will prove the charge of high treason as well as that of ‘insufferable pride and vanity.’ You say, fourthly: ‘A dying woman, who had earnestly desired to see me, cried out as I entered the room, “Art thou come, thou blessed of the Lord”’ (ii. 483). She did so. And what does this prove The fifth passage is this: ‘In applying which, my soul was so enlarged, that methought I could have cried out (in another sense than poor, vain Archimedes), “Give me where to stand, and I will shake the earth.”’ [See letters of June 11, 1747, sect. 20 (to Bishop Gibson), and Nov. 26, 1762.] My meaning is, I found such freedom of thought and speech (jargon, stuff, enthusiasm to you) that me-thought, could I have then spoken to all the world, they would all have shared in the blessing. 4. The passage which you quote from the third Appeal I am obliged to relate more at large: ‘There is one more excuse for denying this work of God, taken from the instruments employed there’ --that is, that they are wicked men; and a thousand stories have been handed about to prove it. ‘Yet I cannot but remind considerate men in how remarkable a manner the wisdom of God has for many years guarded against this pretence, with regard to my brother and me in particular.’ ‘This pretence -- that is, “of not employing fit instruments.”’ These words are yours, though you insert them as mine. The pre-fence I mentioned was ‘that they were wicked men.’ And how God guarded against this is shown in what follows: ‘From that time both my brother and I, utterly against our will, came to be more and more observed and known; till we were more spoken of than perhaps two so inconsiderable persons ever were before in the nation. To make us more public still, as honest madmen at least, by a strange concurrence of providences, overturning all our preceding resolutions, we were hurried away to America.’ Afterward it follows: ‘What persons could in the nature of things have been (antecedently) less liable to exception, with regard to their moral character at least, than those the all-wise God hath now employed Indeed, I cannot devise what manner of men could have been more unexceptionable on all accounts. Had God endued us with greater natural or acquired abilities, this very thing might have been turned into an objection. Had we been remarkably defective, it would have been matter of objection on the other hand. Had we been Dissenters of any kind, or even Low Church-men (so called), it would have been a great stumbling-block in the way of those who are zealous for the Church. And yet, had we continued in the impetuosity of our High Church zeal, neither should we have been willing to converse with Dissenters, nor they to receive any good at our hands.’ [Works, viii; 226-7.] Sir, why did you break off your quotation in the middle of this paragraph, just at ‘more unexceptionable on all accounts’ Was it not on purpose to give a wrong turn to the whole, to conceal the real and obvious meaning of my words, and put one upon them that never entered into my thoughts 5. You have reserved your strong reason for the last--namely, my own confession: ’Mr. Wesley says himself, “By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced of pride, &c.” ‘Sir, be pleased to decipher that’ &c. ‘Or I will spare you the pains, and do it myself, by reciting the whole sentence [See letter of Oct. 30, 1738, to his brother Samuel.]: ‘By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced (1) Of unbelief; having no such faith in Christ as will prevent my heart from being troubled, which it could not be, if I believed in God, and rightly believed also in Him; (2) of pride throughout my life past, inasmuch as I thought I had what I find I have not.’ (Journal, i. 415.) Now, sir, you have my whole confession. I entreat you to make the best of it. But I myself ‘acknowledge three Methodists to have fallen into pride.’ Sir, I can tell you of three more. And yet it will not follow that the doctrines I teach ‘lead men into horrid pride and blasphemy.’ 6. In the close of your fourth section you charge me with ‘shuffling and prevaricating with regard to extraordinary gifts and miraculous powers.’ Of these I shall have occasion to speak by-and-by. At present I need only return the compliment by charging you with gross, willful prevarication from the beginning of your book to the end. Some instances of this have appeared already. Many more will appear in due time. 7. Your fifth charges me with an ‘affectation of prophesying.’ Your first proof of it is this: ‘It was about this time that the soldier was executed. For some time I had visited him every day. But when the love of God was shed abroad in his heart, I told him, “Do not expect to see me any more: I believe Satan will separate us for a season.” Accordingly the next day I was informed the commanding officer had given strict orders that neither Mr. Wesley nor any of his people should be admitted’ (ii. 339-40.) I did believe so, having seen many such things before; yet without affecting a spirit of prophecy. But that I do claim it, you will prove, secondly, from my mentioning ‘the great work which God intends, and is now beginning, to work over all the earth.’ By what art you extract such a conclusion out of such premises I know not. That God intends this none who believe the Scripture doubt. And that He has begun it, both in Europe and America, any who will make use of their eyes and ears may know without any ‘miraculous gift of prophesying.’ 8. In your sixth section you assert that I lay claim to other miraculous gifts (page 45). As you borrow this objection from Mr. Church, I need only give the same answer I gave before. ‘I shall give,’ says Mr. Church, ‘but one account more, and that is what you give of yourself.’ The sum whereof is, ‘At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease.’ I did so. I assert the fact still. ‘But if these,’ you say, ‘are not miraculous cures, all this is rank enthusiasm. ‘I will put your argument in form: ‘He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not is a rank enthusiast: ‘But you believe those to be miraculous cures which are not: ‘Therefore you are a rank enthusiast. ‘Before I answer, I must know what you mean by miraculous: if you term everything so which is “not strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes,” then I deny the latter part of the second proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove the effects in question are strictly accountable for by the ordinary course of natural causes, your argument is nothing worth.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 12.] Having largely answered your next objection relating to what I still term ‘a signal instance of God’s particular providence,’ I need only refer you to those answers, not having leisure to say the same thing ten times over. Whether I sometimes claim and sometimes disclaim miracles will be considered by-and-by. 9. In your seventh section you say, ‘I shall now give some account of their grievous conflicts and combats with Satan’ (page 53, &c.). O sir, spare yourself, if not the Methodists! Do not go so far out of your depth. This is a subject you are as utterly unacquainted with as with justification or the new birth. But I attend your motions. ‘Mr. Wesley,’ you say, ‘was advised to a very high degree of silence. And he spoke to none at all for two days, and traveling fourscore miles together. ‘The same whim,’ you go on, ‘has run through several of the Religious Orders. Hence St. Bonaventura says that silence in all the religious is necessary to perfection. St. Agatho held a stone in his mouth for three years, till he had learned taciturnity. St. Alcantara carried several pebbles in his mouth for three years likewise, and for the same reason. Theon observed a continual silence for thirty years. St. Francis observed it himself, and enjoined it upon his brethren. The rule of silence was religiously observed by St. Dominic.’ I have repeated more of your words than I otherwise should in order to show to a demonstration that a man of a lively imagination may run a parallel to any length without any foundation in nature. You begin, ‘The same whim which led Mr. Wesley to observe an absolute silence for two days’; and so run on to St. Bonaventura, St. Agatho, and I know not whom. But did Mr. Wesley ‘observe an absolute silence for two days’ No, not for one hour. My words, ‘I spoke to none at all for fourscore miles together’ (ii. 462) imply neither more nor less than that I spoke to none ‘concerning the things of God,’ as it is in the words immediately preceding. And you know this as well as I. But it is all one for that. Wit, not truth, is the point you aim at. My supposed inconsistency with regard to the Moravians, which you likewise drag in (as they say) by head and shoulders, I have shown again and again to be no inconsistency at all, particularly in both the letters to Mr. Church. 10. Well, but as to conflicts with Satan. ‘Nor can Mr. Wesley,’ you say, ‘escape the attacks of this infernal spirit’ -- namely, ‘suggesting distrustful thoughts, and buffeting him with inward temptations.’ Sir, did you never hear of any one so attacked, unless among the Papists or Methodists How deeply, then, are you experienced both in the ways of God and the devices of Satan! You add, with regard to a case mentioned in the Fourth Journal (vol. ii. p. 346), ‘Though I am not convinced that these fits of laughing are to be ascribed to Satan, yet I entirely agree that they are involuntary and unavoidable.’ I am glad we agree so far. But I must still go farther: I cannot but ascribe them to a preternatural agent, having observed so many circumstances attending them which cannot be accounted for by any natural causes. Under the head of conflicts with Satan you observe farther: ‘Mr. Wesley says while he was preaching the devil knew his kingdom shook, and therefore stirred up his servants to make a noise; that, September 18, the prince of the air made another attempt in defense of his tottering kingdom; and that another time the devil’s children fought valiantly for their master.’ I own the whole charge; I did say all this. Nay, and if need were, I should say it again. You cite one more instance from my Fourth Journal: ‘The many-headed beast began to roar again.’ So your head is so full of the subject, that you construe even poor Horace’s bellua multorum capitum [Epistles, I. i. 76: ‘A many-headed beast.’] into the devil! These are all the combats and conflicts with Satan which you can prove I ever had. O sir, without more and greater conflicts than these, none shall see the kingdom of God. II. In the following sections you are equally out of your element. The first of them relates to ‘spiritual desertions’ (sect. viii. p. 75, &c.); all which you make the subject of dull ridicule, and place to the account of enthusiasm. And the case of all you give in the following words: ‘We may look upon enthusiasm as a kind of drunkenness, filling and intoxicating the brain with the heated fumes of spirituous particles. Now, no sooner does the inebriation go off, but a coldness and dullness takes place.’ 12. As wildly do you talk of the doubts and fears incident to those who are ‘weak in faith’ (sect. ix. p. 79, &c.). I cannot prevail upon myself to prostitute this awful subject by entering into any debate concerning it with one who is innocent of the whole affair. Only I must observe that a great part of what you advance concerning me is entirely wide of the question. Such is all you quote from the First and a considerable part of what you quote from my Second Journal. This you know in your own conscience; for you know I speak of myself during the whole time as having no faith at all. Consequently the ‘risings and fallings’ I experienced then have nothing to do with those ‘doubts and fears which many go through after they have by faith received remission of sins.’ The next words which you cite, ‘thrown into great perplexities,’ I cannot find in the page you refer to; neither those that follow. The sum of them is that ‘at that time I did not feel the love of God, but found deadness and wanderings in public prayer, and coldness even at the Holy Communion.’ Well, sir, and have you never found in yourself any such coldness, deadness, and wanderings I am persuaded you have. And yet surely your brain is always cool and temperate! never ‘intoxicated with the heated fumes of spirituous particles’! 13. If you quote not incoherent scraps (by which you may make anything out of anything), but entire connected sentences, it will appear that the rest of your quotations make no more for your purpose than the foregoing. Thus -- although I allow that on May 24 ‘I was much buffeted with temptations; but I cried to God, and they fled away; that they returned again and again; I as often lifted up my eyes, and He sent me help from His holy place’ (Journal, i. 476-7) -- it will only prove the very observation I make myself: ‘I was fighting both under the law and under grace. But then I was sometimes, if not often, conquered; now I was always conqueror.’ That some time after, I ‘was strongly assaulted again, and after recovering peace and joy was thrown into perplexity afresh by a letter, asserting that no doubt or fear could consist with true faith, that my weak mind could not then bear to be thus sawn asunder,’ will not appear strange to any who are not utter novices in experimental religion. No more than that, one night the next year, ‘I had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt whether God would not lay me aside and send other laborers into His harvest.’ 14. You add: ‘He owns his frequent relapses into sin for near twice ten years. Such is the case of a person who tells us that he carefully considered every step he took, one of intimate communication with the Deity!’ Sir, I did not tell you that; though, according to custom, you mark the words as mine. It is well for you that forging quotations is not felony. My words are, ‘Oh what an hypocrite have I been (if this be so) for near twice ten years! But I know it is not so. I know every one under the law is even as I was ’-- namely, from the time I was twelve years old [See under sect. 40, and also letters of Feb. 9, 1750, and July ix, 1763.] till considerably above thirty. ‘And is it strange,’ you say, ‘that such an one should be destitute of means to resolve his scruples should be ever at variance with himself, and find no place to fix his foot’ Good sir, not too fast. You quite outrun the truth again. Blessed be God, this is not my case. I am not destitute of means to resolve my scruples. I have some friends and a little reason left. I am not ever at variance with myself, and have found a place to fix my foot: Now I have found the ground wherein Firm my soul’s anchor may remain-- The wounds of Jesus, for my sin Before the world’s foundation slain. And yet one of your assertions I cannot deny -- namely, that you ’could run the parallel between me and numbers of fanatical Papists ’; and that not only with regard to my temper, but my stature, complexion, yea (if need were) the very color of my hair. 15. In your next section you are to give an account of the ‘spiritual succors and advantages received either during these trims, or very soon after’ (sect. x. p. 92, &c.). It is no wonder you make as lame work with these as with the conflicts which preceded them. ‘As the heart knoweth its own bitterness, so a stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy.’ But it is no business of mine, as you have not done me the honor to cite any of my words in this section. 16. ‘The unsteadiness of the Methodists both in sentiments and practice’ (sect. xi. p. 95, &c.) is what you next undertake to prove. Your loose declamation with which you open the cause I pass over, as it rests on your own bare word; and haste to your main reason, drawn from my sentiments and practice with regard to the Moravians. ‘He represents them,’ you say, ‘in the blackest colors; yet declares in the main they are some of the best people in the world. His love and esteem for them increases more and more. His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds. But still Methodism is the strongest barrier against the Moravian doctrines and principles.’ Sir, I bear you witness you have learned one principle at least from those with whom you have lately conversed -- namely, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; of which you have given us abundant proof. For you know I have fully answered every article of this charge, which you repeat as if I had not opened my lips about it. You know that there is not one grain of truth in several things which you here positively assert. For instance: ‘His love and esteem of them increases more and more.’ Not so; no more than my love and esteem for you. I love you both; but I do not much esteem either. Again: ‘His own disciples among the Methodists go over to them in crowds.’ When Where I know not that ten of my disciples, as you call them, have gone over to them for twice ten months. O sir, consider! How do you know but some of your disciples may tell your name 17. With the same veracity you go on: ‘In the Character of a Methodist those of the sect are described as having all the virtues that can adorn the Christian profession. But in their Journals you find them waspish, condemning all the world except themselves; and among themselves perpetual broils and confusions, with various other irregularities and vices.’ I answer: (1) The tract you refer to (as is expressly declared in the Preface) does not describe what the Methodists are already; but what they desire to be, and what they will be then when they fully practice the doctrine they hear. (2) Be pleased to point the pages in my Journals which mention those ‘various irregularities and vices.’ Of their ‘perpetual broils and confusions’ I shall speak under their proper head. You add: ‘Sometimes they are so far from fearing death that they wish it. But the keenness of the edge is soon blunted. They are full of dreadful apprehensions that the clergy intend to murder them.’ Do, you mean me, sir I plead, Not guilty. I never had any such apprehension. Yet I suppose you designed the compliment for me by your dragging in two or three broken sentences from my First Journal. But how little to the purpose, seeing at the time that was written I had never pretended to be above the fear of death. So that this is no proof of the point in view -- of the ‘unsteadiness of my sentiments or practice.’ 18. You proceed: ‘One day they fancy it their duty to preach; the next they preach with great reluctance.’ Very true! But they fancy it their duty still, else they would not preach at all. This, therefore, does not prove any inequality either of sentiment or practice. ‘Mr. Wesley is sometimes quite averse from speaking, and then perplexed with the doubt, Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one’ Just of a piece with the rest. The sentence runs thus: ‘I went several times with a design to speak to the sailors, but could not. I mean, I was quite averse from speaking. Is not this what men commonly mean by “I could not speak” And is this a sufficient cause of silence or no Is it a prohibition from the good Spirit, or a temptation from nature or the evil one’ Sir, I was in no doubt at all on the occasion. Nor did I intend to express any in these words; but to appeal to men’s conscience whether what they call ‘a prohibition from the good Spirit’ be not a mere ‘temptation from nature or the evil one.’ 19. In the next section you are to show ‘the art, cunning, and sophistry of the Methodists, who, when hard pressed by argument, run themselves into inconsistency and self-contradiction, and occasionally either defend or give up some of their favorite notions and principal points’ (sect. xii. p. 102). I dare say, sir, you will not put them to the trial. Argument lies out of the way of one solufos Qui captat risus hominum, farnamque dicacis. [Horace’s Satires, I. iv. 82-3: ‘One that affects the droll, and loves to raise a home-laugh.’] But to the proof. ‘Mr. Wesley,’ you say, ‘at one time declares for a disinterested love of God; at another declares there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.’ Nay, sir; I will tell you what is stranger still: Mr. Wesley holds at one time both sides of this contradiction. I now declare both that ‘all true love is disinterested, “seeketh not her own,” and that there is no one caution in all the Bible against the selfish love of God.’ What, have I the art to slip out of your hands again ‘Pardon me,’ as your old friend says, ‘for being jocular.’ 20. You add, altius insurgens [Virgil’s Aeneid, xi. 697: ‘Rising to more exalted strains.’]: ‘But it is a considerable offence to charge another wrongfully and contradict himself about the doctrine of Assurance.’ To prove this upon me you bring my own words: ‘The assurance we preach is of quite another kind from that Mr. Bedford writes against. We speak of an assurance of our present pardon; not, as he does, of our final perseverance.’ (Journal, ii. 83.) ‘Mr. Wesley might have considered,’ you say, ‘that, when they talk of “assurance of pardon and salvation,” the world will extend the meaning of the words to our eternal state.’ I do consider it, sir; and therefore I never use that phrase either in preaching or writing. ‘Assurance of pardon and salvation’ is an expression that never comes out of my lips; and if Mr. Whitefield does use it, yet he does not preach such an assurance as the privilege of all Christians. ‘But Mr. Wesley himself says, that “though a full assurance of faith does not necessarily imply a full assurance of our future perseverance, yet some have both the one and the other.” And now what becomes of his charge against Mr. Bedford And is it not mere evasion to say afterwards, “This is not properly an assurance of what is future”’ Sir, this argument presses me very hard! May I not be allowed a little evasion now Come, for once I will try to do without it, and to answer flat and plain. And I answer: (1) That faith is one thing, the full assurance of faith another. (2) That even the full assurance of faith does not imply the full assurance of perseverance: this bears another name, being styled by St. Paul ‘the full assurance of hope.’ (3) Some Christians have only the first of these; they have faith, but mixed with doubts and fears. Some have also the full assurance of faith, a full conviction of present pardon; and yet not the full assurance of hope, not a full conviction of their future perseverance. (4) The faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians is the first of these, and no other. Therefore (5) It is no evasion at all to say, ‘This (the faith which we preach as necessary to all Christians) is not properly an assurance of what is future.’ And consequently my charge against Mr. Bedford stands good--that his sermon on Assurance is an ignoratio elenchi, an ‘ignorance of the point in question,’ from beginning to end. [See letter of Sept. 28, 1738.] Therefore neither do I ‘charge another wrongfully, nor contradict myself about the doctrine of Assurances.’ 21. To prove my art, cunning, and evasion, you instance next in the case of impulses and impressions. You begin: ‘With what pertinacious confidence have impulses, impressions, feelings, &c., been advanced into certain rules of conduct! Their followers have been taught to depend upon them as sure guides and infallible proofs.’ To support this weighty charge, you bring one single scrap, about a line and a quarter, from one of my Journals. The words are these: ‘By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced.’ Convinced of what It immediately follows: ‘Of unbelief, having no such faith as will prevent my heart from being troubled.’ I here assert that inward feeling or consciousness is the most infallible of proofs of unbelief -- of the want of such a faith as will prevent the heart’s being troubled. But do I here ‘advance impressions, impulses, feelings, &c., into certain rules of conduct’ or anywhere else You may just as well say I advance them into certain proofs of transubstantiation. Neither in writing, in preaching, nor in private conversation have I ever ‘taught any of my followers to depend upon them as sure guides or infallible proofs’ of anything. Nay, you yourself own I have taught quite the reverse, and that at my very first setting out. Then, as well as ever since, I have told the Societies ‘they were not to judge by their own inward feelings. I warned them all these were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature. They might be from God or they might not, and were therefore to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test -- the law and the testimony’ (ii. 226). This is what I have taught from first to last. And now, sir, what becomes of your heavy charge On which side lies the ‘pertinacious confidence’ now How clearly have you made out my inconsistency and self-contradiction! and that I ‘occasionally either defend or give up my favorite notions and principal points’! 22. ‘Inspiration and the extraordinary calls and guidances of the Holy Ghost are’ what you next affirm to be ‘given up’ (sect. xiii. p. 106, &c.). Not by me. I do not ‘give up’ one title on this head which I ever maintained. But observe: before you attempt to prove my ‘giving them up,’ you are to prove that I laid claim to them, that I laid claim to some extraordinary inspiration, call, or guidance of the Holy Ghost. You say my ‘concessions on this head’ (to Mr. Church) ‘are ambiguous and evasive.’ Sir, you mistake the fact. I make no concessions at all either to him or you. I give up nothing that ever I advanced on this head; but when Mr. Church charged me with what I did not advance, I replied, ‘I claim no other direction of God’s but what is common to all believers. I pretend to be no otherwise inspired than you are, if you love God.’ Where is the ambiguity or evasion in this I mean it for a flat denial of the charge. 23. Your next section, spirat iragleam sails, [Horace’s Epistles, II. i. 166: ‘It breathes the spirit of the tragic scene.’] charges the Methodists ‘with skepticism and infidelity, with doubts and denials of the truth of Revelation, and Atheism itself’ (sect. xiv. p. 110, &c.). The passages brought from my Journals to prove this charge, which you have prudently transposed, I beg leave to consider in the same order as they stand there. The first you preface thus: ’Upon the people’s ill usage (or supposed ill usage) of Mr. Wesley in Georgia, and their speaking of all manner of evil falsely (as he says) against him, and trampling under-foot the word after having been very attentive to it, what an emotion in him is hereby raised I “I do hereby bear witness against myself that I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience and reason and Scripture all together.”’ The passage as I wrote it stands thus: ’Sunday, March 7. I entered upon my ministry at Savannah. In the Second Lesson (Luke xviii.) was our Lord’s prediction of the treatment which He Himself, and consequently His followers, were to meet with from the world.... ‘Yet, notwithstanding these plain declarations of our Lord, notwithstanding my own repeated experience, notwithstanding the experience of all the sincere followers of Christ whom I ever talked with, read, or heard of -- nay, and the reason of the thing evincing to a demonstration that all who love not the light must hate him who is continually laboring to pour it in upon them -- I do here bear witness against myself that when I saw the number of people crowding into the church, the deep attention with which they received the word, and the seriousness that afterwards sat on all their faces, I could scarce refrain from giving the lie to experience and reason and Scripture all together. I could hardly believe that the greater, the far greater part of this attentive, serious people would hereafter trample under-foot that word, and say all manner of evil falsely of him that spoke it.’ (i. 176-9.) Sir, does this prove me guilty of skepticism or infidelity, of doubting or denying the truth of Revelation Did I speak this ‘upon the people using me ill and saying all manner of evil against me’ Or am I here describing ‘any emotion raised in me hereby’ Blush, blush, sir, if you can blush. You had here no possible room for mistake. You grossly and willfully falsify the whole passage to support a groundless, shameless accusation. 24. The second passage (written January 24, 1738) is this: ‘In a storm I think, What if the gospel be not true Then thou art of all men most foolish. For what hast thou given thy goods, thy ease, thy friends, thy reputation, thy country, thy life For what art thou wandering over the face of the earth -- A dream, a cunningly-devised fable.’ (i. 418.) I am here describing the thoughts which passed through my mind when I was confessedly an unbeliever. But even this implies no skepticism, much less Atheism, no ‘denial of the truth of Revelation,’ but barely such transient doubts as, I presume, may assault any thinking man that knows not God. The third passage (which you tack to the former as if they were one and the same) runs thus: ‘I have not such a peace as excludes the possibility either of doubt or fear. When holy men have told me I had no faith, I have often doubted whether I had or no. And those doubts have made me very uneasy, till I was relieved by prayer and the Holy Scriptures.’ (if. 91.) Speak frankly, sir: does this prove me guilty of skepticism, infidelity, or Atheism What else does it prove Just nothing at all, but the ‘pertinacious confidence’ of him that cites it. 25. You recite more at large one passage more. The whole paragraph stands thus: ‘St. Paul tells us the “fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance.” Now, although by the grace of God in Christ I find a measure of some of these in myself--namely, of peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, temperance; yet others I find not. I cannot find in myself the love of God or of Christ. Hence my deadness and wanderings in public prayer. Hence it is that even in the Holy Communion I have rarely any more than a cold attention. Hence, when I hear of the highest instance of God’s love, my heart is still senseless and unaffected. Yea, at this moment (October 14, 1738) I feel no more love to Him than one I had never heard of.’ [See letters of Nov. 22, 1758 (to Isaac Lelong), and June 27, 1766.] (ii. 91.) To any who knew something of inward religion I should have observed that this is what serious divines mean by desertion. But all expressions of this kind are jargon to you. So, allowing it to be whatever you please, I ask only, Do you know how long I continued in this state how many years, months, weeks, or days If not, how can you infer what my state of mind is now from what it was above eleven years ago Sir, I do not tell you or any man else that ‘I cannot now find the love of God in myself’; or that now, in the year 1751, I rarely feel more than a cold attention in the Holy Communion: so that your whole argument built on this supposition falls to the ground at once. 26. Sensible, I presume, of the weakness of this reason, you immediately apply to the passions by that artful remark: ‘Observe, reader, this is the man who charges our religion as no better than the Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca or the Popish worship of Our Lady of Loretto!’ Our religion! How naturally will the reader suppose that I fix the charge either on the Protestant religion in general, or on that of the Church of England in particular! But how far is this from the truth! My words concerning those who are commonly called religious are: ‘Wherein does their religion consist in righteousness and true holiness, in love stronger than death, fervent gratitude to God, and tender affection to all His creatures Is their religion the religion of the heart, a renewal of the soul in the image of God Do they resemble Him they worship Are they free from pride, from vanity, from malice, from envy, from ambition and avarice, from passion and lust, from every uneasy and unlovely temper Alas, I fear neither they (the greater part at least) nor you have any more notion of this religion than the peasant that holds the plough of the religion of a Gymnosophist. [Ancient Hindu philosophers and ascetics who discarded all clothing.] ‘It is well if the genuine religion of Christ has any more alliance with what you call religion than with the Turkish pilgrimages to Mecca or the Popish worship of Our Lady of Loretto. Have not you substituted in the place of the religion of the heart something, I do not say equally sinful, but equally vain and foreign to the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth What else can be said even of prayer, public or private, in the manner wherein you generally perform it as a thing of course, running round and round, in the same dull track, without either the knowledge or the love of God, without one heavenly temper, either attained or improved ’ [Works, viii. 202.] Now, sir, what room is there for your own exclamations – ‘What sort of heavenly temper is his How can he possibly, consistently with charity, call this our general performance’ Sir, I do not. I only appeal to the conscience of you and each particular reader whether this is or is not the manner wherein you (in the singular number) generally perform public or private prayer. ‘How possibly, without being omniscient, can he affirm that we (I presume you mean all the members of our Church) pray without one heavenly temper or know anything at all of our private devotions How monstrous is all this!’ Recollect yourself, sir. If your terror is real, you are more afraid than hurt. I do not affirm any such thing. I do not take upon me to know anything at all of your private devotions. But I suppose I may inquire without offence, and beg you seriously to examine yourself before God. So you have brought no one proof that ‘skepticism, infidelity, and Atheism are either constituent parts or genuine consequences of Methodism.’ Therefore your florid declamation in the following pages is entirely out of its place. And you might have spared yourself the trouble of accounting for what has no being but in your own imagination. 27. You charge the Methodists next with ‘an uncharitable spirit’ (sect. xv. p. I15, &c.). All you advance in proof of this, as if it were from my writings, but without naming either page or book, I have nothing to do with. But whatever you tell me where to find I shall carefully consider. I observe but one single passage of this sort, and that you have worn threadbare already: ‘By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am convinced of levity and luxuriancy of spirit, by speaking words not tending to edify; but most by my manner of speaking of my enemies.’ Sir, you may print this, not only in italics, but in capitals, and yet it would do you no service. For what I was convinced of then was not uncharitableness, but, as I expressly mentioned, ‘levity of spirit.’ 28. Of the same ‘uncharitable nature,’ you say, is ’their application of divine judgments to their opposers’ (sect. xvi. p. 119, &c.). You borrow two instances from Mr. Church; but you omit the answers, which I shall therefore subjoin. His words are, ‘You describe Heaven as executing judgments, immediate punishments, on those who oppose you. You say, “Mr. Molther was taken ill this day. I believe it was the hand of God that was upon him.”’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 9.] I do; but I do not say as a judgment for opposing me. That you say for me. ‘Again, you mention,’ says Mr. Church, ‘as an awful providence the case of “a poor wretch who was last week cursing and blaspheming, and had boasted to many that he would come on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth; but on Friday God laid His hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.” I do look on this as a manifest judgment of God on an hardened sinner for his complicated wickedness.’ To repeat these objections without taking the least notice of the answers is one of the usual proofs of your charitable spirit. 29. You pass on to ‘the Methodists’ uncharitable custom of summoning their opponents to the bar of judgment’ (sect. xvii. p. 123, &c.). You bring two passages from my writings to prove this. The first is: ‘Calling at Newgate, in Bristol, I was informed that the poor wretches under sentence of death were earnestly desirous to speak with me; but that Alderman Beecher had sent an express order that they should not. I cite Alderman Beecher to answer for these souls at the judgment-seat of Christ.’ Why do you leave out those words ‘for these souls’ Because they show the sentence means neither more nor less than, ‘If these souls perish, he, not I, must answer for them at the Great Day.’ The second passage is still more wide from the point. The whole of it is as follows: ‘I have often inquired who were the authors of this report (that I was a Papist), and have generally found they were either bigoted Dissenters, or (I speak it without fear or favor) ministers of our own Church. I have also frequently considered what possible ground or motive they could have thus to speak; seeing few men in the world have had occasion so clearly and openly to declare their principles as I have done, both by preaching, printing, and conversation, for several years last past: and I can no otherwise think than that either they spoke thus {to put the most favorable construction upon it) from gross ignorance--they knew not what Popery was, they knew not what doctrines those are which the Papists teach -- or they willfully spoke what they knew to be false, probably thinking thereby to do God service. Now, take this to yourselves, whosoever ye are, high or low, Dissenters or Churchmen, clergy or laity, who have advanced this shameless charge, and digest it how you can. ‘But how have ye not been afraid, if ye believe there is a God, and that He knoweth the secrets of your hearts (I speak now to you preachers more especially of whatever denomination), to declare so gross, palpable a lie, in the name of the God of truth I cite you all, before “the Judge of all the earth,” either publicly to prove your charge, or, by publicly retracting it, to make the best amends you can, to God, to me, and to the world.’ (Journal, ii. 262-3.) Sir, do I here ‘summon my opponents to the bar of judgment’ So you would make me do by quoting only that scrap, ‘I cite you all before “the Judge of all the earth”!’ You then add, with equal charity and sincerity: ‘Here you have the true spirit of an enthusiast, flushed with a modest assurance of his own salvation and the charitable prospect of the damnation of others.’ O sir, never name modesty more! Here end your labored attempts to show the ‘uncharitable spirit’ of the Methodists, who (for anything you have shown to the contrary) may be the most charitable people under the sun. 30. You charge the Methodists next with ‘violation and contempt of order and authority’ (sect. xviii. p. 124) -- namely, the authority of the governors of the Church. I have answered every article of this charge in the Second and Third Parts of the Farther Appeal and the letter to Mr. Church. When you have been so good as to reply to what is there advanced, I may possibly say something more. What you offer of your own upon this head I shall consider without delay. ‘Women and boys are actually employed in this ministry of public preaching.’ Please to tell me where. I know them not, nor ever heard of them before. You add, what is more marvelous still: ‘I speak from personal knowledge that sometimes, a little before delivering of the elements at the Communion, three or four Methodists together will take it into their heads to go away; that sometimes, while the sentences of the Offertory were reading, they have called out to the minister who carried the basin, reproaching him for asking alms of them; that sometimes, when the minister has delivered the bread into their hands, instead of eating it, they would slip it into their pockets.’ Sir, you must show your face before these stories will find credit on your bare asseveration. ‘Yet they are surprised,’ you say, ‘that every man in his senses does not without the least hesitation join them.’ Sir, I am surprised (unless you are not in your senses) at your advancing such a barefaced falsehood. 31. You go on: ‘Under this head may not improperly be considered their undutiful behavior to the civil powers.’ What proof have you of this Why, a single sentence, on which I laid so little stress myself that it is only inserted by way of parenthesis in the body of another sentence: ‘Ye learned in the law, what becomes of Magna Charta and of English liberty and property Are not these mere sounds while on any pretence there is such a thing as a press-gang suffered in the land’ Upon this you descant: ‘The legislature has at several times made Acts for pressing men. But no matter for this; touch but a Methodist, and all may perish rather than a soldier be pressed. He who had before bound himself not to speak a title of worldly things is now bawling for liberty and property.’ Very lively this! But I hope, sir, you do not offer it by way of argument. You are not so unlearned in the law as not to know that the legislature is out of the question. The legislature six years ago did not appoint press-gangs but legal officers to press men. Consequently this is no proof {and find another if you can) of our undutiful behavior to the civil powers. 32. ‘Another natural consequence,’ you say, ‘of Methodism is their mutual jealousies and envyings, their manifold divisions, fierce and rancorous quarrels, and accusations of one another.’ I shall carefully attend whatever you produce on this head; and if you prove this, I will grant you all the rest. You first cite those words: ‘Musing on the things that were past, and reflecting how many that came after me were preferred before me, I opened my Testament on those words: “The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness”’ (ii. 324). And how does this prove the manifold divisions and rancorous quarrels of the Methodists Your second argument is: ‘Mr. Whitefield told me he and I preached two different gospels’’(his meaning was that he preached particular and I universal redemption); ‘and therefore he would not join with me, but publicly preach against me’ (sect. xix. p. 341, &c.). Well, sir, here was doubtless a division for a time; but no fierce and rancorous quarrel yet. You say, thirdly: ‘They write and publish against each other.’ True; but without any degree either of fierceness or rancor. You assert, fourthly: ‘Mr. Wesley in his sermon on Free Grace opposes the other for the horrible blasphemies of his horrible doctrine.’ Sir, away with your flourishes, and write plain English: I opposed the doctrine of Predestination, which he held; but without any degree either of rancor or fierceness. Still, therefore, you miss the mark. You quote, fifthly, these words: ‘I spent an hour with Stonehouse. Oh what paa, “persuasiveness of speech,” is here! Surely all the deceivableness of unrighteousness.’ (Journal. ii. 394.) But there was no fierceness or rancor on either side. The passage, a fragment of which you produce as a sixth argument, stands thus: ‘A few of us had a long conference together. Mr. Cennick now told me plainly he could not agree with me, because I did not preach the truth, particularly with regard to Election.’ He did so; but without any rancor. We had a long conference; but not a fierce one. (ii. 408-9.) You, seventhly, observe, ‘What scurrility of language the Moravians throw out against Mr. Wesley!’ Perhaps so. But this will not prove that ‘the Methodists quarrel with each other.’ ‘And how does he turn their own artillery upon them!’ This is your eighth argument. But if I do, this no more proves the ‘mutual quarrels of the Methodists’ than my turning your own artillery upon you. 33. Having, by these eight irrefragable arguments, dearly carried the day, you raise your crest, and cry out, ‘Is this Methodism And reign such mortal feuds in heavenly minds’ Truly, sir, you have not yet brought one single proof (and yet I dare say you have brought the very best you have) of any such feuds among the Methodists as may not be found among the most heavenly-minded men on earth. But you are resolved to pursue your victory, and so go on: ‘What are we to think of these charges of Whitefield and Wesley and the Moravians one against another’ The Moravians, sir, are out of the question; for they are no Methodists: and as to the rest, Mr. Whitefield charges Mr. Wesley withholding Universal Redemption, and I charge him with holding Particular Redemption. This is the standing charge on either side. And now, sir, ‘what are we to think’ Why, that you have not proved one point of this charge against the Methodists. However, you stumble on: ‘Are these things so Are they true, or are they not true If not true, they are grievous calumniators; if true, they are detestable sectarists. Whether true or false, the allegation stands good of their fierce and rancorous quarrels and mutual heinous accusations.’ Sir, has your passion quite extinguished your reason Have fierceness and rancor left you no understanding Otherwise, how is it possible you should run on at this senseless, shameless rate These things are true which Mr. Whitefield and Wesley object to each other. He holds the decrees; I do not: yet this does not prove us ‘detestable sectarists.’ And whether these things are true or false, your allegation of our ‘fierce and rancorous quarrels and mutual heinous accusations’ cannot stand good without better proof than you have yet produced. 34. Yet, with the utmost confidence, quasi re bene gesta, [‘As though you had accomplished some mighty affair.’] you proceed: ‘And how stands the matter among their disciples They are altogether by the ears, embroiled and broken with unchristian quarrels and confusions.’ How do you prove this Why thus: ‘Mr. Wesley’s Fourth Journal is mostly taken up in enumerating their wrath, dissensions, and apostasies.’ No, sir, not a tenth part of it; although it gives a full and explicit account of the greatest dissensions which ever were among them. But to come to particulars, You first cite these words: ‘At Oxford, but a few who had not forsaken them.’ My words are: ‘Monday, October 1, 1739. I rode to Oxford; and found a few who had not yet forsaken the assembling themselves together.’ This is your first proof that ‘the Methodists are all together by the ears.’ Your second is its very twin brother: ‘Tuesday, 2. I went to many who once heard the word with joy; but “when the sun arose, they withered away.” ‘ (ii. 283-4.) Your third is this: ‘Many were induced (by the Moravians) to deny the gift of God, and affirm they never had any faith at all’ (ii. 315). You are at liberty to enjoy this argument also; and let it prove what it can prove. You, fourthly, cite these words: ‘Many of our sisters are shaken, grievously torn by reasonings. But few come to Fetter Lane, and then after their names are called over they presently depart. Our brethren here (those who were proselytes to the Moravians) have neither wisdom enough to guide nor prudence enough to let it alone. They (the Moravians) have much confounded some of our sisters, and many of our brothers are much grieved.’ (ii. 326-7.) This proves thus much, that one Society was at that time divided; but not that the Methodists in general were even then ‘altogether by the ears.’ The passage you quote, in the fifth place, is: ‘I believe . . . are determined to go on according to Mr. Molther’s direction, and I suppose (says the writer of the letter) above half our brethren are on their side. But they are so very confused, they do not know how to go on; and yet are unwilling to be taught, except by the Moravians.’ (if. 327.) Add to this (I recite the whole passages in order; not as you had mangled, and then jumbled them together): ‘Wednesday, December 19. I came to London, though with an heavy heart. Here I found every day the dreadful effects of our brethren’s reasoning and disputing with each other. Scarce one in ten retained his first love; and most of the rest were in the utmost confusion ‘(they were so more or less for several months),’ biting and devouring one another.’ (ii. 328.) This also proves so much, neither more nor less, that some of the Methodists were then in confusion. And just so much is proved by your sixth quotation: ‘Many were wholly unsettled’ (by the Moravians taking advantage of my absence) ‘and lost in vain reasonings and doubtful disputations; . . . not likely to come to any true foundation.’ (ii. 331.) Your seventh quotation (I recite the whole sentence) runs thus: ‘April 19. I received a letter iforming me that our poor brethren at Fetter Lane were again in great confusion.’ This quotation proves just as much as the preceding, or as the following: ‘The plague’ (of false stillness) ‘was now spread to them also’ --namely, to the ‘little Society at Islington.’ (ii. 345.) Your ninth is this: ‘I went to the Society; but I found their hearts were quite estranged. Friday, 4. I met a little handful of them who still stand in the old paths.’ (ii. 363.) Thus far you have been speaking of the Methodists in London. And what have you proved concerning them Only that the Moravians, mixing with them twelve years ago, while they were young and unexperienced, set them a-disputing with each other, and thereby occasioned much confusion for several months. But you have not proved that the Methodists in general were even then ‘all together by the ears,’ and much less that they have been so ever since and that they are so now. 35. I now attend you to Kingswood. Not to ‘Bristol and Kingswood,’ which you artfully join together. The Society at Bristol was no more concerned with the disputes in Kingswood than with those in London. Here the first quotation, though containing but two lines, is extracted from three different paragraphs; in one of which I say: ‘I had many unpleasing accounts (in December 1740) concerning our little Society in Kingswood.’ In the second: ‘I went to Kingswood, if haply I might repair the breaches which had been made’ by the Predestinarian preachers. In the third: ‘I laboured to heal the jealousies and misunderstandings which had arisen.’ (ii. 406-7.) The second passage, part of which you quote, is this: ‘I returned early in the morning to Kingswood; but my congregation was gone to hear Mr. Cermick, so that I had not above two or three men and as many women’ (ii. 410). The third is: ‘January 1. I explained, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” But many of our brethren had no ears to hear, having disputed away both their faith and love.’ (ii. 412.) The fourth: ‘February 21. I inquired concerning the divisions and offences which began afresh to break out in Kingswood. In the afternoon I met a few of the bands; but it was a cold, uncomfortable meeting.’ (ii. 426.) You have picked out here and there a word from several pages in order to furnish out a fifth quotation. The most material part of it is this: ‘Saturday, 28. I read the following paper at Kingswood: “For their scoffing at the Word and ministers of God, for their backbiting and evil-speaking, I declare the persons above-mentioned to be no longer members of this Society.”’ (ii. 430.) ‘And we had great reason to bless God that, after fifty-two were withdrawn, we had still upwards of ninety left’ (if. 433). Who those other ‘forty were that,’ you say, ‘left them’ I know not. Perhaps you may inform me. Upon the whole, all these quotations prove only this: That about eleven years ago Mr. Cennick, falling into predestination, set the Society in Kingswood a-disputing with each other, and occasioned much confusion for some months. But still you have not gone one step toward proving (which is the one point in question) that the Methodists in general were even then ‘all together by the ears,’ and much less that they have been so ever since and that they are so now. However, you fail not to triumph (like Louis le Grand after his victory at Blenheim): ‘What shall we say now Are these the fruits of Methodism’ No, sir. They are the fruits of opposing it. They are the tares sown among the wheat. You may hear of instances of the same kind both in earlier and later ages. You add: ‘This. is bad enough; but it is not the worst. For consider what becomes of those that leave them’ Why, sir, what if ‘their last end be worse than their first’ Will you charge this upon me By the same rule you must have charged upon the Apostles themselves whatever befell those who, having ‘known the way of righteousness,’ afterwards ‘turned back from the holy commandment once delivered to them.’ 36. You conclude this section: ‘Mr. Wesley will probably say, “Must I be answerable for the Moravians, against whom I have preached and written” True, since he and the Moravians quarreled. But who gives them a box on the ear with the one hand and embraces them with the other Who first brought over this wicked generation Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide who fanaticized his own followers and deprived them of their senses whose Societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to Moravianism forty or fifty at a time Would they have split upon this rock, if they had not been first Methodists Lastly: where is the spawn of Moravianism so strongly working as in the children of Methodism’ Sir, you run very fast. And yet I hope to overtake you by-and-by. ‘Mr. Wesley,’ you say, ‘has preached against the Moravians since he quarreled with them.’ Sir, I never quarreled with their persons yet: I did with some of their tenets long ago. He ‘gives them a box on the ear with the one hand and embraces them with the other.’ That is, I embrace what is good among them, and at the same time reprove what is evil. ‘who first brought over this wicked generation’ Not I, whether they be wicked or not. I once thought I did; but have since then seen and acknowledged my mistake. ‘Who made a Moravian his spiritual guide’ Not I, though I have occasionally consulted several. ‘who fanaticized his own followers and deprived them of their senses’ Not I. Prove it upon me if you can. ‘whose Societies (by his own confession) run over in shoals to Moravianism, forty or fifty at a time’ Truly not mine. Two-and-fifty of Kingswood Society ran over to Calvinism; and, a year before, part of Fetter Lane Society gradually went over to the Moravians. But I know none of ours that went over ‘in shoals.’ They never, that I remember, gained five at a time; nor fifty in all, to the best of my knowledge, for these last ten years. ‘Would they’ (of Fetter Lane) ‘have split on this rock, if they had not first been Methodists’ Undoubtedly they would; for several of them had not first been Methodists. Mr. Viney, for instance (as well as several others), was with the Germans before ever he saw me. ‘Lastly: where is the spawn of Moravianism working so strongly as in the children of Methodism’ If you mean the errors of Moravianism, they are not working at all in the generality of the children of Methodism; the Methodists in general being thoroughly apprized of and fully guarded against them. So much for your modest assertion that the Methodists in general are ‘all together by the ears’; the very reverse of which is true. They are in general in perfect peace. They enjoy in themselves ‘the peace of God which passeth all understanding.’ They are at peace with each other; and, as much as lieth in them, they live peaceably with all men. 37. Your next charge is that ’Methodism has a tendency to undermine morality and good works’ (sect. xx. p. I46, &c.). To prove this— You assert, first: ‘That the Methodists are trained up to wait in quietness for sudden conversion; whence they are naturally led to neglect the means of salvation.’ This is a mistake all over. For neither are they taught to wait in quietness (if you mean any more than patience by that term) for either sudden or gradual conversion; neither do they, in fact, neglect the means. So far from it, that they are eminently exact in the use of them. You assert, secondly: ‘The doctrine of assurance of pardon and salvation, present and future, causes a false security, to the neglect of future endeavors.’ Blunder upon blunder again. That all Christians have an assurance of future salvation is no Methodist doctrine; and an assurance of present pardon is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavors after universal holiness. You assert, thirdly: ‘Impulses and impressions, being made the rule of duty, will lead into dangerous errors.’ Very true; but .the Methodists do not make impulses and impressions the rule of duty. They totally disclaim any other rule of duty than the written Word. You assert, fourthly: ‘A claim of unsinning perfection’ (I mean by perfection the loving God with all our heart) ‘drives some into frenzies, others into despair.’ Sir, I doubt the fact. You assert, fifthly: ‘The Moravian Methodists trample down morality, and multitudes of the Wesleyans have been infected.’ ‘The Moravian Methodists’! You may as well say the Presbyterian Papists. The Moravians have no connection with the Methodists. Therefore, whatever they do (though you slander them too), they and not we are to answer for. The Methodists at present, blessed be God, are as little infected with this plague (of condemning or neglecting good works) as any body of people in England or Ireland. 38. From these loose assertions you proceed to quotations from my writings, every one of which I shall consider, to show that, not in one or two, but in every one, you are a willful prevaricator and false accuser of your neighbor. You say, first: ‘The Moravians.’ Hold, good sir! you are out of the way already. You well know the Moravians are to answer for themselves. Our present question concerns the Methodists only. You say, secondly: ‘A general temptation prevails among the Societies of Methodists of leaving off good works’ (Journal, ii. 349). Sir, you are wrong again. The Societies of Methodists are not there spoken of, but the single Society of Fetter Lane. Among these only that temptation then prevailed. You quote, thirdly, as my words: ‘The poor, confused, shattered Society had erred from the faith.’ My own words are: ‘I told the poor, confused, shattered Society wherein they had erred from the faith’ (ii. 351) -- namely, with regard to the ordinances; not in general, as your way of expressing it naturally imports. Nor had all the Society erred even in this point. Many of them were still unshaken. You quote, fourthly: ‘A woman of Deptford spoke great words and true. She ordered Mr. Humphreys to leave off doing good.’ Must not every reader suppose, as you have placed these words, that they were all spoke at one time and that the ‘great words and true’ were those whereby she ‘ordered Mr. Humphreys to leave off doing good’ What, then, must every honest man think of you, when he observes that one half of the sentence (which you thus artfully put together) stands in another page, and at a considerable distance from the other and that I immediately subjoin to the latter clause, ‘We talked largely with her, and she was humbled to the dust, under a deep sense of the advantage Satan had gained over her.’ You quote, fifthly, a part of the following sentence to prove that I ‘undermine morality and good works’: ‘His judgment concerning holiness is new. He no longer judges it to be an outward thing, to consist either in doing no harm, in doing good, or in using the ordinances of God.’ (And yet how strongly do I insist upon all these! Sir, do not you know this). ‘He sees it is the life of God in the soul, the image of God fresh stamped on the heart.’ It is so. Sir, can you deny it What, then, will you prove by this You quote, sixthly, part of these words: ‘They speak of holiness as if it consisted chiefly, if not wholly, in those two points: (1) the doing no harm; (2) the doing good, as it is called -- that is, the using the means of grace, and helping our neighbor.’ (ii. 275). And this you term ‘disparaging good works’ I Sir, these things, considered barely as to the opus operatum, are not good works. There must be something good in the heart before any of our works are good. Insomuch that, ‘though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have not’ this, ‘it profiteth me nothing.’ You observe, by the way, ‘The Mystic divinity was once the Methodists’ doctrine.’ Sir, you have stepped out of the way only to get another fall. The Mystic divinity was never the Methodists’ doctrine. They could never swallow either John Tauler or Jacob Behmen; although they often advised with one that did. 39. You say, seventhly: ‘I do not find that Mr. Wesley has ever cited those express passages of St. James.’ Sir, what if I had not (I mean in print.) I do not cite every text from Genesis to the Revelation. But it happens I have. Look again, sir; and by-and-by you may find where. You say, eighthly: ‘Mr. Wesley affirms that the condition of our justification is faith alone, and not good works.’ Most certainly I do. And I learned it from the Eleventh and Twelfth Articles and from the Homilies of our Church. If you can confute them, do. But I subscribe to them both with my hand and heart. You say, ninthly: ‘Give me leave to make a remark. The Methodists wandered many years in the new path of salvation by faith and works, which was the time, too, of their highest glory and popularity. During this time they were seducing their disciples into the most destructive errors.’ Excuse me, sir. While they preached salvation by faith and works, they had no disciples at all, unless you term a few pupils such; nor had they any popularity at all. They then enjoyed [what they always desired) a quiet, retired life. But, whatever disciples we had, they were not seduced by us into the error of justification by works. For they were in it before ever they saw our face or knew there were such men in the world. You say, tenthly: ‘Mr. Wesley only contends that it is possible to use them without trusting in them.’ Not in that page; because the proposition I am confuting is, ‘It is not possible to use them without trusting in them.’ (ii. 330.) You added: ‘And now, are not such disparaging expressions’ (a mere possibility of using them without trusting in them) ‘a great discouragement to practice’ O sir, when will you deviate into truth Dare you affirm, without any regard to God or man, ‘Mr. Wesley only contends for a mere possibility of using the means without trusting in them’ To go no farther than the very first page you refer to (ii. 350), my express words are these: ‘I believe the way to attain faith is to wait for Christ in using all the means of grace. ‘Because I believe these do ordinarily convey God’s grace even to unbelievers.’ Is this ‘contending only for a mere possibility of using them without trusting in them’ Not only in this and many other parts of the Journals, but in a sermon wrote professedly on the subject, I contend that all the ordinances of God are the stated channels of His grace to man, and that it is our bounden duty to use them all at all possible opportunities. So that to charge the Methodists in general, or me in particular, with undervaluing or disparaging them shows just as much regard for justice and truth as if you was to charge us with Mahometanism. 40. Tedious as it is to wade through so many dirty pages, I will follow you step by step a little farther. Your eleventh proof, that we ‘undermine morality and good works,’ is drawn from the following passage: ‘I know one “under the law” is even as I was for near twice ten years. [See under sect. 12-14.] Every one, when he begins to see his fallen state and to feel the wrath of God abiding on him, relapses into the sin that most easily besets him soon after repenting of it. Sometimes he avoids, and at many other times he cannot persuade himself to avoid, the occasions of it. Hence his relapses are frequent, and of consequence his heart is hardened more and more.... Nor can he, with all his sincerity, avoid any one of these four marks of hypocrisy till, “being justified by faith,” he “hath peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”’ (ii. 266.) You, sir, are no competent judge in the cause. But to any who has experienced what St. Paul speaks in his 7th chapter to the Romans I willingly submit this whole question. You know by experience that, if anger ‘was the sin that did so easily beset you,’ you relapsed into it for days or months or years soon after repenting of it. Sometimes you avoided the occasions of it; at other times you did not. Hence your relapses were frequent, and your heart was hardened more and more: and yet all this time you was sincerely striving against sin; you could say without hypocrisy, ‘The thing which I do, I allow not; the evil which I would not, that I do. To will is even now present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.’ But the Jesuits, you think, ‘could scarce have granted salvation upon easier terms. Have no fear, ye Methodists.’ Sir, I do not grant salvation, as you call it, upon so easy terms. I believe a man in this state is in a state of damnation. ‘Have no fear,’ say you Yea, but those who are thus ‘under the law’ are in fear all the day long. ‘Was there ever so pleasing a scheme’ Pleasing with a vengeance I as pleasing as to be in the belly of hell! So totally do you mistake the whole matter, not knowing what you speak nor whereof you affirm. You are, indeed, somewhat pitiable in speaking wrong on this head, because you do it in ignorance. But this plea cannot be allowed when you gravely advance that trite, threadbare objection concerning the Lord’s Supper, without taking any notice that I have answered it again and again, both to Mr. Church and to the late Lord Bishop of London. 41. Your thirteenth proof is this: ‘Mr. Wesley has taught us that infirmities are no sins.’ Sir, you have taught me to wonder at nothing you assert; else I should wonder at this. The words I suppose you refer to stand in the sermon on Salvation by Faith; though you do not choose to show your reader where they may be found, -- ‘He that is by faith born of God sinneth not (1) by any habitual sin: nor (2) by any willful sin: nor (3) by any sinful desire; for he continually desireth the holy and perfect will of God: nor (4) doth he sin by infirmities, whether in act, word, or thought; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this they are not properly sins.’ And this you seriously declare ‘is a loophole to creep out of every moral and religious obligation’! In the same paragraph you say I have strongly affirmed that ‘all our works and tempers are evil continually; that our whole heart is altogether corrupt and abominable, and consequently our whole life; all our works, the most specious of them, our righteousness, our prayers, needing an atonement themselves’ (i. 423, 464; ii. 89, 249-50[See letter of July 31, 1739.]). I do strongly affirm this. But of whom In all these places but the last of myself only. In every one but this I speak in the singular number, and of myself when confessedly an unbeliever. And of whom do I speak in that last place Of unbelievers, and them only. The words are, ‘All our tempers and works in our natural state are only evil continually.’ Now, sir, where is your loophole to creep out If you have none, I fear every impartial man will pass sentence upon you that you have no regard either to moral or religious obligations. I have now weighed every argument you have brought to prove that the ‘Methodists undermine morality and good works.’ A grievous charge indeed! But the more inexcusable is he who advances it but is not able to make it good in any one single instance. Pardon my pertness, sir, in not barely affirming (that is your manner) but proving this; nay, and in telling you that you cannot make amends to God, to me, or to the world without a retractation as public as your calumny. 42. You add: ‘How the case stands, in fact, as to the number of converts among the Methodists and real reformation of life to the certain and known duties of the gospel is matter of difficult determination.’ Not at all. What is easier to be determined than (1) that A. B., of Exeter, or Tiverton, was for many years a notorious drunkard, common swearer, or Sabbath-breaker (2) that he is not so now; that he is really reformed from drunkenness, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, to sobriety and the other certain and known duties of the gospel ‘But from what inquiry’ you ‘can make there is no reason to think them, for the generality, better than their neighbors.’ ‘Better than their neighbors’ I Why, are they no worse than their neighbors’ Then, what have you been doing all this time But, whether they are better or worse than their neighbors, they are undeniably better than themselves: I mean, better than they were before they heard this preaching ’in the certain and known duties of the gospel.’ But you desire us to ’consider their black art of calumny; their uncharitableness; their excessive pride and vanity; their skepticism, doubts, and disbelief of God and Christ; their disorderly practices and contempt of authority; their bitter envying and inveterate broils among themselves; their coolness for good works.’ Sir, we will consider all these when you have proved them. Till then this is mere brutum fulmen. 43. You proceed: ‘If we take Mr. Wesley’s own account, it falls very short of any considerable reformation.’ You mean, if we take that part of his account which you are pleased to transcribe. Atticam elegantiam! But let any impartial man read my whole account, and then judge. However, hence you infer that ‘the new reformers have made but a slow and slight progress in the reformation of manners.’ As a full answer to this I need only transcribe a page or two from the last Appeal [Works, viii. 237-8.]: ‘God begins a glorious work in our land. You set yourself against it with your might; to prevent its beginning where it does not yet appear, and to destroy it wherever it does. In part you prevail. You keep many from hearing the word that is able to save their souls. Others who have heard it you induce to turn back from God and to list under the devil’s banner again. Then you make the success of your own wickedness an excuse for not acknowledging the work of God! You urge “that not many sinners were reformed! and that some of those are now as bad as ever!” ‘Whose fault is this Is it ours, or your own Why have not thousands more been reformed Yea, for every one who is now turned to God, why are there not ten thousand Because you and your associates labored so heartily in the cause of hell; because you and they spared no pains either to prevent or to destroy the work of God. By using all the power and wisdom you had you hindered thousands from hearing the gospel, which they might have found to be the power of God unto salvation. Their blood is upon your heads. By inventing or countenancing or retailing lies, some refined, some gross and palpable, you hindered others from profiting by what they did hear. You are answerable to God for these souls also. Many who began to taste the good word and run the way of God’s commandments, by various methods you prevailed on to hear it no more. So they soon drew back to perdition. But know that for every one of these also God will require an account of you in the day of judgment! ‘And yet, in spite of all the malice and wisdom and strength, not only of men, but of “principalities and powers,” of the “rulers of the darkness of this world,” of the “wicked spirits in high places,” there are thousands found who are “turned from dumb idols to serve the living and true God." What an harvest, then, might we have seen before now, if all who say they are “on the Lord’s side” had come, as in all reason they ought, “to the help of the Lord against the mighty”! Yea, had they only not opposed the work of God, had they only refrained from His messengers, might not the trumpet of God have been heard long since in every corner of our land and thousands of sinners in every county been brought to “fear God and honor the King”’ 44. Without any regard to this, your next assertion is, ‘That the Methodists are carrying on the work of Popery’ (sect. xxi. p. 164, &c.). This also being a charge of a very high nature, I shall particularly consider whatever you advance in defense of it. Your first argument is: ‘They have a strain of jesuitical sophistry, artifice, and craft, evasion, reserve, equivocation, and prevarication.’ So you say. But you do not so much as aim at any proof. Your second argument is: ‘Mr. Wesley says, where a Methodist was receiving the sacrament, God was pleased to let him see a crucified Savior.’ Sir, Mr. Wesley does not say this. It is one that occasionally wrote to him. But if he had, what would you infer that he is a Papist Where is the consequence Why, you say, ‘Was not this as good an argument for transubstantiation as several produced by the Papists’ Yes, exactly as good as either their arguments or yours -- that is, just good for nothing. Your third argument runs thus: ‘We may see in Mr. Wesley’s writings that he was once a strict Churchman, but gradually put on a more catholic spirit, tending at length to Roman Catholic. He rejects any design to convert others from any communion, and consequently not from Popery.’ This is half true (which is something uncommon with you), and only half false. It is true that for thirty years last past I have ‘gradually put on a more catholic spirit,’ finding more and more tenderness for those who differed from me either in opinions or modes of worship. But it is not true that I ‘reject any design of converting others from any communion.’ I have, by the blessing of God, converted several from Popery, who are now alive and ready to testify it. Your fourth argument is that in a Collection of Prayers I cite the words of an ancient Liturgy – ‘For the faithful departed.’ Sir, whenever I use those words in the Burial Service, I pray to the same effect: ‘That we, with all those who are departed in Thy faith and fear, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul’: yea, and whenever I say, ‘Thy kingdom come’; for I mean both the kingdom of grace and glory. In this kind of general prayer, therefore, ‘for the faithful departed,’ I conceive myself to be clearly justified, both by the earliest antiquity, by the Church of England, and by the Lord’s Prayer; although the Papists have corrupted this scriptural practice into praying for those who die in their sins. 45. Your fifth argument is: ‘That they use private confession, in which every one is to speak the state of his heart, with his several temptations and deliverances, and answer as many searching questions as may be. And what a scene,’ say you, ‘is hereby disclosed! What a filthy jakes opened, when the most searching questions are answered without reserve!’ Hold, sir, unless you are answering for yourself: this undoubtedly you have a right to do. You can tell best what is in your own heart. And I cannot deny what you say: it may be a very ‘filthy jakes,’ for aught I know. But pray do not measure others by yourself. The hearts of believers ‘are purified through faith.’ When these open their hearts one to another, there is no such scene disclosed. Yet temptations to pride in various kinds, to self-will, to unbelief in many instances, they often feel in themselves (whether they give any place to them or no), and occasionally disclose to their brethren. But this has no resemblance to Popish confession; of which you are very sensible. For you cite my own words: ‘The Popish confession is the confession made by a single person to a priest. Whereas this is the confession of several persons conjointly, not to a priest, but to each other.’ You add: ‘Will Mr. Wesley abide by this, and freely answer a question’ I will. For I desire only, ‘by manifestation of the truth, to commend myself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.’ Your question is, ‘After private confessions taken in their bands, are not reports made to Mr. Wesley’ I answer, No; no reports are made to me of the particulars mentioned in private bands. ‘Are no delinquents, male and female, brought before him separately and confessed by him’ No; none at all. You ask, ‘How, then, do I know the outward and inward states of those under my care’ I answer, By examining them once a quarter more or less, not separately, but ten or fifteen together. Therefore every unprejudiced person must see that there is no analogy between the Popish confession to a priest and our confessing our faults one to another and praying one for another, as St. James directs. Consequently neither does this argument, though urged with all your art and force, amount to any shadow of proof that ‘the Methodists are carrying on the work of Popery.’ 46. Your sixth argument, such as it is, stands thus: ‘Another tendency to Popery appears by the notion of a single drop of Christ’s blood being a sufficient atonement for the sins of the whole world. For, however pious this may appear, it is absolutely false and Papistical.’ Sir; this argument is perfectly new, and entirely your own. It were great pity to disturb you in the enjoyment of it. A seventh argument you ground on those words in the Plain Account of the People called Methodists: ‘It is a point we chiefly insist upon that orthodoxy or right opinions is a very slender part of religion, if any part of it at all.’ [See letter in Dec. 1748, sect. I. 2, to Vincent Perronet; also Sept. 18, 1756.] ‘The plain consequence whereof is’ (so you affirm) ‘that teaching and believing the fundamental errors of Popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries, are of very little moment, if any.’ Strain again, sir; pull hard, or you will never be able to drag this conclusion out of these premises. I assert ‘(1) that in a truly righteous man fight opinions are a very slender part of religion; (2) that in an irreligious, a profane man, they are not any part of religion at all, such a man not being one jot more religious because he is orthodox.’ Sir, it does not follow from either of these propositions that wrong opinions are not an hindrance to religion; and much less that ‘teaching and believing the fundamental errors of Popery, with the whole train of their abominations and idolatries’ (practiced, I presume you mean, as well as taught and believed), ‘are of very little moment, if any.’ I am so far from saying or thinking this that, in my printed letter to a priest of that communion (did you never read it or hear of it before) are these express words [See letter in 1739 to a Roman Catholic priest.]: ‘I pity you much, having the same assurance that Jesus is the Christ, and that no Romanist can expect to be saved according to the terms of His covenant’ (it. 263). Do you term this ‘an extenuation of their abominations, a reducing them to almost a mere nothing’ 47. You argue,. eighthly, thus: ‘The Methodist doctrine of impressions and assurances holds equally for Popish enthusiasts.’ This needs no answer: I have already shown that the Methodist doctrine in these respects is both scriptural and rational. Your ninth argument is: ‘Their sudden conversions stand upon the same footing with the Popish.’ You should say, ‘are a proof that they are promoting Popery.’ I leave you to enjoy this argument also. But the dreadful one you reserve for the last -- namely, our ‘recommending Popish books. One is the Life of Mr. De Renty, of which Mr. Wesley has published an extract.’ To prove your inimitable fairness here, you scrape up again all the trash wherein the weak writer of that Life abounds and which I had pared off and thrown away. Sir, could you find nothing to your purpose in the extract itself I fancy you might; for I have purposely left in two or three particulars to show of what communion he was, which I did not think it right to conceal. You go on: ‘Francis of Sales is another Papist much commended by Mr. Wesley; and who, he doubts not, is in Abraham’s bosom. He is the Methodist’s bosom friend.’ I believe he is in Abraham’s bosom; but he is no bosom friend of the Methodists. I question whether one in five hundred of them has so much as heard his name. And as for me, neither do I commend him much, nor recommend him at all. His Life I never saw, nor any of his works but his Introduction to an Holy Life. This the late Dr. Nichols [William Nichols (1664-1712), Canon of Chichester and Rector of Selsey, who published important theological works.] translated into English, published, and strongly recommended. Therefore, if this be a proof of promoting Popery, that censure fails, not on me, but him. I have now considered all the arguments you have brought to prove that the Methodists are carrying on the work of Popery. And I am persuaded every candid man, who rightly weighs what has been said with any degree of attention, will clearly see, not only that no one of those arguments is of any real force at all, but that you do not believe yourself; you do not believe the conclusion which you make as if you would prove: only you keep close to your laudable resolution of throwing as much dirt as possible. 48. It remains only to gather up some of your fragments, as still farther proofs of your integrity. You graciously say: ‘I do not lay much stress upon the charge of some of the angry Moravians against Mr. Wesley and brother for preaching Popery.’ Sir, if you had, you would only have hurt yourself. For (1) the Moravians never, that I know of, brought this charge at all; (2) when Mr. Cennick and two other Predestinarians (these were the persons) affirmed they had heard both my brother and me preach Popery, they meant neither more nor less thereby than the doctrine of Universal Redemption. ‘Some connection between the doctrines of Methodists and Papists hath been shown through this whole Comparison.’ Shown! But how By the same art of wire-drawing and deciphering which would prove an equal connection between the Methodists and Mahometans. ‘Jesuits have often mingled and been the ringleaders among our enthusiastic sectaries.’ Sir, I am greatly obliged to you for your compliment, as well as for your parallel of Mr. Faithful Commin. [A Dominican friar examined in 1567 before Queen Elizabeth and Archbishop Parker. He escaped to Rome, and received 2,000 ducals from the Pope for his good service. See The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared, i. 133.] And pray, sir, at what time do you think it was that I first mingled with those enthusiastic sectaries when I came back from Germany, or when I returned from Georgia, or while I was at Lincoln College Although the plot itself might be laid before, when I was at Christ Church or at the Charterhouse School. But ‘a Jesuit’s or enthusiast’s declaring against Popery is no test of their sincerity.’ Most sure: nor is a nameless person’s declaring against Methodism any proof that he is not a Jesuit. I remember well, when a well-dressed man, taking his stand not far from Moor fields, had gathered a large company, and was vehemently asserting that ‘those rogues the Methodists were all Papists,’ till a gentleman coming by fixed his eye on him, and cried, ‘Stop that man! I know him personally: he is a Romish priest.’ I know not that anything remains on this head which bears so much as the face of an argument. So that, of all the charges you have brought (and truly you have not been sparing), there is not one wherein your proof falls more miserably short than in this -- that ‘the Methodists are advancing Popery.’ 49. I have at length gone through your whole performance, weighed whatever you cite from my writings, and shown at large how far those passages are from proving all or any part of your charge. So that all your attempt to build on them, of the pride and vanity of the Methodists; of their shuffling and prevaricating; of their affectation of prophesying; laying claim to the miraculous favors of Heaven; unsteadiness of temper; unsteadiness in sentiment and practice; art and cunning; giving up inspiration and extraordinary calls; skepticism, infidelity, Atheism; uncharitableness to their opponents; contempt of order and authority; and fierce, rancorous quarrels with each other; of the tendency of Methodism to undermine morality and good works; and to carry on the good work of Popery; -- all this fabric falls to the ground at once, unless you can find some better foundation to support it. (Sects. iii.-vi.; ix., xi.-xv.; xviii.-xxi.) 50. These things being so, what must all unprejudiced men think of you and your whole performance You have advanced a charge, not against one or two persons only, but indiscriminately against an whole body of people, of His Majesty’s subjects, Englishmen, Protestants, members, I suppose, of your own Church; a charge containing abundance of articles, and most of them of the highest and blackest nature. You have prosecuted this with unparalleled bitterness of spirit and acrimony of language; using sometimes the most coarse, rude, scurrilous terms, sometimes the keenest sarcasms you could devise. The point you have steadily pursued in thus prosecuting this charge is first to expose the whole people to the hatred and scorn of all mankind, and next to stir up the civil powers against them. And when this charge comes to be fairly weighed, there is not a single article of it true I The passages you cite to make it good are one and all such as prove nothing less than the points in question; most of them such as you have palpably maimed, corrupted, and strained to a sense never thought of by the writer; many of them such as are flat against you, and overthrow the very point they are brought to support. What can they think, but that this is the most shocking violation of the Christian rule ’Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ the most open affront to all justice and even common humanity, the most glaring insult upon the common sense and reason of mankind, which has lately appeared in the world If you say, ‘But I have proved the charge upon Mr. Whitefield’: admit you have (which I do not allow), Mr. Whitefield is not the Methodists; -- no, nor the Societies under his care; they are not a third, perhaps not a tenth, part of the Methodists. What, then, can excuse your ascribing their faults, were they proved, to the whole body You indict ten men. Suppose you prove the indictment upon one, will you therefore condemn the other nine Nay, let every man bear his own burthen, since every man must give an account of himself to God. I had occasion once before to say to an opponent, ‘You know not to show mercy.’ Yet that gentleman did regard truth and justice. But you regard neither mercy, justice, nor truth. To vilify, to blacken is your one point. I pray God it may not be laid to your charge! May He show you mercy, though you show none I --I am, sir, Your friend and well-wisher. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wesley’s exactness in his charity accounts must have been pleasing to the London banker. Two days before this report was given Wesley heard from the Rev. Vincent Perronet (whom he had consulted), and was clearly convinced that he ought to marry. See next letter. [2] On February 10, after preaching at the Foundry at five, Wesley was hastening in the dark to preach at Snowsfields before his journey to the North when he tripped upon the ice on London Bridge and fell with great force. He was helped to the chapel and after preaching his leg was bound up by a surgeon, so that he ‘made a shift to walk to the Seven Dials.’ Thence he took a coach to Mr. Blackwell’s in Change Alley, and went in a char to the Foundry. The rest of the week was spent at Threadneedle Street at Mrs. Vazeille’s, whom he married on February 18 or 19 On March 4, ‘being tolerably able to ride though not to walk,’ he set out for Bristol. Charles Wesley was in London with his wife, deeply annoyed at his brother’s marriage. He says on February 24, ‘After sacrament Mr. Blackwell fell upon me in a manner peculiar to himself dragging me to my dear sister.’ Wesley invokes the help of Mrs. Blackwell and Samuel Lloyd, the lawyer, who lived in Devonshire Square and was cousin to Mrs. Charles Wesley. Under these influences the poet softened, and assured his brother’s wife that he was perfectly reconciled to her and to John. He does not seem to have attended the Conference in Bristol on March 11. See Journal, iii. 513-16n; C. Wesley’s Journal ii. 78-9 179; and letter of April 7. [3] The Journal shows how closely Wesley kept to this program. He was in Bolton on the Wednesday of Easter week and may have met Bennet then. About the end of the year, however, Bennet left Wesley, and took with him all the 127 members at Bolton save nineteen, and the whole Society at Stockport except one woman. In 1754 he became pastor of a Calvinstic Church at Warburton, near Warrington, and died in 1759 at the age of forty-five. See letters of January 23, 1750 (heading), and March 25, 1752. [4] This is the first letter from Wesley to his wife that has been preserved. He had been kept in London by his lameness till March 4. He returned from Bristol on the 21st, and left six days after on his northern journey. ‘I cannot understand,’ he says in Journal, iii. 517, ‘how a Methodist preacher can answer it to God to preach one sermon or travel one day less in a married than in a single state. In this respect surely “it remaineth that they who have wives be as though they had none.”’ Mrs. Wesley was the widow of Ambrose Vazeille, a London merchant, and had a house in Threadneedle Street and made herself very useful in managing Book-Room affairs at the Foundry. She had 300 a year from 10,000 in the Three per Cents, and this was settled on herself and her four children. That explains certain allusions to business matters in this and other letters. Whitefield wrote to John Bennet on February 27, 1751: ‘I suppose you have heard of the late marriage. Though it may make a little stir for a while, upon the whole I believe it will be overruled for good.’ He adds a postscript: ‘Since I have wrote this I have seen Mrs. Wesley, and think she is a very agreeable woman. May the Lord bless both!’ Trouble, however, began within ten months of their marriage. Wesley says his wife was fretting herself almost to death because she fancied he did not love her and did not trust her as he did others. He bore the strain until December 16, when he explained things to her at large. ‘By the blessing of God the cloud vanished away, and we were united as at the beginning.’ Darker days came; but Wesley’s nephew Samuel says (Vindex to Verax, p. 26) ‘his singular forbearance towards the worst of wives was apparent to all.’ [5] Wesley had written to his wife only three days before. His adaptation of Matthew Roydon’s lines on Sir Philip Sidney shows his wide reading and his lover-like use of it. Jenny Vazeille, one of her daughters, married Christopher Sundius, a prosperous London merchant and one of the earliest members of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society. See J. A. Symonds’s Sidney, p. 190; and letter of October 16, 1789. [6] Samuel Lloyd had drawn up Mrs. Charles Wesley’s marriage settlement, and also arranged Mrs. John Wesley’s affairs. Blackwell consented to act with him. His reply is given on a blank page of the letter: ‘I will endeavor to see Mr. Lloyd and act in concert with him agreeable to your desire.’ He adds: ‘Carried to Mrs. Wesley for her to forward.’ See Journal, iv. 439 486-9n; C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 53; and letter of March 27. [7] The Rev. G. Stringer Rowe described this as a ‘ fragment of a letter from Wesley to his wife before marriage.’ Its tone perhaps suits better the weeks following the marriage to Mrs. Vazeille on February 18. It bears the Leeds postmark, and the date may be May 15, 1751, when he had a little Conference in Leeds with about thirty preachers. He arrived on the 14th, and left for Wakefield on the 16th. [8] Wesley’s marriage on February 18, 1751, vacated his Fellowship at Lincoln College. The letter of resignation was sent to ‘the Rector and Fellows of our College.’ Euseby Isham was Rector from 1731 to 1755, in, very happy Period of the College’s history. Wesley’s election on March 17, 1726, was on of the most important events in his Oxford life. Lincoln College celebrated the bicentenary of that election by memorable gatherings in March 1927. Christ Church also shared in the tribute to its famous student. The three Wesley brothers were all Christ Church men, and Oxford set a stamp on the Evangelical Revival which will never be effaced. [9] James Wheatley, one of Wesley’s preachers, had misbehaved himself at Bradford-upon-Avon; and when convicted by the testimony of many witnesses, he brought false accusations against his brethren. He was confronted with ten preachers in the West of England, but could not substantiate his charges. Charles Wesley says: ‘The accuser of the brethren was silent in him, which convinced us of his willful lying.’ After deeply weighing the matter, the Wesleys suspended him by the following letter. See Journal, iii. 531-3, iv. 95; C. Wesley’s Journal, iii. 82-4; Tyerman’s Wesley, if. 121-30. [10] The friction caused by John Wesley’s marriage was now somewhat relieved, and Charles was willing to receive his brother’s wife into his house at Stokes Croft. Mrs. Charles Wesley was with her husband. They reached Worcester on July 5. See C. Wesley’s Journal; and letter of May 14. [11] Thomas Mitchell was thrown into a great pond at Wrangle, and was dragged out senseless. Mitchell gives the date as August 7. He says an appeal was made to the Court of King’s Bench, which made the lions at Wrangle and the minister quiet as lambs. See Journal, iii. 533, iv 16; Wesley’s Veterans i. 184-7. [12] Could this be to Vincent Perronet, with whom the brothers talked the matter over at Shoreham in November, and again six weeks later See Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 269. [13] John Downes, of Horsley, went with Wesley and John Nelson to Cornwall in 1743. He was present at the first Conference in 1744. A letter from him to Joseph Cownley shows his good sense and feeling. At the age of fifty-two he was stricken down while preaching at West Street Chapel on November 4, 1774 and never spoke again. Wesley thought ‘he was by nature as great a genius as Sir Isaac Newton.’ See Journal, iii. 135, vi. 46; Wesley’s Veterans iii. 79-80, iv. 148; and letter of December 28. John Fenwick was a man of property. He served as an itinerant from 1751 till his death in 1787. His name appears in the Deed of Declaration (when he was living at Burslem). He became a supernumerary in 1785, and settled near London, where Wesley took tea with him on February 22, 1786. See Journal, v. 468, vii. 141d. [14] This letter shows the constant financial strain under which Wesley lived and the criticism which he had to bear even from his rather unpracticable brother. [15] Jonathan Reeves began to preach at Birstall. He received Episcopal ordination, and became chaplain of the Magdalen Hospital in Whitechapel. Compston, in The Magdalen Hospital pp. 63-4, refers to a Genuine Life and Trial of Dr. Dodd, which says: ‘The benevolent Jonas [Hanway] had fixed one of Wesley’s hedge-preachers in that place.’ ‘ The Methodist chaplain was almost sixty years old, of a diminutive appearance, of a withered complexion, and extremely course [sic] features’ A charge of immorality was brought against him by Dr. Wingfield, Chaplain at St. Thomas’s Hospital; but he had to attend a meeting of the Committee and acknowledge that he had mistaken Reeves for another man. Reeves was instructed to wait on Archbishop Secker to thank him for revising the ‘Magdalen Prayer.’ He was made a Life Governor in July 1759 His salary was increased in 1760, and 10 given him in recognition of his ‘diligent and faithful’ services. See Journal, iii. 60 423-4; Wesley’s Veterans, 1 116, iii. 74, 159; and letter of June 4 1739. In his Journal for May 6 1751, Wesley refers to ‘a plain, rough exhorter,’ who lived in Stockton, and by whose means the Society had been more than doubled since his previous visit. This was probably George Atchinson. [16] This is one of the most important of Wesley’s letters. In it he gives the result of his experience of an evangelist, and the kind of preaching he had found most effectual in leading to conviction of sin and true repentance. The painful experience of James Wheatley’s preaching and example is strikingly described. It is not known to whom the letter was sent; but the gentleman had been captivated by the new manner of preaching ‘You think it has done great good; I think it has done great harm.’ The letter from this correspondent on September 21 has been lost; but Wesley’s own preaching had become unpalatable to him. The patience, frankness and calm reasoning of the reply are remarkable. Was it really sent to Mr. Blackwell The references in the letter of July 20, 1752, suggests that it may have been; and one can understand how a London banker might have been influenced by such preaching. He had heard John Nelson in London or Bristol, where Nelson was stationed about this time, and had been a month with Wesley in the August before the letter was written. See Journal, iii. 534-5, iv. 3; Wesley’s Veterans iii. 184. [17] Domes suffered much from ill-health, and Wesley’s care for him comes out in this invitation to superintend his printing. [18] The date of this letter to Bishop Lavington is fixed by an entry in the Journal for November 19,1751: ‘I began writing a letter to the Comparer of the Papists and Methodists. Heavy work, such as I should never choose; but sometimes it must be done. Well might the ancient say, “God made practical divinity necessary, the devil controversial.”’ See letters of November 27, 1750, and May 8, 1752, to him. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: 38. 1752 ======================================================================== 1752 To the Society at Monyash, Derbyshire POOLE, NEAR NANTWICH, March 25, 1752. MY DEAR BRETHERN, -- I should very willingly have spent time among you; but at present my time will not permit, I have so many places to visit, between Manchester, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and so on, Berwick-upon-Tweed. Blessed be God that you are not yet moved from the hope of the gospel. He has permitted a fiery trial to fall upon you; but I trust the sharpest part of it is past. May God enable you to sand fast together in one mind and in one judgment! Watch, over one another in love; and let not that which is lame be turned out of the way. Do all things without murmurings and disputings, following peace with all men; and the God of peace be with you! -- I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell EPWORTH, April 16, 1752. DEAR SIR, -- After taking a round of between three and four hundred miles, we came hither yesterday in the afternoon. [Mrs. Wesley and her daughter left London with him on March 15, and visited Birmingham, Manchester, and Birstall on the way to Epworth. See Journal, iv. 12-19.] My wife is at least as well as when we left London: the more she travels the better she bears it. It gives us yet another proof that whatever God calls us to He will fit us for; so that we have no need to take thought for the morrow. Let the morrow take thought for the things of itself. I was at first a little afraid she would not so well understand the behavior of a Yorkshire mob; but there has been no trial: even the Methodists are now at peace throughout the kingdom. It is well if they bear this so well as they did war. I have seen more make shipwreck of the faith in a calm than in a storm. We are apt in sunshiny weather to fie down and sleep; and who can tell what may be done before we awake You was so kind as to say (if I did not misunderstand you) that you had placed the name of Richard Ellison among those who were to have a share of the money disposed of by Mr. Butterfield. [Richard Ellison who married Wesley’s sister Susanna had lost his property, and appealed to Wesley, who interested Blackwell in the case. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, pp. 283-4; and letter of July 3, 1751.] Last night he called upon me. I find all his cows are dead, and all his horses but one; and all his meadow-land has been under water these two years (which is occasioned by the neglect of the Commissioners of the Sewers, who ought to keep the drains open): so that he has very little left to subsist on. Therefore the smallest relief could never be more seasonable than at this time. I hope my brother puts forth all his strength among you, and that you have many happy opportunities together. Our best service attends both Mrs. Blackwell and you. We are now going round Lincolnshire, and hope to be at York in less than ten days. Have we any time to lose in this span of life --I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To Dr. Lavington, Bishop of Exeter NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 8, 1752. MY LORD -- In my late letter to your Lordship I used no ceremony (I suppose it was not expected from one who was so deeply injured: and I trust I used no rudeness; if I did, I am ready to ask your Lordship’s pardon. That letter [The Bishop of Exeter’s letter, pp. 2-3; see also Dr. Lavington’s letter in December 1751 to him.] related to a matter of fact published on your Lordship’s authority which I endeavored to falsify, and your Lordship now again endeavors to support. The facts alleged are (1) that I told Mrs. Morgan at Mitchell, ‘You are in hell; you are damned already’; (2) that I asked her to live upon free cost; (3) that she determined to admit no more Methodists into her house. At first I thought so silly and improbable a story neither deserved nor required a confutation; but when my friends thought otherwise, I called on Mrs. Morgan, who denied she ever said any such thing. I wrote down her words; part of which I transcribed in my letter to your Lordship, as follows: ‘On Saturday, August 25, 1750, Mr. Trembath of St. Gennys, Mr. Haime of Shaftesbury, and I called at Mr. Morgan’s at Mitchell. The servant telling me her master was not at home, I desired to speak with her mistress, the “honest, sensible woman.” I immediately asked, “Did I ever tell you or your husband that you would be damned if you took any money of me” (So the story ran in the First Part of the Comparison; it has now undergone a very considerable alteration.) “Or did you or he ever affirm” (another circumstance related at Truro) “that I was rude with your maid” She replied vehemently, "Sir, I never said you was or that you said any such thing. And I do not suppose my husband did. But we have been belied as well as our neighbors.” She added: “When the Bishop came down last, he sent us word he would dine at our house; but he did not, bring invited to a neighboring gentleman’s. He sent for me thither, and said, Good woman, do you know these people that go up and down Do you know Mr. Wesley Did not he tell you you would be damned if you took any money of him And did not he offer rudeness to your maid I told him, No, my Lord; he never said any such thug to me, nor to my husband that I know of. He never offered any rudeness to any maid of mine. I never saw or knew any harm of him; but a man told me once (who, I was told was a Methodist preacher) that I should be damned if I did not know my sins were forgiven.”’ Your Lordship replies: ‘I neither sent word that I would dine at their house, nor did I send for Mrs. Morgan; every word that passed between us was at her own house at Mitchell’ (page 7). I believe it; and consequently that the want of exactness in this print rests on Mrs. Morgan, not on your Lordship. Your Lordship adds: ’The following attestations will sufficiently clear me from any imputation or even suspicion of having published a falsehood.’ I apprehend otherwise; to waive what is past, if the facts now published by your Lordship, or any part of them, be not true, then certainly your Lordship will be under more than a ‘suspicion of having published a falsehood.’ The attestations your Lordship produces are (1) those of your Lordship’s Chancellor and Archdeacon; 2) those of Mr. Bennet. The former attests that on June or July 1748 Mrs. Morgan did say those things to your Lordship (page 8). I believe she did, and therefore acquit your Lordship of being the inventor of those falsehoods. Mr. Bennet avers that in January last Mrs. Morgan repeated to him what she had before said to your Lordship (page 11). Probably she might: having said these things one, I do not wonder if she said them again. Nevertheless Beam Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime she denied every word of it To get over this difficulty your Lordship publishes a second letter from Mr. Bennet, wherein he says, ‘On March 4 last Mrs. Morgan said, "I was told by my servant that I was wanted above-stairs; where, when I came, the chamber door being open I found them" (Mr. Wesley and others) “round the table on their knees.”’ He adds: ‘That Mrs. Morgan owned one circumstance in it was true; but as to the other parts of Mr. Wesley’s letter to the Bishop, she declares it is all false.’ I believe Min. Morgan did say this to Mr. Bennet, and that therefore nether is he ‘the maker of a lie.’ But he is the relater of a whole train of falsehoods, and those told merely for telling sake. I was never yet in any chamber at Mrs. Morgan’s. I was never above-stairs there in my life. On August 25, 1750, I was bellow-stars all the time I was in the house. When Mrs. Morgan came in, I was standing in the huge parlor; nor did any of us kneel while we were under the roof. This both Mr. Trembath and Mr. Haime can attest upon oath, whatsoever Mrs. Morgan may declare to ire contrary. But she declared father (so Mr. Bennet writes, ‘That Mr. John Wesley some time ago said to a maid of hers such thugs as were not fit to be spoken’ (page 11); and Mr. Morgan declared that he ‘did or said such indecent things to the above-named maid’ (the same fact, I presume, only a little embellished) ‘in his chamber in the night, that she immediately ran downstairs, and protested she would not go near him or any of the Methodists~ more’ (page 12). To save trouble to your Lordship as well as to myself, I will put this cause upon a very short issue: If your Lordship will only prove that ever I lay one night in Mrs. Morgan’s house, nay, that ever I was in the town of Mitchell after sunset, I will confess the whole charge. What your Lordship mentions ‘by the way’ I will now consider. “Some of your Western correspondents imposed on the leaders of Methodism by transmitting to London a notoriously false account of my Charge to the clergy. Afterwards the Methodists confessed themselves to have been deceived; yet some time after, the Methodists at Cork in Ireland your own brother at the head of them, reprinted the same lying pamphlet as my performance.’ (Pages 4-5.) My Lord, I know not who are your Lordship’s Irish correspondents; but here are almost as many mistakes as lines. For (1) They were none of my correspondents who sent that account to London. (2) It was sent, not to the leaders of Methodism, but to one who was no Methodist at all. (3) That it was a false account I do not know; but your Lordship may early put it out of dispute. And many have wondered that your Lordship did not do so long ago by printing the Charge in question. (4) I did never confess it was a false account; nor any person by my consent or with my knowledge. (5) That account was never reprinted at Cork at all. (6) When it was reprinted at Dublin, your Lordship had not disowned it. (7) My brother was not in Dublin when it was done; nor did either he or I know of it till long after. Therefore, when my brother was asked how he could reprint such an account after your Lordship had publicly disowned it, I do not at all wonder that ‘he did not offer a single word in answer.’ Whether this as well as my former letter, be ‘mere rant and declamation’ or plain and sober reason, I must refer to the world and your Lordship’s own conscience. -- I am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s most obedient servant. To his Wife NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE May 22, 1752. MY DEAR LOVE, -- Give the glory to God. Your name is precious among this people. They talk of you much and know not how to commend you enough, even for those little things, your plainness of dress, your sitting among the poor at the preaching, your using sage-tea and not being delicate in your food. Their way of mentioning you often brings tears into my eyes. Bless God for all His benefits. I rejoice for your sake; but I condemn myself. I have not made such use of the time we have been together as I might have done. The thing which I feared has come upon me. I have not conversed with you so seriously as I thought. I ought always to speak seriously and weightily with you, as I would with my guardian angel. Undoubtedly it is the will of God that we should be as guardian angels to each other. O what an union is that whereby we are united! The resemblance even of that between Christ and His Church. And can I laugh or trifle a moment when with you O let that moment return no more! To Ebenezer Blackwell NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 25, 1752. DEAR SIR, -- I want your advice. T. Butts [See letter of March 27, 1751.] sends me word that, after our printers’ bills are paid, the money remaining received by the sale of books does not amount to an hundred pounds a year. It seems, therefore, absolutely necessary to determine one of these three things, -- either to lessen the expense of printing (which I see no way of doing, unless by printing myself); to increase the income arising from the books (and how this can be done I know not); or to give up those eighty-six copies [Hymns and Sacred Poems published in 1749; a second edition appeared in 1752. Charles Wesley seems by deed to have had eighty-six copies for sale among his friends.] which are specified in my brother’s deed, to himself, to manage them as he pleases. Now, which of these ways, an things considered, should’ you judge most proper to be taken I receive several agreeable accounts of the manner wherein God is carrying on His work in London; and am in hopes both Mrs. Blackwell and you partake of the common blessing. My wife set out for Bristol last week. [See previous letter.] I hope her fears will prove groundless, and that all her children will live to glorify God. Anthony, I hear, is recovered already. The people in all these parts are much alive to God, bung generally plain, artless, and simple of heart. Here I should spend the greatest part of my life, if I were to follow my own inclinations. [‘I know no place in Great Britain comparable to it for pleasantness.’ See Journal, iv. 323.] But I am not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me. I trust it is your continual desire and care to know and love and serve Him. May He strengthen you both therein more and more! -- I am, dear, Your ever affectionate servant. To John Topping [June 11, 1752.] REVERAND SIR, To your first question, ‘whether any orthodox members of Christ’s Church ever took upon them the public office of preaching without Episcopal ordination, and in what century’ I answer, Yes, very many, after the persecution of Stephen in the very first century, as you may read in the 8th chapter of the Acts. But I must likewise ask you, ‘In what century did any drunkard take that office upon himself either with or without Episcopal ordination And can he who is not a member of Christ’s Church be a minister of it’ To your second question, ‘Whether a pretence to an immediate mission to preach ought not to be confirmed by miracles’ I answer, Yes, by the grand miracle of saving sinners from their sins. I read of no other wrought by the preachers abovementioned. To your third question, ’By what scriptural authority I reconcile such a mission to preach with a non-administration of the sacraments’ I answer, ‘By the authority of the very same scriptures; wherein we do not find that they who then preached (except Philip alone) did so much as administer baptism to their own converts.’ -- I am, reverend sir, Your well-wisher. [This is apparently an instruction to Wesley’s preacher at Newcastle, who may have sent on the letter to Topping.] If the priest makes any reply, as ’tis very probable he will, send it to Mr. Wesley as soon as you get it, and let him know how to send to you. Direct to Mr. Wesley at the Foundry, near Moorfields, London. I trust that none of you will ever forget that the only way to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men is by walking as becometh the gospel. And that you may al do this, striving together for the hope of the gospel, is the fervent prayer of Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell DUBLIN, July 20, 1752 DEAR SIR, -- Finding no ship ready to sail, either at Bristol or Chester, we at length came back to Whitehaven, and embarked on Monday last. [His wife and her younger daughter had come with him. See Journal iv. 37.] It is generally a passage of four-and-twenty hours; but the wind continuing contrary all the way, we did not reach this place till Friday evening. My wife and Jenny were extremely sick, particularly when we had a rolling sea; but a few days, I trust, will restore their strength. They are already much better than when they landed. Last month a large mob assaulted the new house here and did considerable damage. [See Journal iv. 38.] Several of the rioters were committed to Newgate. The bills were found against them all, and they were tried ten days since; but in spite of the clearest evidence, a packed jury brought them in ‘Not guilty.’ I believe, however, the very apprehension and trial of them has struck a terror into their companions. We now enjoy great quietness, and can even walk unmolested through the principled streets in Dublin. I apprehend my brother is not at all desirous of having those copies transferred to him. I cannot easily determine, till I have full information concerning the several particulars you touch upon, whether it be expedient to make such an alteration (though it would ease me much, or to let all things remain just as they are. Therefore I believe it will be best to take no farther step till I return to London. [In reply to the letter of May 23 Blackwell had evidently advised that Wesley should be relieved of the management of his book affairs.] I am fully persuaded, if you had always one or two faithful friends near you who would speak the very truth from their heart and watch over you in love, you would swiftly advance in running the race which is set before you. I am afraid you was not forwarded by one who was in town lately; neither was that journey of any service to his own soul. He has not brought back less indolence and gentle inactivity than he carried to London. [Was this Robert Swindells who was in England in Sept. 1751, and now in Ireland See letter of Dec. 20 1751.] Oh how far from the spirit of a good soldier of Jesus Christ, who desires only ‘to be flead alive and to conquer’ [‘Stand thou firm as an anvil when it is smitten. It is the part of a great athlete to be bruised (or flayed) and conquer.’ (Epistle of St. Ignatius to Polycarp, sec. 3.)] Our best wishes attend both Mrs. Blackwell, Mrs. Dewal, and yourself. -- I am, dear sir, Your most affectionate servant. To his Brother Charles ATHXONE. August 8, 1752. DEAR BROTHE, -- I almost wonder that I hear not one word from you since the trial at Gloucester. Either Mr. I’Anson or someone else should have wrote by the next post. Does every one forget me as soon as we have the sea between us Some of our preachers here have peremptorily affirmed that you are not so strict as me; that you neither practice, nor enforce nor approve of the Rules of the Bands. I suppose they mean those which condemn needless self-indulgence, and recommend the means of grace, fasting in particular, which is wellnigh forgotten throughout this nation. I think it would be of use if you wrote without delay and explain yourself at large. They have likewise openly affirmed that you agree with Mr. Whitefield, touching Perseverance at least, if not Predestination too. Is it not highly expedient that you should write explicitly and strongly on this head likewise Perhaps the occasion of this latter affirmation was that both you and I have often granted an absolute, unconditional election of some, together with a conditional election of all men. I did incline to this scheme for many years; but of late I have doubted of it more and more: (1) because all the texts which I used to think supported it, I now think prove either more or less either absolute reprobaton and election, or neither; (2) because I find this opinion serves all the ill purposes of absolute predestination, particularly that of supposing infallible perseverance. Talk with any that holds it, and so you will find. On Friday and Saturday next is our little Conference at Limerick. I hope my sister feels herself in a good hand, and that you can trust Him with her and all things. [Charles Wesley’s first child, called John after his brother, was born on Aug. 21, and died of small-pox on Jan. 7, 1754.] We join in love. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Monyash was about thirty-five miles north-east from Poole. The little Society greatly coveted from Wesley in its trial, dual apparently to the conduct of John Bennet, who had renounced his conection with Wesley, and vehemently preached against him in that part of the country. See Journal, iv, 14-15. [2] Mrs. Wesley was with him in Osmotherley on April 27 and 28. Two days later they reached Newcastle, where Mrs. Wesley evidently made a very favorable impression. Wesley’s marriage was in its happiest stage. She had set out for Bristol a week before on account of her son’s illness. See Journal, iv. 23n 25; and next letter. [3] Wesley says in his Journal for July 29 1748: ‘At noon I went to the Cross in Allendale Town, where Mr. Topping with a company of the better sort waited for us. I soon found it was but a vain attempt to dispute or reason with him. He skipped so from one point to another that it was not possible to keep up with him; so after a few minutes I removed about an hundred yards, and preached in peace to a very large congregation, it being the general pay-day, which is but once in six months.’ John Topping was Vicar of Allendale. See W.H.S. xiii. 71-2. [4] Wesley says in his Journal for March 15, 1768, that the mob at Gloucester was ‘for a considerable time both noisy and mischievous; but an honest magistrate, taking the matter in hand, quickly tamed the beasts of the people.’ The reference in this letter may be to that action. Mr. I’Anson was his lawyer. The Wesleys had met at Shoreham in November 1751, and agreed to act in concert with the preachers, ‘so that nether of them should admit or refuse any but such as both admitted or refused.’ Six weeks later they were again at Shoreham, and agreed to the lines on which they should act in these matters. The Conference at Limerick was the first held in Ireland, and had important discussions on doctrine and the work of the preachers. See Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 269-70; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland i. 91. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 41: 39. 1753 ======================================================================== 1753 To Jonathan Pritchard LONDON, January, 16, 1753. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If there are two preachers in the Round (as I suppose there are now if Jonathan Maskew [See letter of Feb. 22.] is come), then you may tell Mr. Haughton I desire the preaching may be constantly at Chester in the manner I settled it when I was in the country. [Wesley paid his third visit to Chester, on his way to the North, on March 27, 1753. See Journal, iv. 56.] I hope to set out for the North about the beginning of March. I am not yet determined whether I go down toward Newcastle by Chester or endeavor to see you in my return. I hope Sister Roughly, Brother Jones, and all our friends are pressing on and walking in love. Ought I not to have heard something from you rather than from others concerning Sister Barlow of Manchester If she does remove to Chester, I trust it will be for the good of many; for she has both a searching and a healing spirit. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Capiter LONDON February 6, 1753. MY DEAR BROTHER -- It is a constant rule with us that no preacher should preach above twice a day, unless on Sunday or on some extraordinary time; and then he may preach three times. We know nature cannot long bear the preaching oftener than this, and therefore to do it is a degree of self-murder. Those of our preachers who would not follow this advice have all repented when it was too late. I likewise advise all our preachers not to preach above an hour at a time, prayer and all; and not to speak louder either in preaching or prayer than the number of hearers requires. You will show this to all our preachers; and any that desire it may take a copy of it. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Jonathan Maskew LONDON February 22, 1753. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I cannot blame you at all for writing to me before you determined anything. I believe your staying so long in the Newcastle Circuit has been for good, both for you and for others; and you are still wanted there. But you are wanted more elsewhere. I do not mean you should go to Mr. Grimshaw’s circuit [The Haworth Round.] (although you might stay a fortnight there, not more, but to Manchester. I promised you should set out to help Brother Haughton as soon as Brother Hopper could go to Newcastle. So that you are sadly beyond your time; the blame of which is probably (as usual) laid upon me. Therefore the sooner you are at Manchester the better. [See letter of Jan. 16.] Peace be with your spirit. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwall YORK, May 16 1753. DEAR SIR, -- For some time I have had a desire to send you a few fines. I have often observed with a sensible pleasure your strong desire to be not almost only but altogether a Christian. And what should hinder it What is it that prevents those good desires from being brought to good effect Is it the carrying a fight principle too far -- I mean a desire to please all men for their good Or is it a kind of shame -- the being ashamed not of sin but of holiness, or of what conduces thereto I have often been afraid lest this should hurt you. I have been afraid that you do not gain ground in this respect; nay, that you rather go backward by yielding to this than forward by conquering it. I have feared that you are not so bold for God now as you was four or five years ago. If so, you are certainly in great danger. For in this case, who knows where he shah stop The giving way in one point naturally leads us to give way in another and another, till we give up all. O sir, let us beware of this! Whereunto we have attained let us hold fast! But this can only be by pressing on. Otherwise we must go back. You have need of courage and steady resolution; for you have a thousand enemies -- the flattering, frowning world, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and the grand enemy within. What need have you to put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day! I often tremble for you. And how few will honestly and plainly tell you of your danger! O may God warn you continually by His inward voice, and with every temptation make a way for you to escape! My wife joins me in wishing all blessing both to Mrs. Blackwell and you. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. If you favor me with a line, you will please to direct to Leeds. To Ebenezer Blackwell BIRSTALL. May 28, 1753. DEAR SIR, -- Your speaking so freely encourages me to write once more. [The letter of May 16 had been graciously received by this true-hearted friend. See also June 27.] Ever since I had the pleasure of knowing you, I have observed in you a real desire to please God and to have a conscience void of offence. But at the same time I have observed you had many enemies. Perhaps one was a natural cheerfulness of temper, which, though in itself it be highly desirable, yet may easily slide into an extreme. And in this case we know too well it may hurt us extremely. It may be, another hindrance in your way has sometimes been a kind of shame, which prevented your executing good and commendable deigns. Was it not owing to this that you who had received such blessings by means of field-preaching grew unwilling to attend it But is there any end of giving way to this enemy Will it not encroach upon us more and more I have sometimes been afraid that you have not gained ground in this respect for these two or three years. But the comfort is that in a moment God can repair whatever is decayed in our souls and supply whatever is wanting. What is too hard for Him Nothing but our own will. Let us give up this, and He will not withhold from us any manner of thing that is good. I believe the harvest has not been so plenteous for many years as it is now in all the North of England; but the laborers are few. I wish you could persuade our friend [Charles Wesley.] to share the labor with me. One of us should in any wise visit both the North and Ireland every year. But I cannot do both. The time will not suffice, otherwise I should not spare myself. I hope my life (rather than my tongue) says, I desire only to spend and to be spent in the world. Our love and service always attend Mrs. Blackwell and you. -- I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To George Whitefield BIRSTALL, May [28], 1753. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Between forty and fifty of our preachers lately met at Leeds, all of whom, I trust, esteem you in love for your work’s sake. I was desired by them to mention a few particulars to you, in order to a still firmer union between us. Several of them had been grieved at your mentioning among our people (in private conversation, if not in public preaching) some of those opinions which we do not believe to be true, such as ‘a man may be justified and not know it,’ that ‘there is no possibility of falling away from grace,’ and that ‘there is no perfection in this fife.’ They conceived that this was not doing as you would be done to, and that it tended to create not peace but confusion. They are likewise concerned at your sometimes speaking lightly of the discipline received among us, of societies, classes, bands, and of our rums in general, of some of them in particular. This they apprehended to be neither kind nor just, nor consistent with the profession which you at other times make. Above all, they had been troubled at the manner wherein your preachers (so I call those who preach at the Tabernacle) had very frequently spoken of my brother and me, partly in the most scoffing and contemptuous manner, relating an hundred shocking stories (such as that of Mary Popplestone and Eliz. Story) as unquestionable facts, and propagating them with diligence and with an air of triumph wherever they came. These things I was desired by all our brethren to mention. Two or three of them afterwards desired me in private to mention farther that when you were in the North your conversation was not so useful as was expected; that it generally turned not upon the things of God, but on trifles and things indifferent; that your whole carriage was not so serious as they could have desired, being often mixed with needless laughter; and that those who scrupled any levity of behavior, and endeavored always to speak and act as seeing God, you rather weakened than strengthened, intimating that they were in bondage or weak in faith. I am persuaded you will receive these short lines in the same lo, e wherein I write them. That you may prosper more and more, both in your soul and in your labors, is the hearty desire of, my dear brother, [Wesley endorsed this letter ‘My letter to G. Whitd. He denies all!’] Your affectionate fellow laborer. To Ebenezer Blackwell LONDON June. 27 1753. DEAR SIR, -- Your speaking so freely lays me under a new obligation of speaking without any reserve. And the rather because you receive what is spoken in the manner which I desire -- that is, not so much regarding the person who speaks as the thing which is spoken. If there is truth and weight in this, let it stand; if not, let it fall to the ground. Some time since, I was considering what you said concerning our wanting a plan in our Societies. There is a good deal of truth in this remark; for although we have a plan as to our spiritual economy (the several branches of which are particularly recited in the Plain Account of the People called Methodists [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.]), yet it is certain we have barely the first outlines of a plan with regard to temporals. The reason is, I had no design for several years to concern myself with temporals at all. And when I began to do this, it was wholly and solely with a view to relieve not employ the poor, unless now and then with respect to a small number; and even this I found was too great a burthen for me, as requiring both more money, more time, and more thought than I could possibly spare: I say, than I could spare; for the whole weight laid on me. If I left it to others, it surely came to nothing. They wanted either understanding, or industry, or love, or patience to bring anything to perfection. Thus far I thought it needful to explain myself with regard to the economy of our Society. I am still to speak of your case, of my own, and of some who are dependent on me. I do not recollect (for I kept no copy of my last) that I charged you with want of humility or meekness. Doubtless these may be found in the most splendid palaces. But did they ever move a man to build a splendid palace Upon what motive you did this I know not; but you are to answer it to God, not to me. If your soul is now as much alive to God, if your thirst after pardon and holiness is as strong, if you are as dead to the desire of the eye and the pride of life as you was six or seven years ago, I rejoice; if not, I pray God you may. And then you will know how to value a real friend. With regard to myself, you do well to warn me against ‘popularity, a thirst of power and of applause, against envy producing a seeming contempt for the conveniences or grandeur of this life, against an affected humility, against sparing from myself to give to others from no other motive than ostentation.’ I am not conscious to myself that this is my case. However, the warning is always friendly, and it is always seasonable, considering how deceitful my heart is and how many the enemies that surround me. What follows I do not understand. ‘Your beholding me in the ditch wherein you helped (though involuntarily) to cast me, and with a Levitical pity passing by on the other side’; ‘He (who) and you, sir, have not any merit; though Providence should permit all these sufferings to work together for my good.’ I do not comprehend one fine of this, and therefore cannot plead either guilty or not guilty. I presume they are some that are dependent on me, who (you say) ‘keep not the commandments of God; who show a repugnance to serve and obey; who are as full of pride and arrogance as of filth and of nastiness; who do not pay lawful debts, nor comply with civil obligations; who make the waiting on the offices of religion a plea for sloth and idleness; who, after I had strongly recommended them, did not perform their moral duty, but increased the number of those encumbrances, which they forced on you against your will.’ To this I can only say (1) I know not whom you mean. I am not certain that I can so much as guess one of them. (2) Whoever they are, had they followed my instructions they would have acted in a quite different manner. (3) If you will tell me them by name who have acted thus, I will renounce all fellow-ship with them. [See letters of May 16 and 28 to him.] Dear sir, for the time to come (if you choose we should convene at all) let us convene with absolute openness and unreserve. Then you will find and know me to be Your very affectionate friend and servant. To Dr. Robertson BRISTOL, September 24 1753. DEAR SIR, -- I have lately had the pleasure of reading Mr. Ramsay’s Principles of Religion, with the notes you have annexed to them. Doubtless he was a person of a bright and strong understanding, but I think not of a very clear apprehension. Perhaps it might be owing to this that, not distinctly perceiving the strength of some of the objections to his hypothesis he is very peremptory in his assertions and apt to treat his opponent with an air of contempt and disdain. This seems to have been a blemish even in his moral character. I am afraid the using guile is another: for surely it is a mere artifice to impute to the Schoolmen the rise of almost every opinion which he censures; seeing he must have known that most if not all of those opinions preceded the Schoolmen several hundred years. The treatise itself gave me a stronger conviction than ever I had before both of the rapaciousness and unsatisfactoriness of the mathematical method of reasoning on religious subjects. Extremely rapacious it is; for ff we slip but in one line, an whole train of errors may follow: and utterly unsatisfactory, at least to me, because I can never be sufficiently assured that this is not the case. The first two books, although doubtless they are a fine chain of reasoning, yet gave me the less satisfaction, because I am clearly of Mr. Hutchinson’s [John Hutchinson. See letter of Nov. 26 1756.] judgment, that all this is beginning at the wrong end; that we can have no idea of God, nor any sufficient proof of His very being, but from the creatures; and that the meanest plant is a far stronger proof hereof than all Dr. Clarke’s [Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). He delivered the Boyle Lectures, on The Being and Attributes of God, in 1704-5. See letter of Dec, 6 1726.] or the Chevalier’s demonstrations. Among the latter I was surprised to find a demonstration of the manner how God is present to all beings (page 57), how He begat the Son from all eternity (page 77), and how the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (page 85). Quanto satius est fateri nescire quae nescias, quam ista effutientern nauseare, et ipsurn tibi displicere! [‘How much more laudable would it be to acknowledge you do not know what you do not know, than to follow that blunderer whom you must surely despise!’ See Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, i. 30.] How much better to keep to his own conclusion (page 95), ‘Reason proves that this mystery is possible’! Revelation assures us that it is true; Heaven alone can show us how it is. There are several propositions in his second book which I cannot assent to, particularly with regard to the divine foreknowledge. I can by no means acquiesce in the twenty-second proposition, ‘That it is a matter of free choice in God to think of finite ideas.’ I cannot reconcile this with the assertion of the Apostle, ‘Known unto God are all His works p’ a, from eternity.’ And if any one ask, ‘How is God’s foreknowledge consistent with our freedom’ I plainly answer, I cannot tell. In the third book (page 209) I read, ‘The desire of God, purely as beatifying, as the source of infinite pleasure, is a necessary consequence of the natural love we have for happiness.’ I deny it absolutely. My natural love for happiness was as strong thirty years ago as at this instant. Yet I had then no more desire of God, as the source of any pleasure at all, than I had of the devil or of hell. So totally false is that, ‘That the soul inevitably loves what it judges to be the best.’ Equally false is his next corollary -- that ‘if ever fallen spirits see and feel that moral evil is a source of eternal misery, they cannot continue to will it deliberately’ (ibid.). I can now show living proofs of the contrary. But I take knowledge, both from this and many other of his assertions, that Mr. R. never rightly understood the height and depth of that corruption which is in man, as well as diabolical nature. The doctrine of Pure Love as it is stated in the fourth book and elsewhere (the loving God chiefly is not solely for His inherent perfections) I once firmly espoused. But I was at length unwillingly convinced that I must give it up or give up the Bible. And for near twenty years I have thought, as I do now, that it is at least unscriptural, if not anti-scriptural; for the Scripture gives not the least intimation, that I can find, of any higher, or indeed any other, love of God than that mentioned by St. John – ‘We love Him, because He first loved us.’ And I desire no higher love of God till my spirit returns to Him. Page 313: ‘There can be but two possible ways of curing moral evil -- the sensation of pleasure in the discovery of truth, or the sensation of pain in the love of error.’ So here is one who has searched out the Almighty to perfection! who knows every way wherein He can exert His omnipotence! I am not clear in this. I believe it is very possible for God to act in some third way. I believe He can make me as holy as an archangel without any sensation at all preceding. Page 324: ‘Hence it is that the chaos mentioned in the 1st chapter of Genesis cannot be understood of the primitive state of nature.’ Why not, if God created the world gradually as we are assured He did In the fifth book (page 334) I read a more extraordinary assertion than any of the preceding: ‘The infusion of such supernatural habits by one instantaneous act is impossible. We cannot be confirmed in immutable babes of good but by a long-continued repetition of free acts.’ I dare not say so. I am persuaded God can this moment confirm me immutably good. Page 335: ‘Such is the nature of finite spirits that, after a certain degree of good habits contracted, they become unpervertible and immutable in the love of order.’ If so, ‘after a certain degree of evil habits contracted, must they not become unconvertible and immutable in the hatred of order’ And if Omnipotence cannot prevent the one, neither can it prevent the other. Page 343: ‘No creature can suffer but what has merited punishment.’ This is not true: for the man Christ Jesus was a creature. But He suffered; yet He had not merited punishment, unless our sins were imputed to Him. But if so, Adam’s sin might be imputed to us; and on that account even an infant may suffer. Now, if these things are so, if a creature may suffer for the sin of another imputed to him, then the whole frame of reasoning for the pre-existence of souls, raised from the contrary supposition, falls to the ground. Page 347: ‘There are but three opinions concerning the transmission of original sin.’ That is, there are but three ways of accounting how it is transmitted. I care not if there were none. The fact I know, both by Scripture and by experience. I know it is transmitted; but how it is transmitted I nether know nor desire to know. Page 353: ‘By this insensibility and spiritual lethargy in which all souls remain, ere they awake into mortal bodies, the habits of evil in some are totally extinguished.’ Then it seems there is a third possible way of curing moral evil. And why may not all souls be cured this way without any pain or suffering at all ‘If any impurity remains in them, it is destroyed in a middle state after death’ (ibid.). I read nothing of either of these purgations in the Bible. But it appears to me, from the whole tenor of his writings, that the Chevalier’s notions are about one quarter scriptural, one quarter Popish, and two quarters Mystic. Page 360: ‘God dissipated the chaos introduced into the solar system by the fall of angels.’ Does sacred Writ affirm this Where is it written, except in Jacob Behmen Page 366: ‘Physical evil is the only means of curing moral evil.’ This is absolutely contrary both to Scripture, experience, and his own words (page 353). And ‘this great principle,’ as he terms it, is one of those fundamental mistakes which run through the whole Mystic divinity. Almost all that is asserted in the following pages may likewise be confuted by simply denying it. Page 373: ‘Hence we see the necessity of sufferings and expiatory pains in order to purify lapsed beings, the intrinsic efficacy of physical to cure moral evil.’ ‘Expiatory pains’ is pure, unmixed Popery; but they can have no place in the Mystic scheme. This only asserts ‘the intrinsic efficacy of physical to cure moral evil and the absolute necessity of sufferings to purify lapsed beings’: nether of which I can find in the Bible; though I really believe there is as much of the efficacy in sufferings as in spiritual lethargy. Page 374: ‘If beasts have any souls, they are either material or immaterial, to be annihilated after death; or degraded intelligences.’ No; they may be immaterial, and yet not to be annihilated. If you ask, ‘But how are they to subsist after death’ I answer, He that made them knows. The sixth book, I fear, is more dangerously wrong than any of the preceding, as it effectually undermines the whole scriptural account of God’s reconciling the world unto Himself and turns the whole redemption of man by the blood of Christ into a mere metaphor. I doubt whether Jacob Behmen does not do the same. I am sure he does, if Mr. Law understands him right. I have not time to specify all the exceptionable passages; if I did, I must transcribe part of almost every page. Page 393: ‘The Divinity is unsusceptible of anger.’ I take this to be the pt ed [‘The prime fallacy.’] of all the Mystics. But I demand the proof I take anger to have the same relation to justice as love has to mercy. But if we grant them this, then they will prove their point. For if God was never angry, His anger could never be appeased; and then we may safely adopt the very words of Socinus, Tota redemptionis nostrae per Christum metaphora, [’The whole of our redemption by Christ is a metaphor.’ See letter of April 27, 1741.] seeing Christ died only to ‘show to all the celestial choirs God’s infinite aversion to disorder.’ Page 394: ‘He suffered, because of the sin of men, infinite agonies, as a tender father suffers to see the vices of his children. He for all that lapsed angels and men should have suffered to all eternity. Without this sacrifice celestial spirits could never have known the horrible deformity of vice. In this sense He substituted Himself as a victim to take away the sins of the world; not to appease vindictive justice, but to show God’s infinite love of justice.’ This is as broad Socinianism as can be imagined. Nay, it is more. It is not only denying the satisfaction of Christ, but supposing that He died for devils as much and for the angel in heaven much more than He did for man. Indeed, he calls Him an expiatory sacrifice, a propitiatory victim; but remember, it was only in this sense: for you are told again (page 399), ‘See the deplorable ignorance of those who represent the expiatory sacrifice of Christ as destined to appease vindictive justice and avert divine vengeance. It is by such frivolous and blasphemous notions that the Schoolmen have exposed this divine mystery.’ These ‘frivolous and blasphemous notions’ do I receive as the precious truths of God. And so deplorable is my ignorance, that I verily believe all who deny them deny the Lord that bought them. Page 400: ‘The immediate, essential, necessary means of reuniting men to God are prayer mortification, and self-denial.’ No; the immediate, essential, necessary mean of reuniting me to God is living faith, and that alone: without this I cannot be reunited to God; with this I cannot but be reunited. Prayer, mortification, and self-denial are the fruits of faith and the grand means of continuing and increasing it. But I object to the account Mr. R. and all the Mystics give of those. It is far too lax and general. And hence those who receive all he says will live just as they did before, in all the ease, pleasure, and state they can afford. Page 403: ‘Prayer, mortification, and self-denial produce necessarily in the soul faith, hope, and charity.’ On the contrary, faith must necessarily precede both prayer, mortification, and self-denial, if we mean thereby ‘adoring God in spirit and in truth, a continual death to all that is visible, and a constant, universal suppression and sacrifice of all the motions of fate love.’ And the Chevalier talks of all these tike a mere parrot, if he did not know and feel in his inmost soul that it is absolutely false that any of these should subsist in our heart till we truly believe in the Son of God. ‘True faith h a divine light in the soul that discovers the laws of eternal order, the all of God, and the nothingness of the creatures.’ It does; but is discovers first of all that Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me, and washes me from my sins in His own blood. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. ---- LONDON October 11, 1753. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The most effectual way to proceed with the rioters, and what will probably prevent any disturbance for the time to come, is to move for an information in the King’s Bench against as many of them as possible. You must not lay upon the constables only, but upon every one whom you can prove to be concerned, By this means, being made parties themselves, they cannot forswear themselves for their fellows. The main point is this: take a full and clear account of all that relates to the pulling down the house. And see that you have evidences enough to prove on oath every particular. Then, by the Riot Act you are empowered to require the Mayor of Nantwich and any two aldermen to build it up again. If they refuse, you can compel them. You would do well to have affidavits made immediately of the riot and the damage done. --I am Your affectionate brother. Pray much, and you will prosper. To his Brother Charles LONDON October 20, 1753. DEAR BROTHER, -- I firmly believed that young woman would die in peace; though I did not apprehend it would be so soon. We have had several instances of music heard before or at the death of those that die in the Lord. May we conceive that this is literally the music of angels Can that be heard by ears of flesh and blood [See next letter.] It was not possible for me to send Jane Bates’s [Mrs. Bate (or Bates), of Wakefield. See Journal, iii. 112, 221-4 (her letter to Wesley); and C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 351, for his conversation with her husband.] letter before my return to London. I sent it last week to Ted Perronet. But whether he be now on earth or in paradise I know not. [Perronet soon recovered, and outlived Wesley. Briggs married his sister Elizabeth in 1749. See Journal viii. 52; and next letter.] He was believed to be dying some days since at Epworth, and vehemently rejoicing in God. William Briggs set out for Epworth last night in order to see him, either alive or dead. It is much easier for me to hope than to despair of any person or thing. I never did despair of John Hutchinson. For with God no word is impossible. And if he testifies a full and deep sense of his long revolt from God, I shall hope he will either live or die happy. But let me hear the particulars of your Journals, and I may have a stronger hope. I came back from Bedford [Bedford greatly needed a visit. The Moravians had caused trouble, and ‘the little Society just escaped with the skin of their teeth.’ See Journal, iv. 84-7.] last night. I know not whether it was your will or no (I believe not), but I am sure it was God’s will for you to call there. How do you judge whether a thing be God’s will or no I hope not by inward impressions. Let us walk warily. I have much constitutional enthusiasm, and you have much more . Now I have nether more nor less faith in human testimony than I had ten or fifteen years ago. I could suspect every man that speaks to me to be either a blunderer or a liar But I will not. I dare not till I have proof. I give you a dilemma. Take one side or the other. Either act really in connection with me, or never pretend to it. Rather disclaim it, and openly avow you do and will not. By acting in connection with me, I mean take counsel with me once or twice a year as to the places where you will labor. Hear my advice before you fix whether you take it or no. At present you are so far from this that I do not even know when and where you intend to go; so far are you from following any advice of mine -- nay, even from asking it. And yet I may say without vanity that I am a better judge of this matter than either Lady Huntingdon, Sally, [Charles wrote his wife in the autumn of 1753: ‘The more heavily I labor in the vineyard, the longer I shag continue with you.’ See Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 195-6.] Jones [John Jones. See letter of April 16 1748.], or any other -- nay, than your own heart, that is will. I wish you all peace, zeal, and love. To his Brother Charles LONDON October 31, 1753. DEAR BROTHER, -- My fever intermitted after twelve hours. After a second fit of about fourteen hours, I began taking the bark, and am now recovering my strength. I cannot apprehend that such music has any analogy at all to the inward voice of God. I take it to differ from this toto genere and to be rather the effect of an angel affecting the auditory nerves, as an apparition does the optical nerve or retina. [See previous letter.] Ted Perronet is now thoroughly recovered. I had a letter from him a day or two ago. You say, ‘That is not the will of God which His providence makes impracticable. But His providence made my going to Bedford impracticable.’ Prove the minor and I shall be content. In journeying, which of us lays his plan according to reason Either you move (quite contrary to me) by those impressions which you account divine, or (which is worse) pro ratione voluntas. [The next four paragraphs are omitted in the letter as printed in Wesley’s Works.] ‘I will not believe evil till I am forced.’ They are very good words. ‘I wonder you should ever desire it.’ What I have desired any time these ten years is, either that you would really act in connection, or that you would never say you do. Either leave off professing or begin performing. How can I say, ‘I do not know your intentions, when you had told me you intended to winter in Bristol’ I answer: (1) I heard of your intending to be at Bristol before ever I heard it from you. (2) Did you consult with me in this Was my approbation ever inquired after in the matter Or any other of the traveling preachers or stewards (3) Had you previously consulted with me (which you did not) in this one point, yet one swallow makes no summer. O brother, pretend no longer to the thing that is not. You do not, will not act in concert with me. Not since I was married only (the putting it on that is a mere finesse), but for ten years last past and upwards you have no more acted in connection with me than Mr. Whitefield has done. I would to God you would begin to do it now; or else talk no more as if you did. My love to my sister. Adieu. You told W. Briggs ‘that you never declined going to any place because my wife was there.’ I am glad of it. If so, I have hope we may some time spend a little time together. Why do you omit giving the sacrament in Kingswood What is reading prayers at Bristol in comparison of this I am sure, in making this vehement alteration, you never consulted with me. My love to my sister. Adieu! To A. B. LONDON November 9, 1753. SIR, -- Partly business and partly illness prevented my acknowledging your favor of October the 11th. I have not yet had leisure to read the book. When I have, I will trouble you with a few lines more. I have always approved of the German method of practicing physic far beyond the English, which (so far as I can see) is in numberless respects contrary both to experience, common sense, and common honesty. -- I am, sir, Your obliged servant. A. B., At the Essex Coffee House, In Whitechappel To Mr. Gillespie LONDON, November 9 1753. I have never done so much for any of our preachers (except my brother) as for William Prior. [One of the preachers. See list Wesley had been at Newport on in Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 126-7. Oct. 3-5.] And one of my reasons for it was, that scarce any of our preachers had used me so ill. Therefore I was resolved to be more abundant in kindness toward him, if haply I might overcome evit with good. I am much in hopes I shall (by applying to a great man in town) set him and his family quite above want. His greatest temptation will then be removed, and I trust he will serve God with all his strength. I will order a little box of books to Portsmouth, whence you may be farther supplied at Newport. But take care to keep a clear account of what are sold; otherwise the Stewards [The first Book Stewards were appointed in April of this year.] will send no more. If Brother Williams sees good, you might preach sometimes at the Common. Mr. Larwood [Samuel Larwood traveled with Wesley in Lincolnshire in 1747 and did good service in England and Ireland. He became an Independent minister at Zoar Chapel, Southwark, where he died of fever. Wesley buried him on Nov. 5, 1755. See Journal, iii. 281, iv. 140; Atmore’s Memorial, p. 239; Wesley’s Veterans i. x82, iii. 86, iv. 130; and next letter.] intended to call there in his return from Bristol; but the illness of his horse prevented. I hope he will be able to come in a little time. If we can spare Sister Aspernell [Bilhah Aspernell found peace with God in 1738, and soon after purity of heart. Wesley’s Diary for 1740 shows that he often visited her in London and had ‘tea, conversed, prayer.’ Thomas Walsh in Aug. 1754 said the reason why he was not ‘as serious as Sister Aspernell’ was ‘not because I do not bear so high a character, but because I am not so high in the grace of God.’ On Jan. 28, 1774, Wesley buried ‘the remains of that venerable mother in Israel.’ See Journal ii. 372-460& vi. 9-10; Arminian Mag. 1798, p. 360.] to visit her sister at Portsmouth for a few days, her conversation will do more good than all our preaching has yet done. Be mild; be patient toward all men. See that none return railing for railing. Be much in private prayer. Live in peace, and the God of peace shall be with you. -- I am, with love to all the brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Gillespie At Mr. Seaman’s In Newport, Isle of Wight. To Samuel Lloyd DEAR SIR, -- If the goods now in Mr. Larwood’s hands are hiss own, I suppose you cannot attach them. If they are Mr. Alexander’s, why should you ask any leave Why should you not attach them without delay The comfort is that God is able to turn all these crosses likewise into blessings. Your company would at any time be agreeable to, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To Mr. -- MY DEAR BROTHER, -- When a preacher travels without his wife, he is exposed to innumerable temptations. And you cannot travel with your wife till she is so changed as to adorn the gospel. It seems, therefore, all you can do at present is to act as a local preacher. If at any time you have reason to believe that the goods then offered to you are stolen, you cannot buy them with a safe conscience. When you have no particular reason to think so, you may proceed without scruple. -- I am Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Chester was part of the Manchester Round, of which John Haughton was in charge. This letter is addressed to ‘Mr. Jonathan Pritchard, in Boughton, near Chester.’ Pritchard was Steward there. Richard Barlow represented Manchester at the Booth Bank Quarterly Meeting. See Bretherton’s Early Methodism in and around Chester, pp. 35, 39, 112. John Haughton was a weaver who became an itinerant in 1741. He showed great courage in facing the mob in Staffordshire and at Cork. He ceased to travel in 1760, and was made Rector of Kilrea and a magistrate. He cordially received Wesley on June 4, 1778. See Journal, iii. 471, vi. 194; Atmore’s Memorial, p. 202; and letter of December 20, 1751. [2] Thomas Capiter was largely the means of the erection of the new room at Grimsby in 1757, and for between twenty and thirty yean was ‘a pillar and an ornament of the Society’ See Journal, iv. 227, m 479; Arminian Magazine, 1785, p. 199; Methodism in Grimsby, p. 43; Methodist Recorder, December 8, 1898. [3] Jonathan Maskew was born near Bingley in 1713. He lived and traveled with the Vicar of Haworth and was known as ‘Mr. Grimshaw’s man.’ He was appointed to Newcastle in 1752, and in 1753 labored in Manchester with John Haughton. Some time after, he traveled in the Haworth Round. He married Mrs. Clegg, and settled at Dean Head near Rochdale, where he died in 1793. Wesley used to say, ‘Ten such men as Jonathan Maskew would carry the world before them.’ See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 253-6; Early Methodist Preachers, iv. 198-227. In the Quarterly Accounts of the Manchester Round are these entries: ‘1753, May 18. Jonat. Maskew, Trayell charge 5/; Stockens 2/9; Oct. 27, Stockens 3/; Nov. 2, traveling charge 1/. 1753. Mark. 3, Cheerham Cropper for J. Maskew 1/-; Mark. 26 traveling ch. 2/6; Ap. 27, shoes 5/6 and mending his old ones 6d.; spit boots 14/-, traveling charges to London 15/, hatt 12/.’ There are frequent entries for John Haughton. [4] The copy of this letter is in Michael Fenwick’s handwriting. The Conference met on May 22, and agreed ‘that a loving and respectful letter should be written to Mr. Whitefield desiring him to advise his preachers not to reflect (as they had done continually, and that both with great bitterness and rudeness) either upon the doctrines discipline, or person of Mr. Wesley among his own Societies; to abstain himself (at least, when he was among Mr. Wesley’s people) from speaking against either the doctrines, rules, or preachers; and not to declare war anew, as he had done by a needless digression in his late sermon.’ For the sermons published in 1753, see Tyerman’s Whitefield ii. 296. [5] Whitehead says this letter was apparently written to a gentleman of rank and influence, and points out that it ‘gives us a pleasing view of the command Mr. Wesley had acquired over his own temper: nothing but kindness and civility appear in it; there is no keen retort for any charge brought against himself; and nothing but tender concern for those who had not acted worthy of the character which he had given them.’ It was evidently sent to Blackwell. See Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 272,4; and letters of December 20, 1751, and May 28, 1753. [6] John Robertson, M.D., of Wells, married Mrs. Webb of Pitcombe, where Wesley visited him on September 10, 1754. His wise advice as to Kingswood School is printed in the Arminian Magazine 1779, p. 89. See also W.H.S. v. 15-16. Andrew Michael Ramsay, LL.D. (1686-1743), was tutor to Prince Charles Edward. He was Chevalier as Knight of the Order of St. Lazarus. In September 1753 Wesley read with great attention his Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion explained and unloved in a General Order (1749, 2 vols.). ‘He undertakes to solve all the difficulties in the Christian revelation, allowing him only a few postulata.... Amazing work this!’ See Journal, iv. 82. [7] Wesley was at Chester on March 27, where ‘there is now no talk of pulling down houses.’ He reached Nantwich the next day. ‘We were saluted with curses and hard names as soon as we entered the town. But from the time I alighted from my horse, I heard no one give us an ill word.’ See Journal, iv. 56; Methodist Recorder, November 29, 1900. [8] This letter and that which follows were written when Wesley felt his strength failing On October 20 he writes in his Journal: ‘I found myself out of order, but believed it would go off. On Sunday the 21st I was considerably worse, but could not think of sparing myself that day.’ He sorely longed for closer alliance with Charles, who acted without consulting him as to the places visited. Charles was essentially a free-lance. John Hutchinson, of Leeds, though in a very delicate condition, came to London in December with Charles Wesley when they heard of Wesley’s illness. Hutchinson died on July 23, 1754. Charles Wesley wrote three poems about him, one of which was ‘For a Backslider (Mr. John Hutchinson) near Death.’ He says Sir. Thomas I’Anson’s ‘love for me is beyond description, almost as vehement as poor J. Hutchinson’s.’ On April 29, 1756 he sends from Leeds the cordial greeting of ‘poor, old, declining Mrs. Hutchinson. I have been crying in the chamber whence my J. H. ascended. My heart is full of him, and I miss him every moment; but he is at rest.’ See C. Wesley’s Journal ii. 202, 258, 317-23. [9] Wesley had returned from a tour in Kent on October 27, ‘having received no hurt but rather benefit by the journey’ When he began visiting the classes, the day after he wrote this letter, he found by the loss of his voice that he had not recovered his bodily strength so far as he imagined. He struggled against his growing weakness till November 26, when Dr. Fothergill told him he must not stop in town a day longer; so he took coach for Lewisham. Charles Wesley endorsed this letter with the words, ‘Brother, Oct. 31, 1753. Trying to bring me under his yoke’ [10] This letter was written during Wesley’s retreat at Lewisham, a month after he had drawn up his own epitaph. It probably refers to some furniture Larwood had when he left the itinerancy. The following letter, which is without date or name, speaks of ‘goods’ and may be placed here. See previous letter. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 42: 40. 1754 ======================================================================== 1754 To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL January 5, 1754. DEAR SIR -- If I write to my best friends first, I must not delay writing to you, who have been the greatest instruments of God’s hands of my recovery thus far. The journey hither did not weary me at all; but I now find the want of Lewisham air. We are (quite contrary to my judgement, but our friends here would have it so) in a cold bleak place, and in a very cold house. If the Hot Well water make amends for this, it is well. Nor have I any place to ride but either by the river-side or over the downs, where the wind is ready to carry me away. However, one thing we know -- that whatsoever is is best! O let us look to Him that orders all things well! What have we to do but to employ all the time He allots us, be it more or less, in doing and suffering His will My wife joins in tender love both to Mrs. Blackwell, Mrs. Dewal, and yourself, with, dear sir, Your obliged and affectionate servant. To Samuel Furly BRISTOL, March 30, 1754. DEAR SIR, -- I received your letter and rejoiced to find that you are still determined to save yourself by the grace of God from this perverse generation. But this cannot possibly be done at Cambridge (I speak from long experience), unless you can make and keep one resolution -- to have no acquaintance but such as fear God. I know it may be some time before you will find any that truly bear this character. If so, it is best to be alone till you do, and to converse only with your absent friends by letter. [See next letter.] But if you are carried away with the stream into frequent conversation with harmless, good-natured, honest triflers, they will soon steal away all your strength and stifle all the grace of God in your soul. With regard to your studies, I know no better method you could pursue than to take the printed Ruins of Kingswood School, [Printed in 1749. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 127.] and to read all the authors therein mentioned in the same order as they occur there. The authors set down for those in the school you would probably read in about a twelve-month, and those afterwards named in a year or two more; and it will not be lost labor. I suppose you to rise not later than five, to allow an hour in the morning and another in the evening for private exercises, an hour before dinner, and one in the afternoon for walking; and to go to bed between nine and ten. I commend you to Him who is able to carry you through all dangers; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Samuel Furly BRISTOL September 21, 1754. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is necessary for me, if I would have a dean conscience, not to omit anything which I find by experience to be profitable to my soul. Therefore, if I find any particular preacher to be so profitable, or any particular acquaintance, it is necessary for me to make use of them. Otherwise my conscience would not be clear. If this be your case, you cannot innocently neglect any of the few opportunities that remain. When you are at Cambridge, you cannot enjoy them if you would. There, therefore, few acquaintance will be best. And probably these you will not find but make profitable. Till then the less you speak (unless to God) the better. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL September 24, 1754. DEAR SIR, -- Although I hope to see you in about a fortnight, yet I could not be satisfied without sending you a few lines first. Since I left London I have had many thoughts concerning you, and sometimes uneasy ones. I have been jealous over you, lest you should not duly improve the numerous talents with which God has entrusted you; nay, I have been afraid lest your very desire of improving them should grow weaker rather than stronger. If so, by what means is it to be accounted for What has occasioned this feebleness of mind May it not partly be occasioned by your conversing more than is necessary (for so far as it is necessary it does not hurt us) with men that are without God in the world -- that love, think, talk of earthly things only partly by your giving way to a false shame (and that in several instances), which, the more you indulge it, increases the more and partly by allowing too large a place in your thoughts and affections even to so innocent an enjoyment as that of a garden If this leaves you fewer opportunities of hearing that word which is able to save your soul, may not you even hereby grieve the Holy Spirit and be more a loser than you are sensible of I know both Mrs. Blackwell and you desire to please God in all things. You will therefore, I know, receive these hints as they are intended -- not as a mark of disesteem, but rather of the sincerity with which I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate servant. To Sir James Lowther LONDON October 28, 1754. SIR, -- Whether I see you any more in this life or no, I rejoice that I have seen you this once, and that God enabled you to bear with patience what I spoke in the simplicity of my heart. The substance of what I took the liberty to mention to you this morning was: You are on the borders of the grave, as well as I; shortly we must both appear before God. When it seemed to me, some months since, that my life was near an end, I was troubled that I had not dealt plainly with you. This you will permit me to do now, without any reserve, in the fear and in the presence of God. I reverence you for your office as a magistrate; I believe you to be an honest, upright man; I love you for having protected an innocent people from their cruel and lawless oppressors. But so much the more am I obliged to say (though I judge not; God is the judge), I fear you are covetous, that you love the world. And if you do, as sure as the Word of God is true, you are not in a state of salvation. The substance of your answer was: That many people exhort others to charity from self-interest; that men of fortune must mind their fortune; that you cannot go about to look for poor people; that when you have seen them your-self, and relieved them, they were scarce ever satisfied; that many make an ill use of what you give them; that you cannot trust the account people give of themselves by letters; that nevertheless you do give to private persons by the hands of Colonel Hudson and others; that you have also given to several hospitals an hundred pounds at a time, but that you must support your family; that the Lowther family has continued above four hundred years; that you are for great things -- for public charities and for saving the nation from ruin; and that others may think as they please, but this is your way of thinking, and has been for many years. To this I replied (1) Sir, I have no self-interest in this matter; I consult your interest, not my own; I want nothing from you, I desire nothing from you, I expect nothing from you. But I am concerned for your immortal spirit, which must so soon launch into eternity. (2) It is true men of fortune must mind their fortune; but they must not love the world. ‘If any man love the world, the love of the Father h not in him.’ (3) It is true likewise you cannot go about to look for poor people; but you may be sufficiently informed of them by those that can. (4) And if some of these are never satisfied, this is no reason for not relieving others. (5) Suppose, too, that some make an ill use of what you give, the loss falls on their own head. You will not lose your reward for their faults. What you laid out, God will pay you again. (6) Yet certainly you do wall to have all the assurance you can that those to whom you give are likely to make a good use of it; and therefore to expect a stronger recommendation of them than their own, whether by letter or otherwise. (7) I rejoice that you have given to many by so worthy a man as Colonel Hudson, whose word is certainly a sufficient recommendation. (8) I rejoice likewise that you have given some hundreds of pounds to the hospitals, and wish it had been ten thousand. (9) To the support of the family I did not object; but begged leave to ask, whether this could not be done without giving ten thousand a year to one who had as much already and whether you could answer this to God in the day wherein He shah judge the world (10) I likewise granted that the family had continued above four hundred years; but observed meantime that God regarded it not one jot the more for this, and that four hundred or one thousand years are but a moment compared to eternity. (11) I observed likewise that great things may be done and little things not left undone. (12) And that if this or any other way of thinking be according to Scripture, then it is sound and good; whereas, if it be contrary to Scripture, it is not good, and the longer we are in it so much the worse. Upon the whole, I must once more earnestly entreat you to consider yourself and God and eternity. (1) As to yourself, you are not the proprietor of anything -- no, not of one shilling in the world. You are only a steward of what another entrusts you with, to be laid out not according to your will but His. And what would you think of your steward if he laid out what is called your money according to his own will and pleasure (2) Is not God the sole proprietor of all things And are you not to give an account to Him for every part of His goods And oh how dreadful an account, if you have expended any part of them not according to His will but your own! (3) Is not death at hand And are not you and I just stepping into eternity Are we not just going to appear in the presence of God, and that naked of all worldly goods Will you then rejoice in the money you have left behind you or in that you have given to support a family, as it is called -- that is, in truth, to support the pride and vanity and luxury which you have yourself despised all your life long O sir, I beseech you, for the sake of God, for the sake of your own immortal soul, examine yourself whether you do not love money. If so, you cannot love God. And if we die without the fear of God, what remains Only to be banished from Him for ever and ever! -- I am, with true respect, sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Samuel Furly LONDON, December 7, 1754. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- For the present it does not appear to be necessary for you to enter into any dispute with your instructor. [See letter of Feb. 19, 1755.] But perhaps he would read a short tract; suppose, The Nature and Design of Christianity. [Wesley’s abridgement of the first chapter of William Law’s Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (1740, 19 pp.). See Green’s Bibliography, No. 17.] If at any time he should be touched by what he reads, it would then be a seasonable time to speak. I should not advise you by any means to enter upon anything like teaching or exhorting a company of people. If any poor townsman who is sick desires your assistance, you need not scruple to visit him. But farther than this it seems you are not called to go at present. The main point is now to improve your time in private, to keep dose to God in prayer, and to fix your eye on Him in whatever you do. Then the unction of the Holy One will teach you of all things. --I am Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This is the first letter written after his serious illness. Wesley went to The Limes (Blackwell’s house in Lewisham) on November 26, and that evening wrote his own epitaph. He was able to ride on the 29th, and did so every day till January 1. The contrast in the whether at Bristol was striking. At Lewisham his ride was not once hindered, ‘it being always tolerably fair (however it was before) between twelve and one o’clock.’ He returned to London on the 1st and set out for Bristol the next day. The day before he wrote to Blackwell he ‘began drinking the water at the Hot Well, having a lodging at a small distance from it.’ [2] Whilst Wesley was at Bristol, Henry Venn wrote, on his appointment as curate at Clapham, asking for ‘a personal charge, to take heed to feed the flock commuted unto me’ (Arminian Magazine, 1797, p. 569. Furly was Venn’s friend, and also turned to Wesley for counsel He became a steadfast ally and correspondent. He was now twenty-two, and had recently begun his course at Queens’ College (see letter of December 7). The following letter from Mrs. Lefevre would probably be to Furly: Wednesday, March 25, 1754. MY DEAR, -- I thank you for the good account you have given me of Mr. V.’s sermon; he himself called this afternoon. I read your letter to him, and he was highly pleased with the attention which he said you must have given to remember the heads of it so exactly. I think it was an excellent one, and doubt not but the grace of God accompanied words so sincerely spoken, as his are, to the hearts of the hearers; and I hope it was so to you in particular. I think you will be quite right to go to the --- now and then on a Sunday evening, when you can do it without danger of Mr.-- knowing it.... Do you know that your master has lately invited Mr.--- to dine with him Let us trust in God that something good may arise from this. Furly’s sister showed much kindness to Mary Bosanquet. ‘Indeed, I was in some sense commuted to her care by my parents, who have for years been acquainted with her family.’ See Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, p. 3x; and for Mrs. Lefevre’s interest in Furly, letter of September 12, 1755, to Ebenezer Blackwell. John Thornton, of Clapham, presented Furly to the living of Roche in 1766. He died in 1795. [3] Wesley had left London on August 12, and returned on October 4. He watched over his friend’s spiritual life with godly jealousy. [4] The Journal for October 28 says: ‘I delivered my own soul by one more conversation with Sir. James Lowther, the substance of which I wrote to him the next day in the following letter.’ It is an extraordinary piece of faithful dealing with a man who died a few weeks later, and whom Wesley had good reason to honor; and the fact that it had been on his conscience during his serious illness is an illustration of his own zeal and devotion. Sir James Lowther of Whitehaven, was the second son of Sir John Lowther who died in January 1706. His elder brother was a reckless spendthrift, and was disinherited by his father in 1700. James was so penurious that he was called ‘Farthing Jemmy’ to distinguish him from Sir James Lowther of Lowther. Wesley (in Works vii. 355) quotes a person of note who resented a sermon on Riches: ‘Why does he talk about riches here There is no rich man at Whitehaven but Sir James Lowther’ Wesley adds: ‘It is true there was none but he that had forty thousand pounds a year and some millions in ready money.’ See letter of October 2, 1749, for Sir James’s action as a magistrate during a riot in September at Whitehaven, when he ‘sent and took down the names of the chief rioters.’ In January 1755 the estates of Sir James of Whitehaven passed to Sir William Lowther of Holkar, who only held them for twelve months (see Journal iv. 314-i5); when they passed to Sir. James Lowther who made electioneering a fine art. He introduced the younger Pitt to the House of Commons as Member for Appleby. He was created the first Earl of Lonsdale in 1784. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 43: 41. 1755 ======================================================================== 1755 To James Hutton January 7, 1755. SIR--You justly observe in your letter of December 31, published in the London Daily Advertiser, that several friends and well-wishers of the Moravians into whose hands the writings of their adversaries have fallen ‘are somewhat impatient that the Moravians have hitherto published no direct answer to any wrote in this country and wish they would at last resolve to answer because their adversaries cry out in all companies that they have nothing to answer, and that their silence must be taken for confession.’ I myself am ‘not fond of finding the Moravians guilty without trial I take no pleasure in any abuses thrown out upon them.’ Yet I confess ‘I begin to be almost staggered that so little answer is still given to the many accusations against them.’ In order, therefore, to bring this matter to a short and clear issue, I have ‘summed up’ as briefly as possible the most material parts of ‘the charge against the Moravian’s by reducing of them into the form of Queries at an Examination.’ And I do indeed ‘hope to get plain, positive, and categorical answers’; as this is, you say, ‘the very method the Moravians had so repeatedly desired, in order to enable them to give a reason of the hope that is in them.’ You add: ‘I am glad that at last somebody will be so much concerned for the truth as to make some inquiry. For are not the charges against the Moravians of such a nature as to render an indolent indifference whether things are true or false almost unpardonable And should any man be listened to for a moment who would have the assurance to persuade the world, before he has seen the Queries and their Answers, that they will not come to the point’ None, I think, will have the assurance to deny that the Queries subjoined do ‘come to the point.’ And as ‘this is the very method which the Moravians have so repeatedly desired, who can doubt but they will give without delay plain, positive, categorical answers’ I might have drawn up the Queries with more accuracy, had I not considered, as you ‘hoped I would, the impatience in the public for an answer a close one to every point.’ I have therefore, as you desired, ‘used all possible speed,’ and yet have ‘taken care to form my Queries in such a manner that they might deserve the utmost attention, and come dose to the point.’ Is it needful to remind you of that frank engagement to the public wherewith you close your letter ‘As soon as these Queries are finished, the Moravians, who expect them with earnest longing, will lose no time in answering them.’ --I am, &c. You see the impropriety of adding my name. To Samuel Furly LONDON March, 20 1755. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Of those things which are lawful in themselves, such only are lawful to me as are sfta, conducive either directly or indirectly to my holiness or usefulness. Many things not conducive directly to either, yet may be so remotely, as the learning of languages or arithmetic. And of this kind are most academical exercises. They remotely (a Hough not directly) conduce to our usefulness in the world; by enabling us to take degrees, or to do other things which are (in the present state of things) necessary as means to higher ends. I wish Mr. Hallifax [Spelt with one l by Wesley.] had a little tract of Bishop Bull’s [Wesley deals more fully with this little tract (which he says ‘was of much service to me’) in the letter of May 13, 1764. For his reference to Bishop Bull see Journal, ii. 470, 473-7d; Works, vii. 455; and letter of Aug. 22, 1744.] entitled A Companion for the Candidates for Holy Orders. I dreamed an odd dream last night, that five-and-twenty persons of Peterhouse in Cambridge were deeply awakened. Fight your way through! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Lloyd BRISTOL March 20, 1755. DEAR SIR, -- The bearer has behaved extremely well from the very time that he left London. I do not perceive that he is addicted to drinking or any other vice. I am apt to think he would make a good servant. Wishing you the best happiness, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Samuel Lloyd Esq, In Devonshire Square, London. To Ebenezer Blackwell MANCHESTER April 9, 1755. DEAR SIR, -- Being fully persuaded that my brother would gladly embrace any overture of peace, I told him almost as soon as we met what my wife had agreed to. He answered not a word. After a day or two I spoke to him again. It had the same success. The Sunday before he left Bristol I desired to speak to him, but he did not come. Just as I was going out of town the next morning he sent to me to can at his house. But I could not then; and before I came back he was set out for London, only leaving a note that he had left his answer with Lady Huntingdon. It may be so; but I saw her twice afterwards, and she said nothing of it to me. Nether am I (any more than my wife) willing to refer the matter to her arbitration. [See next letter.] From the whole I learn that there is no prospect of peace. When one is willing, then the other flies off. I shall profit by both; but I am sorry to do it at the expense of others. I have another favor to beg of you -- to procure Mr. Belcher’s [See letters of March 15, 1748, and May 28, 1757.] leave for me to enclose my proof-sheets [Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. The work was begun on Jan. 6, 1754. See Journal, iv. 91; Green’s Bibliography, No. 172; and letter of June 20.] to him. Mr. C. Perronet [Charles Perronet had charge of the Notes, which Wesley was passing through the press. See Jackson’s Ch~s Wesley, ii. 87; and letter of Sept. 12 to Blackwell.] sends them down to me in thanks; then I correct and send them back to him. The next week I am to spend at Liverpool. Toward the end of the week following I hope to be at Haworth, near Keighley, in Yorkshire. God has blessed me with a prosperous journey hither, though the roads and the weather were rough. I hope both Mrs. Blackwell and you are making the best use of a~ things, rough and smooth. That is the part of a good solder of Jesus Christ, -- To trace His example, the world to disdain, And cheerfully trample on pleasure and pain. [Poetical Works v. 427.] --I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To Ebenezer Blackwell KEIGHLEY, NEAR LEEDS, April 29, 1755. DEAR SIR, -- [I am exceedingly puzzled, as my brother would never give me any answer, good, bad, or indifferent.] I do not at all know what his judgment is or what are his intentions. I can only conjecture that his design is never to speak to her at all. And I suppose this is Lady Huntingdon’s advice, because he referred me to her for an answer. But I cannot submit to her arbitration. I do not think she is a competent judge. You love both the contending parties; but I am afraid she does not. Another difficulty is rising from the opposite quarter. From her last letter I learn that my poor wife has just found out ‘my carrying her to Bristol was all a trick concerted between my brother and me in order to prevent her coming to Leeds.’ And where she is I cannot tell; for she says not a word whether she intends staying at London or coming forward. If she was willing to come, I should much desire it, were it only on poor Jenny’s account. For if anything in the world recovers her, it would be exercise and change of air. But I must not press her to it; for ff I did, I should hear of it another day. What a blessing it is to have these little crosses, that we may try what spirit we are of! We could not live in continual sunshine. It would dry up all the grace of God that is in us. I doubt not but Mrs. Blackwell and Mrs. Dewal find advantage both from bodily weakness and every other trial. Let us fight the good fight of faith together, and more resolutely lay hold on eternal life! Your most affectionate servant. To Mrs. Hall LEEDS May 9, 1755. DEAR SISTER, -- I suppose my brother has informed you of our conversation together. The poor child will, I hope, be no farther burthensome to you. But then you must not interfere, but leave him to our disposal, who consider him just as if he were our own. Nether will you want the things we have needful for life and godliness. At the same time I doubt not but you will endeavor to be as frugal as may be. I am glad you and my sister Harper are to live together and to come nearer the Foundry. O bear with one another! Pray for the spirit of peace and love. -- I am Your very affectionate Brother. [Hall added to this letter the following message to his wife:] MY DEAR, -- I hope ere this you may have heard from my brother, and that he will pay you the twenty pounds due on his draught. Mr. Allen owes me about fifty pound, as I believe you will find by the account as settled with my brother; and before that sum be expended, if you use the necessary economy, you will hear perhaps of my arrival at Barbados and the measures I am taking to provide for all, and how to direct to your best friend, WESTLEY. To Samuel Furly LEEDS, May 10, 1755. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- We are to become all things to all men, just so far as God’s Word permits. But we may not on this principle vary an hair’s breadth from the written rule. Therefore I dare not trifle with any, because the Word of God expressly forbids it. But I may talk on subjects indirectly useful, such as languages or points of philosophy. That young man was commanded literally to sell all; he could not otherwise escape from covetousness. But we are nowhere commanded so to do. Let any man show the contrary if he can. The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts; but in that case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly. If any desires you to walk faster than your strength will allow, you have no leave from God to comply with it. If any desires you to go farther when you are already tired, you must desire him either to let you ride or to go on foot with you. Be instant in prayer. Your affectionate brother. Letters directed to the Foundry will find me wherever I am. To his Brother Charles LONDON, June. 30 1755. DEAR BROTHER, -- Do not you understand that they all promised by Thomas Walsh not to administer even among themselves I think that an huge point given up -- perhaps more than they could give up with a clear conscience. They ‘showed an excellent spirit’ in this very thing. Likewise when I (not to say you) spoke once, and again spoke, satis pro imperio. [Terence’s Phormio, I. iv. 19: ‘With authority enough.’] When I reflected on their answer I admired their spirit and was ashamed of my own. The practical conclusion was ‘Not to separate from the Church.’ Did we not all agree in this Surely either you or I must have been asleep or we could not differ so widely in a matter of fact! Here is Charles Perronet raving ‘because his friends have given up all’ and Charles Wesley ‘because they have given up nothing’; and I in the midst, staring and wondering both at one and the other. I do not want to do anything more, unless I could bring them over to my opinion; and I am not in haste for that. I have no time to write anything more till I have finished the Notes. [His Notes upon the New Testament were finished this year. See letter of April 9, 1755, and June 18, 1756.] Nor am I in haste. I stand open to the fight. Let it be worded any way. I will give ten pounds between this and Christmas; -- this I think I can do, though I am just now saddled with Suky Hare, [Jackson calls Suky Hare ‘a relation of the Wesleys.’ She was probably the child of the young seamstress whom Hall seduced. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 370; and letter of April 24, 1776.] to pay for her board as well as learning her trade. Why do not you send for the boy to Bristol I do not object. If Mr. Lampe’s tunes [John F. Lampe was a musical composer engaged at Covent Garden Theatre. He received much spiritual blessing through the Wesleys, and composed tunes for their hymns.] are in print already, it is enough. I wish you had told me this six months ago, and the rest (which only we want) should have, been printed before now. Pray send them by Michael Fenwick to me hem. He will be in Bristol next week. Cyprian is a terrible witness of the sense of the then Church. For he speaks it not as his own private sense, but as incontestable, allowed rule. And by Antistes [The passage of Cyprian, cited in the letter of June 23, 1739 is Populus a scelerato antistite separare se debet.] there I really believe he means the minister of a parish. That pinches me; nevertheless I think with you till I see more light, though I should be hard set to defend myself against a skilful adversary. When I am convinced it is my duty, I will follow Cyprian’s advice. The same say you, and no more. I do not fluctuate yet. But I can’t answer the arguments on that side the question. Jos. Cowley says, ‘For such and such reasons I dare not hear a drunkard preach or mad prayers.’ I answer, ‘I dare.’ But I can’t answer his reasons. Adieu! I can stay here four or five weeks. Then I purpose for Cornwall. Can you come hither when I go Or will you go into Cornwall for me My love to my sister. What could put it into your head to recommend (if you did recommend) that rude, boisterous clown to Mr. Lloyd [See letter of March 20.] To his Brother Charles LONDON, June 23, I755. DEAR BROTHER -- A gentleman who keeps an academy at Brompton offers to take Westley Hall for nothing, to teach him the ancient and modern tongues, and when he has learnt them, to give him thirty pounds a year and his board if he will stay and assist him. His mother thinks (and I can’t say much to the contrary) that such an offer is not to be slighted. Send us your judgment upon the matter as soon as possible. [See letter of May 9. The boy is lovingly commemorated in Charles Wesley’s Funeral Hymns, published in 1759 (Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, vi. 234-5): Unspotted from the world and pure, And saved and sanctified by grace] Jam proximus ardet Ucalegon! [Virgil’s Aeneid, ii. 311: ‘And now the flames Spread to Ucalegon’s, our neighbor’s house.’] The good Bishop of London has excommunicated Mr. Gardiner for preaching without a license. It is probable the point will now speedily be determined concerning the Church: for if we must either dissent or be silent, actum est. We have no time to trifle. [That is Wesley’s spirit from first to last. He loves the Church of England but he cannot be silenced.] Adieu. To Rev. Mr. C. Wesley, In Bristol. To Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London () [LONDON, June 23, 1755.] MY LORD, -- Several years ago the churchwardens of St. Bartholomew’s informed Dr. Gibson, then Lord Bishop of London, ‘My Lord, Mr. Bateman, our rector, invites Mr. Wesley very frequently to preach in his church.’ The Bishop replied, ‘And what would you have me do I have no right to hinder him. Mr. Wesley is a clergyman regularly ordained and under no ecclesiastical censure.’ -- I am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s obedient servant. To his Brother Charles LONDON, June 28 1755. DEAR BROTHER, -- Let G. Stonehouse [On May 28 Charles Wesley wrote to his wife from ‘George Stonehouse’s other lodgings’ in London and gives their route for the journey towards Bristol. He expects to ‘rest my beast’ at Dornford, where Stonehouse lived. See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 80-1, 87.] write and welcome. When we are both together, I trust we may read safely. Go to Ireland if you think so, and save Ireland. Wherever I have been in England, the Societies are far more firmly and rationally attached to the Church than ever they were before. I have no fear about this matter. I only fear the preachers’ or the people’s leaving not the Church but the love of God and inward or outward holiness. To this I press them forward continually. I dare not in conscience spend my time and strength on externals. If (as my lady [Charles Wesley had stayed at Donnington Park after the Leeds Conference, and was expecting to meet Lady Huntingdon at Clifton in July.] says) all outward establishments are Babel, so is this Establishment. Let it stand for me. I nether set it up nor pulled it down. But let you and I build up the City of God. I have often desired our preachers to bury a corpse at Wapping. I mean to give an exhortation, closed with a prayer. I do not know that this is any breach of the sacerdotal office. None of our Societies have received James Wheatley yet. I suppose none will. Yet we may give a caution wherever we write. T. Walsh [See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 200; and letter of June 20.] (I will declare it on the housetop) has given me a~ the satisfaction I desire, and all that an honest man could give. I love, admire, and honor him, and wish we had six preaches in all England of his spirit. But enough of this. Let us draw the saw no longer, but use all our talents to promote the mind that was in Christ. ‘Not yet’ is rotary out of the question. We have not one preacher who either proposed or desires or designs (that I know) to separate from the Church ‘at all.’ Their principles (in the single point of ordination) I do not approve. But I pray for more and more of their spirit (in general) and their practice. I have talked with Mr. Graves, [Charles Caspar Graves one of Charles Wesley’s clerical friends, whom he describes in 1739 as ‘thoroughly awakened.’ See Journal, iii. 40-2; C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 160, 422.] and shall do again. Driving me may make me fluctuate; though I do not yet. ‘When the preachers in Ireland set up for themselves, must you not disown them’ I answer ‘When.’ I thought you said my sister expected to lie in in May; now it is the end of June. [Martha Maria, their second child, was born on June 23, but lived only a month and two days.] If you can go to Cornwall in the end of July, it is soon enough. I wish you-would see each of the country Societies; and why not New Kingswood too Adieu. [Note at back: ‘Robert Windsor. Given to Chas. He set out for Norwich on Monday.’] To Richard Tompson LONDON, June 28 1755. Some days since, I received your favor of the 22nd instant, which came exceeding seasonably; for I was just revising my Notes on the 5th chapter to the Romans; one of which I found, upon a closer inspection, seemed to assert such an imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity as might make way for the ‘horrible decree.’ I therefore struck it out immediately; as I would willingly do whatsoever should appear to be any way inconsistent with that grand principle, ‘The Lord is loving to every man; and His mercy is over all His works.’ If you have observed anything in any of the tracts I have published which you think is not agreeable to Scripture and reason, you will oblige me by pointing it out, and by communicating to me any remarks you have occasionally made. I seek two things in this world -- truth and love. Whoever assists me in this search is a friend indeed, whether personally known or unknown to, Your humble servant. To his Brother Charles LONDON, July 16, 1755. DEAR BROTHER, -- Are there not more of the same kind who are not dissevered How will you know It deserves all diligence. I wish you had mentioned only his drunkenness in the Society. It was pity to add anything more. Keep to that, and we are agreed. Some time you may spend in recommending outward modes of worship; ‘but not all, not the most, not much of it.’ There are many greater things and more immediately necessary for our people. Holiness of heart and life they want most, and they want it just now. I have often heard that word ‘Babel’ [See letter of June 28.] used, and I do not understand it yet. What does it mean I cannot see one jot of it Of I guess at its meaning) in the Rules either of our Society or bands. I do not myself, and dare not, give that under my hand, to you or any man living. And I should count any one either a fool or a knave that would give it under his hand to me. You are by no means free from temptation. You are acting as if you had never seen either Stillingfleet, Baxter, or Howson. [John Howson (1556-1631); educated at St. Paul’s School and Christ Church; Chaplin to Elizabeth and James I; Bishop of Oxford 1619, Durham 1628; distinguished writer and preacher against Popery. His four polemical discourses against the Supremacy of St. Peter were published by order of James I in 1622.] I am very calm and cool, determining nothing but to do nothing rashly. Now, which is more in the temptation To my thought you are in it over head and ears. Whoever is convinced or not convinced, ordination and separation are not the same thing. If so we have separated already. Herein I am the fifteenth. Your gross bigotry lies here -- in putting a man on a level with an adulterer because he differs from you as to Church government. Ne scutica dignum horribili sectere flagello! [Horace’s Satires, I. iii. 119: ‘What merits but the rod punish not with the cat.’] What miserable confounding the degrees of good and evil is this! I should wonder if Wales or Margate or something did not hinder your taking any step which I desire or which might save my time or strength. Then I will go to Cornwall [Wesley set out for Cornwall on Aug. 18.] myself; that is all. For a wife and a partner you and I may challenge the world together. But love is rot. Adieu. To Richard Tompson LONDON July 25, 1755. SIR, -- It would be a pleasure to me to write more largely than my time will now permit. Of all the disputants I have known, you are the most likely to convince me of any mistakes I may be in, because you have found out the great secret of speaking the truth in love. When it is thus proposed, it must surely win its way into every heart which is not purposely shut against it. That you may deafly see wherein we agree or wherein we differ, I have sent you the Minutes of some of our late Conferences. Several concessions are made therein, both with regard to Assurance and Christian Perfection; some difficulties cleared, and a few arguments proposed, though very nakedly and briefly. When you have read these, you may come directly to any point of controversy which may still remain; and ff you can show me that any farther concessions are needful, I shall make them with great pleasure. On the subject of your last I can but just observe, first, with regard to the assurance of faith, I apprehend that the whole Christian Church in the first centuries enjoyed it. For though we have few points of doctrine explicitly taught in the small remains of the ante-Nicene Fathers, yet I think none that carefully reads Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, or any other of them, can doubt whether either the writer himself possessed it or all whom he mentions as real Christians. And I ready conceive, both from the Harrnonia Confessionurn and whatever else I have occasionally read, that all the Reformed Churches in Europe did once believe ‘Every true Christian has the divine evidence of his being in favor with God.’ So much for authority. The point of experience is touched upon in the Conferences. As to the nature of the thing, I think a divine conviction of pardon is directly implied in the evidence or conviction of things unseen. But if not, it is no absurdity to suppose that, when God pardons a mourning, broken-hearted sinner, His mercy obliges Him to another act -- to witness to his spirit that He has pardoned him. I know that I am accepted; and yet that knowledge is sometimes shaken, though not destroyed, by doubt or fear. If that knowledge were destroyed or wholly withdrawn, I could not then say I had Christian faith. To me it appears the same thing to say, ‘I know God has accepted me,’ or “I have a sure trust that God has accepted me.’ I agree with you that justifying faith cannot be a conviction that I am justified; and that a man who is not assured that his sins are forgiven may yet have a kind or degree of faith which distinguishes him not only from a devil but also from an heathen, and on which I may admit him to the Lord’s Supper. But still I believe the proper Christian faith, which purifies the heart implies such a conviction. -- I am, sir, Your Servant for Christ’s sake. To Ebenezer Blackwell REDRUTH, August, 31, 1755. DEAR SIR, -- Experience confirms your advice both ways. In my last journey into the North, all my patience was put to the proof again and again; and all my endeavors to please, yet without success. In my present journey I leap as broke from chains. I am content with whatever entertainment I meet with, and my companions are always in good humor ‘because they are with me.’ This must be the spirit of all who take journeys with me. If a dinner ill dressed, or hard bed, a poor room, a shower of ’rain, or a dusty road will put them out of humor, it lays a burthen upon me greater than all the rest put together. By the grace of God I never fret, I repine at nothing I am discontented with nothing. And to hear persons at my ear fretting and murmuring at every thing is tike tearing the flesh off my bones. I see God sitting upon His throne and ruling all things well. Although, therefore, I can bear this also -- to hear His government of the world continually found fault with (for in blaming the things which He alone can alter we in effect blame Him); yet it is such a burthen to me as I cannot bear without pain, and I bless God when it is removed. The doctrine of a Particular Providence is what exceeding few persons understand -- at least, not practically, so as to apply it to every circumstance of life. This I want, to see God acting in everything and disposing all for His own glory and His creatures good. I hope it is your continual prayer that you may see Him, and love Him more, and glorify Him with all you are and all you have! Peace be with you all! I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. I shall be in or near St. Ives till the 13th of September. To Ebenezer Blackwell ST. IVES September 12, 1755. DEAR SIR, -- It seems there was a remarkable providence [See previous letter for his trust in Providence.] in this, that Michael Fenwick [This is high praise for Fenwick. The severe snub to his vanity came later (Journal, iv. 229 293; vi. 279). See Wesley’s Veterans, v. 193, where he spreads abroad a secret about Thomas Walsh (W.H.S. v. 185-6).] was so often hindered from settling in business because God had other work for him to do. He is just made to travel with me, being an excellent groom, vakt de chamber, nurse, and upon occasion a tolerable preacher. We have hitherto had an extremely prosperous journey: almost everything has been just as we desired; and I have no care upon my mind but what properly belongs to me -- to feed and guide the flock of Christ. Charles Perronet being out of town last Saturday, my pacquet directed to him fell into other hands. [Into Mrs. Wesley’s whose jealousy was growing.] This has raised a violent storm; for it contained a few lines which I writ to Mrs. Lefevre in answer to a letter she sent me the week before concerning Mr. Furly. So now ‘all the intrigue is discovered and the reason why I direct my letters to Mr. Perronet.’ ‘Tis pity! I should be glad if I had to do with reasonable people. But this likewise is for good. A wonderful odd circumstance has fallen out here. A young gentleman, [John Knill. See Journal, iv. 134.] nephew to the present Mayor, began some time since to attend our preaching, and last week fell raving mad. This incident (so deep is the wisdom of God!) has opened me a way into the Mayor’s family, brought me much acquainted with his wife, who is not easy if I do not call once or twice a day and alarmed the whole town with such a concern for their souls as was never known here before. The particulars I hope to send to Mr. Perronet in my next Journal. Who is so wise a God as our God! I trust you will have Him more and more in your thoughts and in your affections. -- I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate servant. In about ten days I hope to be at Bristol. To Christopher Hopper ST. IVES September 12, 1755. MY DEAR BROTHER -- The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away [Mrs. Hopper died in August. James Massiot preached her funeral sermon on the 27th ‘to a very large congregation of true mourners.’ The same evening she was interred amongst her ancestors in Ryton Church, where she had been married on May 28, 1745. See Stamp’s Orphan House, p. 103; Wesley’s Veterans, i. 168.]; and wise are all His ways. The great point is to understand the design of His gracious wisdom, and to answer and fulfill that design. One thing is certain: He calls you to a more full and absolute dedication of your soul and body to Him. He calls you to converse with Him more in prayer and meditation. In the former we more directly speak to God; in the latter He speaks to us. And every possible loss is gain if it produces this blessed effect. Consider yourself as now more than ever married to Christ and His dear people: then even for this kindly-severe dispensation you should praise Him for ever. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Trembath TIVERTON, September 21, 1755. The plain reason why I did not design to speak with you at Launceston was because I had no hope of doing you good. I observed long ago that you are not patient of reproof; and I fear you are less so now than ever. But since you desire it, I will tell you once more what I think, real or hear concerning you. I think you tasted of the powers of the word to come thirteen or fourteen years ago, and was then simple of heart and willing to spend and be spent for Christ. But not long after, not being sufficiently on your guard, you suffered loss by being applauded. This revived and increased your natural vanity, which was the harder to be checked because of your constitutional stubbornness -- two deadly enemies which have lain in wait for you many years and have given you many deep if not mortal wounds. I fear it is near ten years since you was so weakened by these, that you no longer set a watch over your mouth, but began frequently to speak what was not strictly true, to excuse yourself, divert others, or gain applause. I am afraid this has prevailed over you more and more as there was less and less of the life of God in the soul; so that I should almost wonder if you do not judge a diverting lie to be a very innocent thing. After your first marriage, being not used to nor fond of reading, and not spending many hours in private prayer, time grew heavy on your hands; especially as you could not bear the cross of being a regular traveling preacher: so you betook yourself to farming and other country employments, and grew more and more dead to God; especially when you began to keep company (whether by necessity or choice) with the men ‘whose talk is of bullocks,’ who have little to do either with religion or reason, and have but just wit enough to smoke, drink, and fisher you. By these dull wretches you have been an unspeakable loser. Perhaps it was in company with some of these that you first thought of taking a little sport, and catching a few fish, or killing a partridge or an hare. Miserable employment for a preacher of the gospel! for a Methodist preacher, above all others! Though I do not at all wonder if, after practicing it for some time, you should be so infatuated as even to defend it. I am afraid these same poor creatures afterwards taught you (if that report be true) even to countenance that wickedness for which Cornwall stinks in the nostrils of all who fear God or love King George; I mean that of smuggling: though surely they could not persuade you to receive stolen goods! That is an iniquity to be punished by the Judges. Is there any truth in that other charge (you must not ask who tells me so; if so, I have done), that you imposed on Mrs. H--- in the writings, and fraudulently procured 100 a year to be engaged for instead of fourscore I hope this was a mistake; as well as that assertion that you encouraged drunkenness by suffering it in your company, if not in your own house. O remember from whence you are fallen! Repent, and do the first works! First recover the life of God in your own soul and walk as Christ walked. Walk with God as you did twelve years ago. Then you might again be useful to His children. Supposing you was truly afire to God yourself, how profitably then (leaving the dead to bury their dead) might you spend three months in a year at Bristol or London, three in Cornwall, and six in spreading the gospel wherever it might be needful. I have now told you all that is in my heart: I hope you will receive it not only with patience but profit. You must be much in the way or much out of the way, a good soldier for God or for the devil. O choose the better part! – now! – to-day ! – I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Walker BRISTOL September 24, 1755 REVEREND DEAR SIR, -- 1. You greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely, and the more by giving me hopes of seeing your farther sentiments on so nice and important an affair. I did not delay one day to follow your advice with regard to Mr. Adam, but sent him by the very next post a copy of those papers; although I am satisfied already as to the publishing them, and have laid aside that design, the reasons you urge against the expediency of it being abundantly sufficient. But you seem a little to misapprehend what we speak of hearing predestinarian preachers. We find by long experience that this is ‘deadly poison,’ not in itself but to the members of our Societies. This we know to be unquestionable truth; and it is a truth necessary to be observed, nay, and strongly insisted on (though without any deign of bearing hard on any particular person), when many were enlarging on ‘the poisonous doctrines’ which they heard at many of their parish churches. 2. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church I readily allow; as likewise that the first and main question must be, ‘Is it lawful to separate’ Accordingly this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning the, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it. 3. As to the grounds on which those who plead for separation from the Church proceed, some of them have weighed the point long and deeply. They have very particularly, and with earnest and continued prayer, considered the lawfulness of it. And they allow, ‘If it be lawful to abide therein, then it is not lawful to separate.’ But they aver, ‘It is not lawful to abide therein’; and that for the following reasons: -- First. With regard to the Liturgy itself: though they allow it is in the general one of the most excellent human compositions that ever was, yet they think it is both absurd and sinful to declare such an assent and consent as is required to any merely human composition. Again: though they do not object to the use of forms, yet they dare not confine themselves to them. And in this form (The Book of Common Prayer) there are several things which they apprehend to be contrary to Scripture. Secondly. As to the laws of the Church, if they include the Canons and Decretals, both which are received as such in our Courts, they think ‘the latter are the very dregs of Popery, and that many of the former, the Canons of 1603, are as grossly wicked as absurd.’ And, over and above the objections which they have to several particular ones, they think ‘(1) that the spirit which they breathe is throughout truly Popish and antichristian; (2) that nothing can be more diabolical than the ipso-facto excommunication so often denounced therein; (3) that the whole method of executing these Canons, the process used in our Spiritual Courts, is too bad to be tolerated not in a Christian but in a Mahometan or Pagan nation.’ Thirdly. With respect to the ministers, they doubt ‘whether there are not many of them whom God hath not sent; inasmuch as they neither live the gospel nor teach it; neither indeed can, seeing they do not know it.’ They doubt the more, ‘because themselves disclaim that inward call to the ministry which is at least as necessary as the outward.’ And they are not dear ‘whether it be lawful to attend the ministrations of those whom God has not sent to minister.’ Fourthly. The doctrines actually taught by these, and indeed by a great majority of the Church ministers, they think ‘are not only wrong, but fundamentally so, and subversive of the whole gospel.’ They therefore doubt ‘whether it be lawful to bid them God-speed or to have any fellowship with them.’ I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these arguments to my own satisfaction. So that my conclusion (which I cannot yet give up), that it is lawful to continue in the Church, stands, I know not how, almost without any premises that are able to bear its weight. My difficulty is very much increased by one of your observations. I know the original doctrines of the Church are sound; I know her worship is (in the main) pure and scriptural. But if ‘the essence of the Church of England considered as such, consists in her orders and laws’ (many of which I myself can say nothing for), ‘and not in her worship and doctrines’ those who separate from her have a far stronger plea than I was ever sensible of. 4. At present I apprehend those, and those only, to separate from the Church who either renounce her or refuse to join in her pubic worship. As yet we have done neither; nor have we taken one step farther than we were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this that we have (1) preached abroad, (2) prayed extempore, (3) formed Societies, and (4) permitted preachers who were not episcopally ordained. And were we punished on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty rather wholly to separate from the Church than to give up any one of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop a seperation without stopping lay preachers, the case is clear – we cannot stop it at all. 5. ‘But if we permit them, should we not do more Should we not appoint them rather Since our bare permission puts the matter quite out of our hands and deprives us of all our influence.’ In a great measure it does; therefore to appoint them is far more expedient, if it be lawful. But is it lawful for presbyters circumstanced as we are to appoint our ministers This is the very point wherein we desire advice, being unafraid of leaning to our own understanding. It is undoubtedly ‘needful,’ as you observe, to come to some resolution in this point’; and the sooner the better. I therefore rejoice to hear that you think ‘that this matter may be better and more inoffensively ordered; and that a method may be found which, conducted with prudence and patience, will reduce the constitution of Methodism to due order, and render the Methodists under God more instrumental to the ends of practical religion.’ This, sir, is the very thing I want. I must therefore beg your sentiments on this head, and that as particularly as your other engagements will allow. Wishing you more and more of the wisdom from above, I remain, reverend dear sir, Your obliged and affectionate brother and servant. To Samuel Furly BRISTOL September 25, 1755. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It fell out extremely well that I received yours just as I was writing to York. So I have desired one to inquire when that young gentleman is to enter Cambridge. [Probably young Mr. Drake. See Journal, iv. 18-19; and letter of Nov. 20 1756, also Nov. 26, 1762.] What I want of you h to be always steady, always consistent with yourself, to follow divinity, and to beware of worldly wisdom, in which many Methodists abound, though they know it not. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Paul Greenwood BRISTOL October 8, 1755. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In a multitude of counselors there is safety. This is a general rule. But your case is an exception. You must not consult with many persons. It would only puzzle and confound you. If you advise with another beside me, it should be he that is as myself, that is Thomas Walsh. [See letter of June 28 to Charles Wesley.] Unless there should be a very particular call you should not act publicly till you are ordained. [See W.H.S. vii. 20-1; and letter of June 16 about ordination.] Give yourself to reading, meditation, prayer; and do all the good you can in a private manner. Pride and impetuosity of temper will be apt to lead you out of the way. But what is faith, if it will not destroy the one and regulate the other --I am Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, October 8, 1755 MY DEAR BROTHER, -- There is something of an openness and frankness in your temper which I love; but that very same temper will sometimes expose you to inconveniences, unless you always have an eye to God, that He may give you steadiness and resolution. O keep your heart with all diligence, and do not take one step without first consulting your best friend. You have one business on earth -- to save souls. Give yourself wholly to this. Fulfill the work of a preacher and of an Assistant as you never did before. Be another Thomas Walsh. Pursue the whole of scriptural Christianity. Stand Upon the edge of this world, ready to take wing; having your feet on the earth, eyes and heart in heaven. –I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Rimius READING October 24, 1755. SIR, -- I never saw or heard of any writing published in England wherein the Moravian Hymns were exposed, except (1) that you mention published in 1749; (2) those you have since published; (3) the Bishop of Exeter’s~ late book [The Moravians Compared and Detected, 1755.]; and (4) the Queries addressed to Count Zinzendorf. Although I hope to be in town tomorrow night, yet, as you desired an immediate answer, I would not lose one day; because I am glad of any opportunity of showing myself, sir, Your most obedient servant. To Mr. Rimius, Next door to Oxenden Chapel, In Coventry Court, Haymarket, London. To Thomas Adam LONDON October 31, 1755, REVERAND SIR, -- One good effect at least has arisen already from the moving of the present question. It has been the occasion of my having some little acquaintance with Mr. Walker and you; which I doubt not would be enlarged, were it not for what you probably think to be Christian I think to be worldly prudence. You have much obliged me by your clear and friendly answer, with the main of which I fully agree. For I am still in my former sentiment, -- ‘We will not go out: if we are thrust out, well.’ And of the same judgment are, I believe, at least nineteen of twenty of our preachers and an equal majority of the people. We are fully convinced that to separate from an Established Church is never lawful but when it is absolutely necessary; and we do not see any such necessity yet. Therefore we have at present no thoughts of separation. With regard to the steps we have hitherto taken, we have used all the caution which was possible. We have done nothing rashly, nothing without deep and long consideration, hearing and weighing all objection, and much prayer. Nor have we taken one deliberate step of which we as yet see reason to repent. It is true in some things we vary from the rules of our Church; but no father than we apprehend is our bounden duty. It is upon a full conviction of this that we preach abroad, use extemporary prayer, form those who appear to be awakened into Societies, and permit laymen whom we believe God has called to preach. I say permit, because we ourselves have hitherto viewed it in no other light. This we are clearly satisfied we may do: that we may do more we are not satisfied. It is not clear to us that presbyters so circumstanced as we are may appoint or ordain others, but it is that we may direct as well as suffer them to do what we conceive they are moved to by the Holy Ghost. It is true that in ordinary cases both an inward and an outward call are requisite. But we apprehend there is something far from ordinary in the present case. And upon the calmer view of things we think they who are only called of God and not of man have more right to preach than they who are only called of man and not of God. Now, that many of the clergy, though called of man, are not called of God to preach His gospel is undeniable, (1) because they themselves utterly disclaim, nay, and ridicule, the inward call; (2) because they do not know what the gospel is, of consequence they do not and cannot preach it. Dear sir, coolly and impartially consider this, and you will see on which side the difficulty lies. I do assure you this at present is my chief embarrassment. That I have not gone too far yet I know; but whether I have gone far enough I am extremely doubtful. I see those running whom God hath not sent, destroying their own souls and those that hear them, perverting the right ways of the Lord, blaspheming the truth as it is in Jesus. I see the blind leading the blind and both falling into the ditch. Unless I warn in all ways I can these perishing souls of their danger, am I clear of the blood of these men Soul-damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than soul-saying laymen. Those among ourselves who have been in doubt whether they ought so to beware of these false prophets as not to hear them at all are not men of a ‘forward uncharitable zeal’ but of a calm, loving, temperate spirit. They are perfectly easy as to their own call to preach; but they are troubled for those poor uncaged, blind guides. And they are sometimes afraid that the countenancing these is a dead weight even on those clergymen who are ready called of God. ‘Why else,’ say they, ‘does not God bless their labors Why do they still stretch forth their hands in vain ‘We know Mr. Piers, Perone, Manning, and several regular clergymen who do preach the genuine gospel, but to no effect at all. There is one exception in England -- Mr. Walker at Truro. We do not know one more who has converted one soul in his own parish. If it be said, ‘Has not Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Baddeley [John Baddeley, Rector of Hayfield in Derbyshire, was converted in 1748 and ‘preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.’ He was ‘a sort of second Grimshaw.’ He formed. Societies, and appointed laymen to assist him. Wesley visited him in April 1755; and after the Leeds Conference, Baddeley wrote him an affectionate letter about separation from the Church of England. See Journal, iv. 110-11, v. 109; Arminian Mag. 1779 p. 319; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 195. For William Grimshaw, see letter of Nov. 2, 1748.] No, not one, till they were irregular -- till both the one and the other formed irregular Societies and took in laymen to assist them. Can there be a stronger proof that God is pleased with irregular even more than with regular preaching ‘But might not the Methodists in general serve the interests of Christ better as witnesses and examples of a living faith by returning to a closer union with the Church than by separating still farther’ We have no design at present of separating father (if we have yet separated at all). Neither dare we return to a closer union, if that means either prohibiting lay preachers or ceasing to watch over each other in love, and regularly meeting for that purpose. If there be any father advices, whether with regard to doctrines or practice, which you judge might be of service to us, they would be thankfully received and considered by, reverend dear sir, Your obliged and affectionate brother and servant. To Samuel Walker LONDON, November 20, 1755. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I return you many thanks for the welcome letter from Mr. Adam [The reply to the Rev. Thomas Adam (p. 149) is dated Oct. 31. The interval was spent in London, where he stayed until Jan 26.] as well as for your own. I have answered his (which is wrote in a truly Christian spirit), and now proceed to consider yours, after having observed that two of our preachers [Samuel Larwood, John Edwards, Charles Skelton, and John Witford left Wesley. See Journal, iv. 95n; and letters of July 17, 1751, and Aug. 4, 1769.] are gone from us; and none of the remaining (to my knowledge) have at present any desire or design of separating from the Church. Yet I observe, -- 1. Those ministers who truly feared God near an hundred years ago had undoubtedly much the same objections to the Liturgy which some (who never read their Works) have now. [Both his grandfathers were among the sufferers of 1662.] And I myself so far allow the force of several of those objections that I should not dare to declare my assent and consent to that book in the terms prescribed. Indeed, they are so strong that I think they cannot safely be used with regard to any book but the Bible. Neither dare I confine myself wholly to forms of prayer, not even in the church. I use, indeed, all the forms; but I frequently add extemporary prayer either before or after sermon. 2. In behalf of many of the Canons I can say little; of the Spiritual Courts nothing at all. I dare not, therefore, allow the authority of the former or the jurisdiction of the latter. But I am not required to do it. So the difficulty does not lie yet. 3. ‘Whether it be lawful to attend the ministrations of one whom God has not sent me to minister, seeing he expressly disclaims the call of God, which is at least as necessary as the call of man,’ is really a question which (as I said before) I cannot answer to my own satisfaction. Neither can I tell – 4. How far that command of our Lord, ‘Beware of false prophet,’ obliges me to refrain from hearing such who put darkness for light and light for darkness. I am still in doubt whether quietly attending them while they do this be not in effect the bidding them God-speed, the strengthening their hands in evil, and encouraging others to hear them till they fall into hell together. I am still desirous of knowing in what particular manner you think the present work of God could be carried on without the assistance of lay preachers. [See letter of Sept. 24.] This I will fairly weigh, and give you my thoughts upon it. Some little things occurred to me in reading your Sermons [The volume of sermons published two years befog, entitled The Christian] which I had a desire to communicate to you. In the great points I cannot observe any difference between us. We both contend for the inward kingdom, the mind that was in Christ Jesus, the image of God to be new stamped upon the heart. I am sometimes much discouraged at finding so little of this in myself. Assist, both with your advice and prayers, dear sir, Your very affectionate brother and servant. All but the last passage of this I had wrote three weeks ago. But the dangerous illness of my wife prevented my finishing it sooner. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This letter is prefixed to a pamphlet, Queries Humbly Proposed to the Right Reverend and Right Honorable Count Zinzendorf (1755, 8vo, 32 pages). It has no author’s name; but James Huron believed it to be the work of Wesley, and it appears in the catalogues among the books published by the Wesleys. Severe charges had been made against the Moravians; and on December 31, 1734 James Huron published an advertisement in the London Daily Advertiser calling for queries in reference to these charges, and indicating that answers would be forthcoming. The Queries were published seven days after the advertisement; but they cannot be said to have been answered. Happily they have long ceased to have any relevance. See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 220-3; Green’s Bibliography, No. 169; and letter of October 24. [2] Furly’s tutor, Samuel Hallifax (1733-90), was ordained deacon at Ely on September 21, 1755; hence Wesley’s interest as shown by this reference to Bishop Bull. Dr. Hallifax was the son of an apothecary at Mansfield. He was third Wrangler and Chancellor’s medallist 1754, Fellow of Jesus College 1756, Professor of Arabic and Civil Law, Bishop of Gloucester 1781-9, Bishop of St. Asaph 1789-90. [3] Wesley preached at Keighley on the 28th and at Bradford on the 29th when ‘my brother met me at Birstall in the afternoon.’ Next day ‘we began reading together A Gentleman’s Reasons for his Dissent from the Church of England,’ in view of the Conference which met at Leeds on May 6. See letter of January 10, 1758. The estrangement between Wesley and his wife was beginning. Charles did speak to his sister-in-law. He writes to his wife: ‘This evening I expect to find my brother at Bristol. I pity his poor wife, if now upon the road. There she is likely to stick till the warm weather comes. The roads are almost impassable for wheel.’ He asks as to Mrs. John Wesley ‘What shall you and I do to love her better “Love your enemies” is with man impossible; but is anything too hard for God I fear you do not constantly pray for her. I must pray, or sink into the spirit of revenge.’ In the next letter he tells his wife: ‘On my way to Wakefield I met my good angel and sister. I have done her honor before the people and behaved (though I say it) very much like a gentleman; only that I took a French leave this morning -- that is, left Leeds without telling either her or her husband.’ See C. Wesley’s Journal ii. 201-2; and previous letter. [4] Westley Hall was now going to the West Indies with another woman. The child referred to lived to be fourteen. Wesley described Mrs. Harper as ‘the best reader of Milton I ever knew.’ The sisters were probably to live together in the house at West Street. Mrs. Hall afterwards became an intimate friend of Dr. Johnson, to whom she introduced her brother in 1784. See letters of December 22, 1747 and June 20 and 23, 1755 (to his brother). [5] This letter shows how free Wesley was from anything like enthusiasm in the dangerous sense. It is levelheaded and sagacious advice to a young beginner. [6] This letter belongs to a critical period in the history of Methodism. Some of the preachers had administered the Lord’s Supper to those who felt unwilling or unable to go to trek parish churches. The two Perronets, sons of the Vicar of Shoreham, who were both Methodist preachers, Joseph Cownley, and Thomas Walsh were leaders of this movement. After three days’ consideration, the Leeds Conference decided ‘that, whether it was lawful or not to separate it was no ways expedient.’ Walsh and his friends promised not to administer the sacraments. Charles Wesley was much disturbed. He saw that many of the preachers were unconvinced. Immediately after the Conference he wrote An Epistle to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, by Charles Wesley, Presbyter of the Church of England. He tells his wife (Jackson’s Charles’s Wesley, ii. p. 81): ‘On Thursday I read my Epistle a second time to a crowded audience and yesterday at the watch-night. Seven hundred are sent by this day’s carrier.’ Jackson prints this poetical essay in the Life. Four thousand copies were printed by William Strahan at a cost of eight guineas. His love of the Church of England stands forth in such lines as these: Thrust out as from her pale, I gladly roam, Banish myself to bring her wanderers home. [7] Thomas Sherlock (1678-1761) was Bishop of London from 1748 to 1761. He wrote against Hoadly in the Bangorian Controversy. As Bishop of London he cultivated friendly relations with Dissenters, and this inhibition of Gardiner evidently surprised Wesley. Charles Wesley has chromed this letter, ‘B[rother]. June 23, 1755. Passing Gardiner’s doom.’ See next letter. [8] There is neither name nor date to this letter. It may have been sent to Dr. Sherlock, whose action in regard to Mr. Gardner is referred to in the previous letter. Wesley preached at St. Bartholomew’s in December 1738 and May and June 1747. Richard Bateman, the Rector, was converted under the preaching of Howel Davies in Wales, and was one of Wesley’s college friends. See Journal ii. 117; iii. 300, 302. [9] Richard Tompson, who corresponded with Wesley under the initials ‘P. V.,’ revealed his real name in the letter of February 25, 1756 and said that to avoid prejudice, ‘I chose to conceal myself under the Latin initials of a Lover of Truth.’ This correspondence, edited by someone who had long known Tompson, was published in 1760 as a pamphlet of 52 pages, entitled ‘Original Letters between the Reverend Mr. John Wesley and Mr. Richard Tompson, respecting the Doctrine of Assurance as held by the former: wherein that Tenet is fully examined; with some Strictures on Christian Perfection.’ The editor says: ‘Mr. Tompson in his youth was induced to join himself to Mr. Wesley and his associates, and upon that first institution of their Societies became a member; but soon, through the force of superior judgment, found it necessary to withdraw himself. Being of a very serious and speculative mind, he applied himself with great assiduity to reading; and, though not blest with the advantages of education, made no small progress in literature, especially in that branch which respects divinity. The editor of these Letters hath long been acquainted with him; and hath not the pleasure of knowing many men either of a more sober and exemplary life, or of a more acute understanding and clear judgment.... Hearing that Mr. Wesley was about to print Annotations upon the New Testament, he wrote an anonymous letter to him respecting the doctrine of Original Sin, which Mr. Wesley received so well that he sent him the following answer.’ Tompson had mentioned this correspondence to the editor, who suggested that it should be published, and got him to ask Wesley’s permission. In 1750 Wesley told Samuel Furly that Tompson said to him, ‘I want a little money, and I can have it by printing the letters which passed between you and me.’ Unfortunately ‘P. V.’s’ first letter is not included. The editor says: ‘This letter deserves to be made known, and may perhaps appear on some other occasion.’ Tompson lived in Prince’s Square, Ratcliff Highway. See letters of July 25, 1755; August 22, 1759 (to Tompson); and December 9 1760. [10] Charles Wesley had apparently excluded someone from the Society for not going to church, and had not based his action solely on the moral offence of drunkenness. That leads Wesley to criticize his brother’s attitude to the question of ordination. Lord Mansfield told his old friend and schoolfellow in 1784 that ordination was separation. John Wesley had thought out the problem already, and reached the conclusion on which he finally took action in his ordinations. Stilling-fleet’s Irenicon had convinced him of his mistake in holding that only Episcopal ordination was valid, and he tells his brother on June 8, 1780: ‘Read Bishop Stillingfleet’s Irenicon or any impartial history of the ancient Church, and I believe you will think as I do.’ ‘I am the fifteenth’ seems to rear to his Nonconformist ancestry on both his father’s and mother’s side. It is interesting to note Joseph Cownley’s admission as a preacher in 1747. He knelt down; and Wesley, putting the New Testament into his hands, said, ‘Take thou authority to preach the gospel.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, iv. 128; and letter of July 3, 1756. [The last paragraph is in shorthand.] [11] Wesley replied to Tompson’s first letter on June 28. Tompson wrote again on July 10, saying that he differed from Wesley, especially concerning ‘Assurance being essential to saving faith’ and ‘Sinless Perfection.’ He says it has great weight with him that he ‘cannot learn that either of these opinions hath ever been the general doctrine of the Primitive Church.’ He does not dispute whether assurance of forgiveness of past Sins is attainable in this life, but argues against the proposition ‘that no person is a true believer in Christ but he who either certainly knows, or has known by the immediate revelation of the Holy Ghost, that his sins are forgiven.’ Wesley deals with this in his reply , and asks him to study the Doctrinal Minutes. Wesley does not answer him as to Christian Perfection, nor does he refer to Tompson’s supposition that, if two persons absolutely free from the corruption of human nature should marry and have children, these children would have no corruption of nature and would stand in no need of a Savior. [12] Blackwell was Wesley’s chief confidant in his domestic affairs. Mrs. Wesley had been with her husband in May. This letter shows how Wesley rested on the providence of God. ‘I see God sitting upon His throne’ almost anticipates Browning’s God’s in His heaven, All’s right in the world. See Journal iv. 115; and letter of April 29. [13] Mrs. Lefevre was the means of leading the Rev. William Dodd to write to Wesley on Christian Perfection (see heading to letter of February 5, 1756). She died on July 6, 1756, apparently at the age of thirty-three Charles Wesley’s poem on her death speaks of her as A spotless soul, a sinless saint, In perfect love renewed; and describes her as Darling of every heart that knew Thy short-lived excellence. On September 21, 1755, Charles Wesley writes from the Foundry: ‘Poor Mr. Lefevre breakfasted with me this morning and lamented that he cannot love her’ (Mrs. Wesley). No doubt he was smarting from the trouble referred to in this letter Mrs. Lefevre had evidentially taken an interest in Mr. Furly’s spiritual struggles. She would know his sister intimately in London. See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii 217, 334; and for Mrs. Wesley’s jealousy of Mrs. Lefevre, the letter of July 15, 1774. Mrs. Lefevre’s Letters upon Sacred Subjects (London, 1757) show strong sense and deep piety. She was a woman of great gifts and great influence. About 1752 Miss Bosanquet says: ‘One day my sister, visiting Mrs. Lefevre, found her truly awakened and in earnest to save her soul.’ Her parents had no suspicion that she was a Methodist. At her house the Bosanquets ‘got opportunities of conversation with religious persons which a good deal strengthened our hands’ She was ‘the greatest comfort’ of Miss Bosanquet’s life. Her last words were, ‘I have comforts indeed.’ See Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher pp. 19-21. [14] On September 18 Wesley had preached at Launceston in ‘a gentleman’s dining-room capable of containing some hundreds of people’ and at five the next morning in the Town Hall. Trembath became one of Wesley’s preachers in 1743. He was with Wesley at Newcastle in 1745, and accompanied him to Ireland in August 1747 when he preached in Marlborough Street, Dublin, ‘to a large congregation both of laity and clergy, who behaved with much decency.’ On January 28 1748 they escaped a serious accident when on their way to Longbridge Deverill. Wesley met him at Cork on August 16 1760 and wrote to him a letter the following day in which he expresses his pleasure that the most serous charges here referred to were not true. In September 1782 he told Wesley at Launceston, ‘I am happier than ever I was in my life.’ See Journal, iii. 257, 330 vi. 366; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 385; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland i. 15; and letter of August 17, 1760. [15] This is one of the most momentous of Wesley’s letters. He could not consent to give up his lay preachers, who had been so greatly blessed; and he clearly saw that to do so would be an end to the Evangelical Revival. He was awake to the situation, deeply anxious to do nothing inconsistent with his position as a clergyman, yet utterly unable to take any step that would destroy his work. He consulted Mr. Walker as to separation from the Church, and at his suggestion also wrote on the subject to the Rev. Thomas Adam, Rector of Wintringham, near Barton-on-Humber. Walker was a naive of Exeter and a graduate of Exeter College, Oxford. He had been ordained fourteen years, and was now Vicar of Truro, where he was the means of the conversion of eight hundred persons, whom he had gathered into Socities. Walker replied to Wesley on September 5. This is Wesley’s answer. For Walker’s Societies, see Journal, iv. 130, v. 185n. [16] Greenwood became a Methodist preacher in 1746 and died in 1767. He and his colleagues began to administer the sacrament in Norwich in 1760. About the time of this letter Thomas Taylor found special blessing ‘in hearing that plain, honest man Paul Greenwood, whose word left a lasting impression on my mind.’ See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 381; Wesley’s Veterans vii. 20. [17] This letter is preserved in the Library of Lambeth Palace, in a copy of Sheridan’s translation of The Satyrs of Persius, which has the inscription, ‘C. Wesley, Aed. X’ti Alum. Dec. 1, 1733. E. Dono Fratris.’ On the fly-leaf of the letter Rimius has written: ‘Gambold’s words in the preface to the Ordinary’s Remarks, &c.: “The Ordinary” (i.e. Zinzendorf) “is declared with the utmost impudence the author of Stanzas he had not so much as seen .”’ Then follow Zinzendorf’s words from his ‘Exposition, P. 2, p. 24’: ‘The Stanzas mentioned in Mr. Gambold’s Preface &c., as never seen by me, though charged on me, were truly such as I had never seen; and in order to render that assertion still more intelligible, let me add to it that I saw in the very controversial books published in England songs and verses confidently charged on me which I saw then the first time in my life.’ Reference is made to calumnies against the Brethren: ‘This nowhere has been of less effect than in England. For, when in this year (1749) the Brethren Hymn-Book was so treated there, it scarce met with a week’s attention, and immediately fell into that contempt which usually all pasquils and street-news meet with in that country.’ See W.H.S. xiv. 114-17. In June 1753 Wesley found London ‘much alarmed with Mr. Rimius’s Narrative and Mr. Whitefield’s Letter to Count Zinzendorf.’ William Parker, the Mayor of Bedford, said he knew a hundred times more than Rimius had written. Whitefield quoted Rimius in an Expostulatory Letter to Count Zinzendorf. The answers of Bhler and the Count are in Benham’s Hutton, pp. 304-6, and a reply to Whitefield and Rimius in the Appendix, pp. 561-5. One of the Queries Proposed to Count Zinzendorf (page 27), published in January 1755, is ‘Did Mr. Cossart suggest to Mr. Lynde, “It would be as good as 300 in his way if Mr. Rimius’s book would be suppressed”’ Rimius was evidently a German pastor in London. See Journal iv. 68, 72-3, 86; and letter of January 7. [18] Thomas Adam was born in Leeds in 1701, and graduated at Christ’s College, Cambridge. He was appointed Rector of Wintringham, near Barton-on-Humber, when twenty-three, and held the living till his death in 1784. Acing on the advice of the Rev. Samuel Walker of Truro, Wesley sent him a copy of the papers relating to separation from the Church of England. Adam read on October 10. See Journal, v. 278; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 209; and letter of September 24. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 44: 42. 1756 ======================================================================== 1756 To William Law LONDON, January 6, 1756. REVEREND SIR, -- In matters of religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and an whole army of Mystic authors are with me nothing to St. Paul. In every point I appeal ’to the law and the testimony,’ and value no authority but this. At a time when I was in great danger of not valuing this authority enough you made that important observation: ‘I see where your mistake lies. You would have a philosophical religion; but there can be no such thing. Religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. It is only, “We love Him because He first loved us.” So far as you add philosophy to religion, just so far you spoil it. ‘This remark I have never forgotten since; and I trust in God I never shall.’ But have not you Permit me, sir, to speak plainly. Have you ever thought of it since Is there a writer in England who so continually blends philosophy with religion even in tracts on The Spirit of Prayer and The Spirit of Love, wherein from the titles of them one would expect to find no more of philosophy than in the Epistles of St. John. Concerning which, give me leave to observe in general: (1) That the whole of it is utterly superfluous: a man may be full both of prayer and love, and not know a word of this hypothesis. (2) The whole of this hypothesis is unproved; it is all precarious, all uncertain. (3) The whole hypothesis has a dangerous tendency; it naturally leads men off from plain, practical religion, and fills them with the ‘knowledge’ that ‘puffeth up’ instead of the ‘love’ that ‘edifieth.’ And (4) It is often flatly contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to itself. But over and above this superfluous, uncertain, dangerous, irrational, and unscriptural philosophy, have not you lately grieved many who are not strangers to the spirit of prayer or love, by advancing tenets in religion, some of which they think are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it Allow me, sir, first to touch upon your philosophy, and then to speak freely concerning these. I. As to your philosophy, the main of your theory respects (1) things antecedent to the creation; (2) the creation itself; (3) Adam in paradise; (4) the fall of man. I do not undertake formally to refute what you have asserted on any of these heads. I dare not; I cannot answer either to God or man such an employment of my time. I shall only give a sketch of this strange system, and ask a few obvious questions. And, I. Of things antecedent to the creation. ‘All that can be conceived is God, or nature, or creature’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 33). Is nature created or not created It must be one or the other; for there is no medium. If not created, is it not God If created, is it not a creature How, then, can there be three -- God, nature, and creatures -- since nature must coincide either with God or creature ‘Nature is in itself an hungry, wrathful fire of life’ (page 34). ‘Nature is and can be only a desire. Desire is the very being of nature.’ (Spirit of Love, Part I. p. 20.) ‘Nature is only a desire, because it is for the sake of something else. Nature is only a torment, because it cannot help itself to that which it wants.’ (Page 34.) ‘Nature is the outward manifestation of the invisible glories of God’ (Part II. p. 62). Is not the last of these definitions contradictory to all that precede If desire is the very being of nature, if it is a torment, an hungry, wrathful fire, how is it ‘the outward manifestation of the invisible glories of God’ ‘Nature as well as God is antecedent to all creatures’ (page 59). ‘There is an eternal nature, as universal and as unlimited as God’ (page 64). Is, then, nature God Or are there two eternal, universal, infinite beings ‘Nothing is before eternal nature but God’ (ibid.). ‘Nothing but’! Is anything before that which is eternal But how is this grand account of nature consistent with what you say elsewhere ‘Nature and darkness and self are but three different expressions for one and the same thing’ (page 181). ‘Nature has all evil and no evil in it’ (page 192). Yea, ‘Nature, self, or darkness has not only no evil in it, but is the only ground of all good’ (ibid.). Oh rare darkness! ‘Nature has seven chief properties, and can have neither more nor less, because it is a birth from the Deity in nature.’ Is nature a birth from the Deity in nature Is this sense If it be, what kind of proof is it Is it not ignoturn per aeque ignotum [‘To prove an unknown proposition by one equally unknown.’] ‘For God is triune, and nature is triune.’ ‘Nature is triune’! Is not this flat begging the question ‘And hence arise properties, three and three.’ Nay, why not nine and nine’ And that which brings these three and three into union is another property.’ (Part II. p. 64.) Why so Why may it not be two, or five, or nine Is it not rather the will and power of God ‘The first three properties of nature are the whole essence of that desire which is, and is called, “nature”’ (page 69). How Are the properties of a thing the same as the essence of it What confusion is this! But if they were, can a part of its properties be the whole essence of it ‘The first three properties of nature are attraction, resistance, and whirling. In these three properties of the desire you see the reason of the three great laws of matter and motion, and need not be told that Sir Isaac ploughed with Jacob Behmen’s heifer.’ (Page 37.) Just as much as Milton ploughed with Francis Quarles’s heifer. How does it appear that these are any of the properties of nature, if you mean by ‘nature’ anything distinct from matter And how are they the properties of desire What a jumbling of dissonant notions is here! ‘The fourth property’ (you affirm, not prove) ‘is called “fire”; the fifth, “the form of light and love.”’ What do you mean by the form of love Are light and love one and the same thing ‘The sixth, “sound or understanding.”’ Are, then, sound and understanding the same thing’ The seventh, “a life of triumphing joy”’ (page 58). Is, then, a life of triumphing joy ‘that which brings the three and three properties into union’ If so, how can it be ‘the result of that union’ Do these things hang together To conclude this head: you say, ‘Attraction is an incessant working of three contrary properties - drawing, resisting, and whirling ’ (page 200). That is, in plain terms (a discovery worthy of Jacob Behmen, and yet not borrowed by Sir Isaac), ‘Drawing is incessant drawing, resistance, and whirling.’ 2. Of the creation :- You put these words, with many more equally important, into the mouth of God Himself! ‘Angels first inhabited the region which is now taken up by the sun and the planets that move round him. It was then all a glassy sea, in which perpetual scenes of light and glory were ever rising and changing in obedience to their call. Hence they fancied they had infinite power, and resolved to abjure all submission to God. In that moment they were whirled down into their own dark, fiery, working powers. And in that moment the glassy sea, by the wrathful workings of these spirits, was broke in pieces, and became a chaos of fire and wrath, thickness and darkness.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 14, &c.) I would inquire upon this,-- (1) Is it well for a man to take such liberty with the Most High God (2) Is not this being immeasurably ‘wise above that which is written’ wiser than all the Prophets and all the Apostles put together (3) How can anything of this be proved Why thus: ‘“Darkness was upon the face of the deep.” What can this mean but that the fall of angels brought desolation into the very place of this world’ (Part II. p, 49.) What a proof! Secondly. ‘The Scripture shows that the Spirit of God, entering into this darkness,’ that is, ‘into the very place where Satan reigned before,’ ‘brought forth a new world’ (page 50). Where does it show that this darkness was the place where Satan reigned I cannot find it in my Bible. Thirdly. ‘How could the devil be called the prince of this world, if it was not once his own kingdom’ (Ibid.) May he not be so called because he now reigns therein Is he not now ‘the ruler of the darkness,’ or wickedness, ‘of this world’ Fourthly. ‘Had it not been their own kingdom, the devils could have no power here. This may pass for a demonstration that this is the very place in which the angels fell.’ (Page 51.) I doubt it will not pass. Cannot God permit Satan to exert his power wherever it pleaseth him Hitherto, then, we have not a grain of sound proof. Yet you pronounce with all peremptoriness, ‘The grounds of true religion cannot be truly known but by going so far back as this fall of angels’ (pages 37-8). Cannot! Positively cannot! How few men in England, in Europe, can or do go back so far! And are there none but these, no not one, who knows the grounds of true religion ‘It was their revolt which brought wrath and fire and thickness and darkness into nature’ (ibid.). If it was sin that brought fire into the world (which is hard to prove), did it bring darkness and thickness too But if it did, what harm is there in either Is not thickness as good in its place as thinness And as to darkness, you say yourself, ‘It has not only no evil in it, but is the only ground of all possible good.’ Touching creation in general you aver,-- ‘A creation out of nothing is no better sense than a creation into nothing’ (page 60). ‘A creation into nothing’ is a contradiction in terms. Can you say a creation out of nothing is so It is, indeed, tautology; since the single term ’creation’ is equivalent with production out of nothing. ‘That all things were created out of nothing has not the least tittle of Scripture to support it’ (page 55). Is it not supported (as all the Christian Church has thought hitherto) by the very first verse of Genesis ‘Nay, it is a fiction big with the grossest absurdities. It is full of horrid consequences. It separates everything from God. It leaves no relation between God and the creature. For ‘(mark the proof!)’ if it is created out of nothing, it cannot have something of God in it.’ (Page 58.) The consequence is not clear. Till this is made good, can any of those propositions be allowed ‘Nature is the first birth of God.’ Did God create it or not If not, how came it out of Him If He did, did He create it out of something or nothing ‘St. Paul says, All things are of, or out of, God.’ And what does this prove but that God is the cause of all things ‘The materiality of the angelic kingdom was spiritual’ (Part II. p. 27). What is spiritual materiality Is it not much the same with immaterial materiality ‘This spiritual materiality brought forth the heavenly flesh and blood of angels’ (page 57). That angels have bodies you affirm elsewhere. But are you sure they have flesh and blood Are not the angels spirits And surely a spirit hath not flesh and blood. ‘The whole glassy sea was a mirror of beauteous forms, colors, and sounds, perpetually springing up, having also fruits and vegetables, but not gross, as the fruits of the world. This was continually bringing forth new figures of life; not animals, but ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life.’ (Part I. pp. 18-19.) This likewise is put into the mouth of God. But is nonsense from the Most High What less is ‘a mirror of beauteous sounds’ And what are ‘figures of life’ Are they alive or dead, or between both, as a man may be between sleeping and waking What are ‘ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life’ Are they the same with those forms of stones, one of which Maraton took up (while he was seeking Yaratilda) to throw at the form of a lion [See Spectator, No. 56, May 4, 1711, where Addison describes the Indian visionary’s adventures in an underworld of unrealities.] ‘The glassy sea being become thick and dark, the spirit converted its fire and wrath into sun and stars, its dross and darkness into earth, its mobility into air, its moisture into water’ (Part II. p. 29). Was wrath converted into sun or stars, or a little of it bestowed on both How was darkness turned into earth or mobility into air Has not fire more mobility than this Did there need omnipotence to convert fire into fire, into the sun, or moisture into water ‘Darkness was absolutely unknown to the angels till they fell. Hence it appears that darkness is the ground of the materiality of nature.’ (Page 33.) Appears -- to whom Nothing appears to me but the proving ignoturn per ignotius. ‘All life is a desire’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 198). ‘Every desire as such is and must be made up of contrariety. God’s bringing a sensible creature into existence is the bringing the power of desire into a creaturely state.’ (Ibid.) Does not all this require a little more proof, and not a little illustration ‘Hard and soft, thick and thin, could have no existence till nature lost its first purity. And this is the one true origin of all the materiality of this world. Else nothing thick or hard could ever have been.’ (Part I. p. 21.) Does not this call for much proof since most people believe God created matter, merely because so it seemed good in His sight. But you add a kind of proof. ‘How comes a flint to be so hard and dark It is because the meekness and fluidity of the light, air, and water are not in it.’ (Ibid.) The meekness of light and air and water! What is that Is air or water capable of virtue ‘The first property of nature is a constraining, attracting, and coagulating power’ (page 24). I wait the proof of this. ‘God brought gross matter out of the sinful properties of nature, that thereby the fallen angels might lose all their power over them’ (page 27). And have they lost all power over them Is Satan no longer prince of the power of the air ‘As all matter is owing to the first property of nature, which is an astringing, compressing desire’ (page 28). Stop here, sir. I totally deny that any unintelligent being is capable of any desire at all. And yet this gross, capital mistake runs through your whole theory. ‘The fourth property is fire’ (page 49). Where is the proof ‘Which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state’ (page 48). Proof again ‘The conjunction of God and nature brings forth fire.’ This needs the most proof of all. ‘Every right-kindled fire must give forth light.’ Why ‘Because the eternal fire is the effect of supernatural light.’ Nay, then light should rather give forth fire. ‘The fire of the soul and that of the body has but one nature’ (page 52). Can either Behmen or Spinosa prove this 3. Of Adam in paradise. ‘Paradise is an heavenly birth of life’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 6). How does this definition explain the thing defined ‘Adam had at first both an heavenly and an earthly body. Into the latter was the spirit of this world breathed; and in this spirit and body did the heavenly spirit and body of Adam dwell.’ (Page 7.) So he had originally two bodies and two souls! This will need abundance of proof. ‘The spirit and body of this world was the medium through which he was to have commerce with this world.’ The proof’ But it was no more alive in him than Satan and the serpent were alive in him at his first creation. Good and evil were then only in his outward body and in the outward world.’ What! was there evil in the world, and even in Adam, together with Satan and the serpent, at his first creation ‘But they were kept unactive by the power of the heavenly man within him.’ Did this case cover the earthly man, or the earthly case the heavenly But ‘he had power to choose whether he would use his outward body only as a means of opening the outward world to him’ (so it was not quite unactive neither), ‘or of opening the bestial life in himself. Till this was opened in him, nothing in this outward world, no more than his own outward body’ (so now it is unactive again), ‘could act upon him, make any impressions upon him, or raise any sensations in him; neither had he any feeling of good or evil from it.’ (Page 9.) All this being entirely new, we must beg clear and full proof of it. ‘God said to man at his creation, Rule thou over this imperfect, perishing world without partaking of its impure nature’ (page 21). Was not the world then at first perfect in its kind Was it impure then Or would it have perished if man had not sinned And are we sure that God spake thus ‘The end God proposed in the creation was the restoring all things to their glorious state’ (Part II. p. 61). ‘In the creation’! Was not this rather the end which He proposed in the redemption ‘Adam was created to keep what is called the curse covered and overcome by paradise. And as paradise concealed and overcame all the evil in the elements, so Adam’s heavenly man concealed from him all the evil of the earthly nature that was under it.’ (Page 62.) Can we believe that there was any evil in man from the creation, if we believe the Bible ‘Our own good spirit is the very Spirit of God; and yet not God, but the Spirit of God kindled into a creaturely form.’ Is there any meaning in these words And how are they consistent with those that follow ‘This spirit is so related to God as my breath is to the air’ (page 195). Nay, if so, your spirit is God; for your breath is air. ‘That Adam had at first the nature of an angel is plain from hence, that he was both male and female in one person. Now, this (the being both male and female) is the very perfection of the angelic nature.’ (Page 65.) Naturalists say that snails have this perfection. But who can prove that angels have You attempt to prove it thus: ‘“In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.” Here we are told (1) that the being male and female in one person is the very nature of angels: (2) that man shall be so too at the resurrection; therefore he was so at first.’ (Page 66.) Indeed, we are not told here that angels are hermaphrodites -- no, nor anything like it. The whole passage is: ‘They who are accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels’ (Luke xx. 35-6): namely, not in being male and female, but in this -- that they ‘cannot die any more.’ This is the indisputable meaning of the words. So this whole proof vanishes into air. You have one more thought full as new as this: ‘All earthly beasts are but creaturely eruptions of the disorder that is broken out from the fallen spiritual world. So earthly serpents are but transitory out-births of covetousness, envy, pride, and wrath.’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 207.) How shall we reconcile this with the Mosaic account – ‘And God said, Let the earth bring forth cattle, and creeping thing, and beast. And God made the beast of the earth; and God saw that it was good.’ (Gen. i. 24-5.) Does anything here intimate that beasts or serpents literally crept out of the womb of sin And what have serpents in particular to do with covetousness, or indeed with envy, unless in poetic fables 4. Of the fall of man. ‘Adam had lost much of his perfection before Eve was taken out of him. “It is not good,” said God, “that man should be alone.” This shows that Adam had now made that not to be good which God saw to be good when He created him.’ (Spirit of Prayer, p. 74.) Nay, does it show either more or less than this--that it was not conducive to the wise ends God had in view for man to remain single ‘God then divided the human nature into a male and female creature: otherwise man would have brought forth his own likeness out of himself, in the same manner as he had a birth from God. But Adam let in an adulterous love of the world: by this his virginity was lost, and he had no longer a power of bringing forth a birth from himself.’ (Page 75.) We have no shadow of proof for all this. ‘This state of inability is called his failing into a deep sleep’ (page 76). How does this agree with, ‘The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam’ (Gen. ii. 21) ‘God took his Eve out of him, as a lesser evil, to avoid a greater. For it was a less folly to love the female part of himself than to love things lower than himself.’ (Page 77.) Who can extract this out of the words of Moses Who can reconcile it with the words of our Lord -- He who made them at the beginning ‘(not a word of any previous fall) ‘made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife’ (Matt. xix. 4-5). Is here any intimation that for a man to love his wife is only less folly than to love the world ‘A man ought so to love his wife, even as Christ the Church.’ Is there any folly in the love of Christ to the Church ‘Marriage came in by Adam’s falling from his first perfection’ (page 88). Does this account do honor to that institution, any more than that memorable saying of an eminent Mystic, ‘Marriage is but licensed whoredom’ ‘Had Adam stood, no Eve would have been taken out of him. But from Eve God raised that angelic man whom Adam should have brought forth without Eve, who is called the Second Adam, as being both male and femme.’ (Page 79.) Many things here want proof. How does it appear (1) that Eve would not have been had Adam stood, (2) that had he stood he would have brought forth the Second Adam without Eve, (3) that Christ was both male and female, and (4) that He was on this account called the Second Adam ‘The Second Adam is now to do that which the first should have done’ (page 84). Is He to do no more than that no more than a mere creature should have done Then what need is there of His being any more than a creature What need of His being God ‘Our having from Him a new heavenly flesh and blood, raised in us by His spiritual power, is the strongest proof that we should have been born of Adam by the same spiritual power’ (page 85). Had Adam then the very same spiritual power which Christ had And would he, if he had stood, have transmitted to us the very same benefit Surely none that believes the Christian Revelation will aver this in cool blood! ‘From Adam’s desire turned toward the world the earth got a power of giving forth an evil tree. It was his will which opened a passage for the evil hid in the earth’ (I know not how it came there before Adam fell) ‘to bring forth a tree in its own likeness. No sooner was it brought forth than God assured him that death was hid in it: a plain proof that this tree was not from God, but from a power in the earth, which could not show itself till Adam desired to taste something which was not paradisiacal.’ (Page 96.) This is the marvelous in the highest degree, and affords many questions not very easy to be answered. But, waiving all these, can anything be more flatly contradictory to the Mosaic account We read there: ‘The Lord God formed man. And the Lord planted a garden. And out of the ground made the Lord God every tree to grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.’ (Gen. if. 7-9.) Is it not here plainly taught that this tree was from God that not the desire of Adam but the Lord God made this tree to grow as well as the tree of life And when was it that God gave him that solemn warning, ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die’ (verse 17) Not as soon as that tree was brought forth, but when Adam was put into the garden. ‘At first all the natural properties of man’s creaturely life were hid in God, just as the natural qualities of darkness are hid till glorified by the light’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 181). Nay, were they not sufficiently hid by the heavenly man Need they be hid over and over ‘But when man fell, all these properties broke forth, just as the darkness when it has lost the light must show forth its own coldness, horror, and other uncomfortable qualities.’ Exemplum placet! But are either coldness or horror natural qualities of darkness If so, they must be inseparable from it. But who will affirm this ‘Darkness, though contrary to light, is yet absolutely necessary to it. Without this, no manifestation or visibility of light could possibly be.’ This is absolutely new and surprising. But how is it to be proved Thus: ‘God dwelleth in the light which no man can approach. Therefore light cannot be manifested to man but by darkness.’ (Page 189.) Ah, poor consequence! Would not the same text just as well prove transubstantiation ‘Light and darkness do everything, whether good or evil, that is done in man. Light is all power, light is all things and’ nothing.’ (Ibid.) I cannot conceive what ideas you affix to the terms ‘light’ and ‘darkness.’ But I forget. You except against ideas. Can you teach us to think without them Once more: you say, ‘Darkness is a positive thing, and has a strength and substantiality in it’ (page 182). I have scarce met with a greater friend to darkness, except’ the illuminated Jacob Behmen.’ But, sir, have you not done him an irreparable injury I do not mean by misrepresenting his sentiments (though some of his profound admirers are positive that you misunderstand and murder him throughout), but by dragging him out of his awful obscurity, by pouring light upon his venerable darkness. Men may admire the deepness of the wall and the excellence of the water it contains; but if some officious person puts a light into it, it will appear to be both very shallow and very dirty. I could not have borne to spend so many words on so egregious trifles, but that they are mischievous trifles: Hae nugae seria ducent In mala. [Horace’s Ars Poetica, I. 451: ‘These trifles serious mischief breed.’] This is dreadfully apparent in your own case (I would not speak, but that I dare not refrain), whom, notwithstanding your uncommon abilities, they have led astray in things of the greatest importance. Bad philosophy has by insensible degrees paved the way for bad divinity: in consequence of this miserable hypothesis, you advance many things in religion also, some of which are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it. II. Some of these I shall now mention with the utmost plainness, as knowing for whom and before whom I speak. And, 1. You deny the omnipotence of God. You say: ‘As no seeing eye could be created unless there was antecedent to it a natural visibility of things’ (Why not why might not visible things be created at the same instant with it), ‘so no creature could come into any natural life unless such a state of nature was antecedent to it’ (page 60). ‘All that God does is and must be done in and by the powers of nature’ (page 135). What, then, did it avail that, as you elsewhere say, God was before nature He not only could not then do all things, but He could do nothing till nature existed. But if so, how came nature itself, this second eternal, to exist at all ‘There cannot possibly be any other difference between created beings than arises from that out of which they were created’ (page 60). Why not Who will stay the hand of the Almighty or say unto Him, What doest Thou ‘No fruits or vegetables could have sprung up in the divided elements but because they are parts of that glassy sea where angelical fruits grew before’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 19). But how came those fruits to grow before How came they to grow in the glassy sea Were they not produced out of nothing at first If not, God was not before nature. If they were, cannot He still produce out of nothing whatsoever pleaseth Him ‘All outward nature being fallen from heaven’ (that we deny) ‘must, as well as it can, do and work as it did in heaven’ (page 20). ‘As well as it can’! What can it do without God, who upholdeth all things by the word of His power And what can it not do, if He pleaseth Or, rather, what cannot He do, with or without it ‘Matter could not possibly be but from sin’ (Spirit of Love, Part I. p. 23). That is, in very plain terms, God could not have created matter if Satan had not sinned! ‘God could not create man with a soul and a body unless there was such a thing as nature antecedent to the creation of man’ (page 30). Why could not God do this Because ‘body and spirit are not two separate things, but are only the inward and outward condition of one and the same being. Every creature must have its own body, and cannot be without it. For its body is that’ (Who would have thought it!) ‘which makes it manifest to itself. It cannot know either that it is or what it is but by its own body!’ (Page 32.) What a heap of bold assertions is here to curb Omnipotence! And not one of them has a tittle of proof, unless one can prove the other! But we have more still: ‘The body of any creature has nothing of its own, but is solely the outward manifestation of that which is inwardly in the soul. Every animal has nothing in its outward form or shape but that which is the form and growth of its spirit. As no number can be anything else but that which the units contained in it make it to be, so no body can be anything else but the coagulation or sum total of those properties of nature that are coagulated in it.’ (Page 33.) Astonishing! What a discovery is this, that a body is only a curdled spirit! that our bodies are only the sum total of our spiritual properties! and that the form of every man’s body is only the form of his spirit made visible! ‘Every spirit manifests its own nature by that body which proceeds from it as its own birth’ (Part II. p. 17). Does the body, then, grow out of the spirit as the hair and nails grow out of the body, and this in consequence of the ‘powers of nature’ distinct from the power and will of God To abridge God of His power, after creation as well as before it, you affirm, farther,-- ‘This is an axiom that cannot be shaken, Nothing can rise higher than its first created nature; and therefore an angel at last must have been an angel at first. Do you think it possible for an ox to be changed into a rational philosopher Yet this is as possible as for one who has only by creation the life of this world to be changed into an angel of heaven. The life of this world can reach no farther than this world; no omnipotence of God can carry it farther: therefore, if man is to be an angel at last, he must have been created an angel; because no creature can possibly have any other life or higher degree of life than that which his creation brought forth in him.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 81.) I have quoted this passage at some length that the sense of it may appear beyond dispute. But what divinity! and what reasoning to support it! Can God raise nothing higher than its first created state Is it not possible for Him to change an ox or a stone into a rational philosopher or a child of Abraham to change a man or a worm into an angel of heaven Poor omnipotence which cannot do this! Whether He will or no is another question. But if He cannot do it, how can He be said to do ‘whatsoever pleaseth Him in heaven, and in earth, and in the sea, and in all deep places’ Thus does your attachment to a miserable philosophy lead you to deny the almighty power of God. 2. It leads you, in the second place, to deny His justice; to abridge this no less than His power. This I may be permitted to consider more at large; because, though it was allowed by all the wiser heathens of past ages, yet it is now one main hinge on which the controversy between Christianity and Deism turns. To convert a thousand Deists, therefore, by giving up this point, with the doctrine of Justification which is built upon it, is little more than it would be to convert as many Jews by allowing the Messiah is not yet come. It is converting them by allowing all they contend for, by granting them the main point in question. Consequently it is no other than establishing Deism while it pretends to overturn it. I would greatly wish, in weighing what you have advanced on this head, to forget who speaks, and simply consider what is spoken. The person I greatly reverence and love: the doctrine I utterly abhor, as I apprehend it to be totally subversive of the very essence of Christianity. God Himself hath declared that, in consequence of His justice, He will in the great day of general retribution ‘render to every man according to his works, whether they be good or evil.’ But man says, No: “there is no righteous wrath or vindictive justice in God’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 108). If so, ye may go on, ye children of the devil, in doing the works of your father. It is written, indeed, ‘The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness’: but this is not literally to be taken; for, properly speaking, there is no such thing as the wrath of God! Fear not the bugbear of everlasting burnings. There is not only no everlasting punishment, but no punishment at all; no such thing in the universe. It is a mere vulgar error. I should be extremely glad to prophesy these smooth things too, did not a difficulty lie in the way. As nothing is more frequently or more expressly declared in Scripture than God’s anger at sin and His punishing it both temporally and eternally, every assertion of this kind strikes directly at the credit of the whole revelation. For if there be one falsehood in the Bible, there may be a thousand; neither can it proceed from the God of truth. However, I will weigh all your assertions. And may the God of truth shine on both our hearts! I must premise that I have no objection to the using the words ‘wrath’ (or ‘anger’) and ‘justice’ as nearly synonymous; seeing anger stands in the same relation to justice as love does to mercy, love and anger being the passions (speaking after the manner of men) which correspond with the dispositions of mercy and justice. Whoever therefore denies God to be capable of wrath or anger acts consistently in denying His justice also. You begin: ‘(1) No wrath (anger, vindictive justice) ever was or ever will be in God. If a wrath of God were anywhere, it must be everywhere.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 27.) So it is, as sure as the just God is everywhere. ‘(2) Wrath and pain dwell only in the creatures’ (page 28). Pain is only in creatures. Of wrath we are to inquire farther. ‘(3) To say God ever punished any creature out of wrath is as absurd as to say, He began the creation out of wrath.’ I conceive not. It is not as absurd to say ‘God is angry at the guilty’ as to say ‘God is angry at the innocent.’ Now, it is certain, when God began the creation of man, no guilty men were in being. ‘(4) He must always will that to His creatures which He willed at the creation of them.’ True; and He willed, at the very creation of men, ‘to reward every one as his work should be.’ ‘(5) God is incapable of willing pain to any creature because He is nothing but goodness’ (page 29). You mean, because His goodness excludes justice. Nay, that is the very question. ‘(6) God can give nothing but happiness from Himself because He hath nothing else in Himself’ {Spirit of Love, Part I. p. 3). As if you had said, ‘God can give nothing but infinity from Himself because He has nothing else in Himself.’ It is certain He has not. He is all infinity. Yet that argument will not hold. ‘(7) God can no more begin to have any wrath after the creature is fallen than He could be infinite wrath and rage from all eternity’ (Part II. p. 4). No changing the terms. We have nothing to do with rage. This properly means excessive anger. Setting this aside, I answer to the argument, God was infinitely just from all eternity; in consequence of which His anger then began to show itself when man had sinned. ‘(8) No wrath can be in God, unless God was from all eternity an infinity of wrath’ (page 6). That is, infinitely just. So He was and will be to all eternity. ‘(9) There must either be no possibility of wrath or no possibility of its having any bounds’ (page 7). The divine justice cannot possibly have any bounds. It is as unlimited as His power. ‘(10) Two things show the nature of wrath -- a tempest and a raging sore. The former is wrath in the elements; the latter is wrath in the body. Now, both these are a disorder; but there is no disorder in God: therefore there is no wrath in God.’ (Page 13.) “A tempest is wrath in the elements; a raging sore is wrath in the body.’ It is not. Neither the body, the elements, nor anything inanimate is capable of wrath. And when we say, ‘The thing inanimate is capable of wrath. And we say the sore looks angry,’ does any one dream this is to be taken literally The pillars of the argument, therefore, are rotten. Consequently the superstructure falls to the ground. In vain would you prop it up by saying, ‘Wrath can have no other nature in body than it has in spirit, because it can have no existence in body but what it has from spirit’ (page 15). Nay, it can have no existence in body at all, as yourself affirm presently after. You strangely go on: ‘There is but one wrath in all outward things, animate or inanimate.’ Most true: for all wrath is in animal; things inanimate are utterly incapable of it. ‘There can be but one kind of wrath because nothing can be wrathful but spirit (page 18). Never, then, let us talk of wrathful elements, of wrathful tempests or sores again. ‘(11) Wrath and evil are but two words for the same thing’’ (ibid.). This is home; but it cannot be granted without proof. ‘(12) God is as incapable of wrath as of thickness, hardness, and darkness, because wrath can exist nowhere else but in thickness, and hardness, and darkness’ (page 71). So far from it, that wrath cannot exist in thickness or hardness at all. For these are qualities of bodies, and nothing can be wrathful but spirit. ‘(13) Wrath cannot be in any creature till it has lost its first perfection’ (page 72). That remains to be proved. Thus far you have advanced arguments for your doctrine. Your next attempt to answer objections. And to the objection that Scripture speaks so frequently of the wrath of God you answer, -- ‘(1) All the wrath and vengeance that ever was in any creature is to be called and looked on as the wrath and vengeance of God.’ I totally deny that proposition, and call for the proof of it. ‘(2), God works everything in nature. Therefore all death or rage or curse, wherever it is, must be said in the language of Scripture to be the wrath or vengeance of God’ (Page 55.) I deny the consequence. The latter proposition does not follow from the former. And, indeed, it is not true. All death and rage and curse is not in the language of Scripture termed the wrath and vengeance of God. ‘3) Because the devils have their life from God, therefore their cursed, miserable, wrathful life is said to be the curse and misery and wrath of God upon them’(page 53). Neither can this be proved, that the devils having their life from God is the reason why they are said to be under His wrath. Nor does the Scripture ever term their wrathful, miserable life the wrath or misery of God. ‘4) Devils are His as wall as holy angels. Therefore all the wrath and rage of the one must be as truly His wrath and rage burning in them as the joy the others is His joy.’ (Page 54.) So it seems the wrath of God in Scripture means no more or less than the wrath of the devil I However, this argument will not prove it. The joy of saints (not of angels, that I remember) is styled the joy of their Lord, because He prepared it for them and bestows it on them, Does He prepare and bestow the rage of devils upon them ‘(5) His wrath and His vengeance are no more in God than what the Psalmist calls His ice and His frost’ (page 74). There is nothing parallel in the case. We cannot take the latter expression literally without glaring absurdity: the former we may. ‘(6) “The earth trembled because He was wroth.” No wrath here but in the elements.’ Nay, if so, here was no wrath at all. For we are agreed ‘only spirits can be wrathful.’ (7) One more text, usually cited against your opinion, you improve into an argument for it: ‘“Avenge not yourselves, for vengeance is Mine.” This is a full proof that vengeance is not in God. If it was, then it would belong to every child of God, or he could not “be perfect as his Father is perfect.”’ (Page 76.) Yes, he could in all His imitable perfections. But God has peculiarly forbidden our imitating Him in this. ‘Vengeance,’ says He, ‘is Mine,’ incommunicably Mine; unless so far as He delegates it to those who are in authority. This, therefore, clearly shows that God executes vengeance; though justice, not vengeance, is properly in Him. Having now proved (as you suppose) that God has neither anger nor justice, it remains only to show (which, indeed, follows by easy and natural consequence) that He never did nor can punish. ‘To say Adam’s miserable state was a punishment inflicted upon him by God is an utter absurdity’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 24). ‘His sin had not the least punishment of any kind inflicted upon it by God’ (page 26). This is flat and plain. But let us see how far this account agrees with that which God Himself hath given: -- ‘Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat: in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die’ (Gen. ii. 17). ‘And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not die’ (iii. 4). ‘And the woman, being deceived,’ did eat (1 Tim. ii. 14); ‘and gave unto her husband, and he did eat’ (Gen. iii. 6). ‘And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed; dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life’ (verse 14); ‘and I will put enmity between thee and the woman’ (verse 15). ‘Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and’ (that is, in) ‘thy conception’ (verse 16). ‘And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast eaten of the tree, cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life’ (verse 17). ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return’ (verse 19). Can any man read this and affirm, ‘God did not inflict the least punishment of any kind either on Eve or Adam or the serpent’ With what eyes or understanding, then, must he read! But you say, ‘All that came on Adam was implied in what he chose to himself’ (page 25). It was. He chose it to himself in the same sense that he who robs chooses to be hanged. But this does not at all prove that the death which one or the other suffers is no punishment. You go on: ‘Fire and brimstone or manna rained on the earth are only one and the same love. It was the same love that preserved Noah, burned up Sodom, and overwhelmed Pharaoh in the Red Sea.’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. pp. 72, 78.) Surely nothing can equal this, unless you add (which indeed you must do, to be consistent with yourself), ‘It is one and the same love which will say, “Come, ye blessed,” and “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.”’ You add: ‘“Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.” Here you have God’s own word for it, nothing but love chasteneth.’ (Page 81.) We know His love chasteneth His children. Of these only God is speaking here, as appears from the latter clause of the sentence. And yet we cannot say even as to them, ‘It is nothing but His love.’ It is mercy mixed with justice. You cite one text more: ‘I have smitten you: yet have ye not returned to Me’ (Amos iv. 9); and say, ‘Now, how is it possible for words to give stronger proof’ (Ibid.) Proof of what Not that God did not punish them, but that ‘in the midst of wrath He remembered mercy.’ To these texts of Scripture (wide enough of the point) you subjoin: ‘The doctrine of Atonement made by Christ is the strongest demonstration that the wrath to be atoned cannot be in God’ (page 85). Who talks of ‘wrath to be atoned’ ‘The wrath to be atoned’ is neither sense nor English, though it is a solecism you perpetually run into (I hope not on purpose to puzzle the cause): that the sin to be atoned cannot be in God we all allow; but it does not affect the question. Once more, to silence all contradiction at once, to stop the mouths of all gainsayers, you say: ‘This (that there is no anger, no vindictive justice in God, no punishment at all inflicted by Him) is openly asserted, constantly affirmed and repeated, in the plainest letter of Scripture.’ Whether this or the very reverse is true will appear from a few out of numberless texts, which I shall barely set’ down without any comment and leave to your cool consideration. You say: (1) There is no vindictive, avenging, or punitive justice in God. (2) There is no wrath or anger in God.’ (3) God inflicts no punishment on any creature, neither in this world nor that to come. God says, -- (1) ‘The just Lord is in the midst of you’ (Zeph. iii. 5). ‘Justice and judgment are the habitation of Thy throne’ (Ps. lxxxix. 14). ‘Wilt thou condemn him that is most just’ (Job xxxiv. 17). ‘He is excellent in power, and in plenty of justice’ (xxxvii. 23). ‘Just and true are Thy ways, O King of saints’ (Rev. xv. 3). ‘Thou art just in all that is brought upon us’ (Neh. ix. 33). ‘There is no God beside Me, a just God and a Savior’ (Isa. xlv. 21). ‘Whom God hath set forth, that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus’ (Rom. iii. 25-6). (2) ‘The Lord heard their words, and was wroth’ (Deut. i. 34). ‘The Lord was wroth with me for your sakes’ (iii. 26). ‘I was wroth with My people’ (Isa. xlvii. 6). ‘For his covetousness I was wroth’ (lvii. 17). ‘And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel’ (Num. xxv. 3). ‘His wrath is against them that forsake Him’ (Ezra viii. 22). ‘Thou art very wroth with us’ (Lam. v. 22). ‘Thou art wroth, for we have sinned’ (Isa. lxiv. 5). ‘Who may stand in Thy sight when Thou art angry’ (Ps. lxxvi. 7). ‘I have mingled my drink with weeping, because of Thine indignation and Thy wrath’ (cii. 9-10). ‘In My wrath I smote thee’ (Isa. lx. 10). ‘He hath visited in His anger’ (Job xxxv. x5). ‘God distributeth sorrows in His anger’ (xxi. 17). ‘I have seen affliction by the rod of His wrath’ (Lam. iii. 1). ‘I sware in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest’ (Ps. xcv. 11). ‘He casteth upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, and indignation. He made a way to His anger; He spared not their soul from death’ (lxxviii. 49-50). ‘At His wrath the earth shall tremble’ (Jer. x. 10). ‘The land is desolate because of His anger’ (xxv. 38). ‘By His anger they are consumed’ (Job iv. 9). ‘The Lord shall swallow them up in His wrath, and the fire shall devour them’ (Ps. xxi. 9). ‘The Lord turned not from His wrath’ (2 Kings xxiii. 26). ‘For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still’ (Isa. v. 25). ‘The Lord is slow to anger, and of great kindness; He will not always chide, neither keepeth He His anger for ever’ (Ps. ciii. 8-9). ‘The Lord turned from the fierceness of His anger’ (Josh. vii. 26). ‘In wrath remember mercy’ (Hab. iii. 2). ‘Though Thou wast angry, Thine anger is turned away’ (Isa. xii. I). ‘Many a time turned He His anger away’ (Ps. lxxviii. 38). (3) ‘I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity’ (Isa. xiii. xx). ‘Behold, the Lord cometh to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity’ (xxvi. 21). ‘Is not destruction to the wicked, and a strange Punishment to the workers of iniquity’ (Job xxxi. 3). ‘I will punish you according to the fruit of your doings’ (Jer. xxi. 14). ‘I will punish you for all your iniquities’ (Amos iii. 2). ‘If ye will not hearken unto Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins’ (Lev. xxvi. 18). ‘I will punish all that oppress them’ (Jer. xxx. 20). Now, which am I to believe God or man 3. Your miserable philosophy leads you, in the third place, totally to deny the Scripture doctrine of Justification. Indeed, you do not appear to have the least conception of the matter; no, not even to know what the term’ justification’ means. Accordingly you affirm, -- ‘Salvation, which all divines agree includes both justification and sanctification, is nothing else but to be made like Christ’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 53). ‘Regeneration is the whole of man’s salvation’ (Part II. p. 37). ‘Redemption is nothing else but the life of God in the soul’ (Part I. p. 79). ‘The one only work of Christ as your Redeemer is to raise into life the smothered spark of heaven in you’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 45). ‘He is our atonement and reconciliation with God, because by Him we are set again in our first state of holiness’ (Part I. p. 10). ‘The atonement of the divine wrath or justice’ (a mere solecism, on which your whole reasoning for several pages is built) ‘and the extinguishing of sin in the creature are only different expressions of the same thing’ (Part II. p. 86). Nay, the former is an expression of nothing: it is flat nonsense. ‘All that Christ does as an atonement has no other operation but that of renewing the fallen nature of man’ (page 106). Here are seven peremptory assertions. But till they are fully proved I cannot give up my Bible. But you grow bolder and bolder, and say: ‘The satisfaction of Christ is represented in all our systems of divinity as a satisfaction made to God, and the sufferings and death of Christ as that which could only avail with God to have mercy on man. Nay, what is still worse if possible, the ground and nature and efficacy of this great transaction between God and man is often explained by debtor and creditor; man as having contracted a debt with God which he could not pay, and God as having a right to insist upon the payment of it.’ (Page 91.) ‘There is no wrath in God, no fictitious atonement, no folly of debtor and creditor’ (page 131). ‘What is still worse if possible’! ‘Folly of debtor and creditor’! Surely I would not have spoken thus, unless I had been above the Son of God. ‘After this manner pray ye, Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors’ (Matt. vi. 9, 12).’ And Jesus said, There was a certain creditor which had two debtors’ (Luke vii. 40-2). ‘The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who would take account of his servants. And one was brought unto him who owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and all that he had. The servant fell down, saying, Lord, have patience with me. And his lord was moved with compassion, and forgave him the debt.’ Yet afterwards, on his unmercifulness to his fellow servant, he retracted that forgiveness; ‘and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall My heavenly Father do unto you also, if ye from your heart forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.’ (Matt. xviii. 23-35.) Is not man here represented as having contracted a debt with God which he cannot pay and God as having, nevertheless, a right to insist upon the payment of it and a right, if he hath not to pay, of delivering him to the tormentors And is it not expressly asserted that God will in some cases claim this right, and use it to the uttermost Upon whom, then, lights this imputation of ‘folly’ and of ‘what is still worse’ ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge Forgive them; for they know not what they do.’ But if the Son of God did not die to atone for our sins, what did He die for You answer: ‘He died, -- ‘(1) To extinguish our own hell within us’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 159). Nay, the Scripture represents this not as the first but the second end of His death. ‘(2) To show that He was above the world, death, hell, and Satan’ (pages 130-1). Where is it written that He died for this end Could He not have done this without dying at all ‘(3) His death was the only possible way of overcoming all the evil that was in fallen man’ (page 129). This is true, supposing He atoned for our sins. But if this supposition be not made, His death was not the only possible way whereby the Almighty could have overcome all things. ‘(4) Through this He got power to give the same victory to all His brethren of the human race’ (page 132). Had He not this power before Otherwise, how was He ‘, ‘He that is,’ ‘God over all, blessed for ever’ If Christ died for no other ends than these, what need was there of His being more than a creature As you seem never to have employed your thoughts on justification or redemption in the Scripture sense, I beg leave to subjoin plain account thereof, wrote by a woman of the last century [Anna Maria Van Schurman’s Eukleria, Part II. p. 118, &c. See Journal, i. 453d; and letter of April 28, 1738.]: -- (1) Christ hath acquired for us a right to eternal life by His satisfaction and merits alone. Neither our repentance nor amendment can be any satisfaction for sin. It is only ‘through His blood that we have redemption’ (Eph. i. 7). This alone ‘cleanseth us from all sin’ (I John i. 7). And herein ‘was the love of God manifested towards us, that He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John iv. 9-10). So was the Lord ‘our righteousness’ (Jer. xxiii. 6); without which we could not have been justified. As man owed his Creator the perfect obedience of his whole life or a punishment proportioned to his transgression, it was impossible he could satisfy Him by a partial and imperfect obedience. Neither could he merit anything from Him to whom he owed all things. There was need, therefore, of a Mediator who could repair the immense wrong he had done to the Divine Majesty, satisfy the Supreme Judge, who had pronounced the sentence of death against the transgressors of His law, suffer in the place of His people, and merit for them pardon, holiness, and glory. Accordingly ‘He gave Himself a ransom for all’ (1 Tim. ii. 6), and ‘by Himself purged our sins ’ (Heb. i. 3). ‘He loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God’ (Eph. v. 2). So we read, God ‘raised Him from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification’: because our Surety’s being discharged by the will and act of the Judge Himself is a full proof that He has paid our whole debt. (2) Nor is there any more sure way to the imitation of Christ than faith in Christ crucified, in Him ‘who suffered for us, leaving us an example,’ that we might tread in His steps; who ‘died for us, while we were yet enemies,’ that we might be ‘justified by His blood’ (Rom. v. 9). Yet it is true this doctrine finds no place in those who are proud of heart, who love their own reasonings, and have no taste for ‘the sincere milk of the Word.’ But it is precious to them who feel the weight of their sins, who know they ‘are by nature children of wrath,’ and at the same time utterly incapable either of paying the debt, of rising from the death of sin, of conquering themselves, the world, and the devil, or of meriting eternal life. (3) The origin and cause of our redemption is the ineffable love of God the Father, who willed to redeem us by the blood of His own Son; the grace of the Son, who freely took our curse upon Him, and imparts His blessing and merits to us; and the Holy Spirit, who communicates the love of the Father and the grace of the Son to our hearts. When we speak of this and of the satisfaction of Christ, we speak of the inmost mystery of the Christian faith. Therefore all the inventions of men ought now to be kept at the utmost distance; nor can anything certain be established without the express authority of Scripture. And herein is offered first to our consideration the only-begotten Son of God, as the Head of the redeemed, the righteous Servant of God, who by the knowledge of Himself ’ shall justify many’ (Isa. liii. 10). Him God hath constituted the ‘surety of that better covenant’ (Heb. vii. 22) -- the covenant of grace. And how clearly is His execution of this office described in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah! where the Prophet describes Him as ‘bearing our griefs,’ or sins, ‘and carrying our sorrows’ (verse 4). ‘All we,’ says he, ‘like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (verse 6). All mankind have forsaken God, and placed their own will upon His throne; and so were liable to the highest punishment, when the Mediator voluntarily interposed Himself between them and the just Judge. And the incomprehensible love of God, that He might spare them, ‘spared not His own Son.’ This is shown in those words: ‘The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.’ It was on this account that ‘He was oppressed and afflicted, and brought as a lamb to the slaughter’ (verse 7); while God ‘made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor. v. 21). This is expressed in the 9th and 10th verses: ‘He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him’ when He ‘made His soul an offering for sin.’ How exactly do His own words agree with these – ‘I am the good shepherd, and I lay down My life for the sheep’! (John x. 14-15.) For them ‘was He taken from prison and from judgment, and cut off out of the land of the living’ (Isa. liii. 8). How doth God herein ‘commend His love towards ‘us in’ delivering up His own Son to die for us’ Yea, God ‘was pleased with bruising Him,’ when, clothed with our flesh and bearing our sins, He manifested to angels and men His infinite love of divine justice, till, being ‘made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,’ He satisfied its utmost demand. It was then God ‘was pleased to bruise Him,’ when ‘He made His soul an offering for sin.’ He then appeared before the Judge of all under ‘the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,’ as the Apostle speaks; and therefore God was pleased ‘to condemn sin in the flesh’ (Rom. viii. 3), to ‘bruise Him’ who sustained the person of sinners. But this was only the prelude of a glorious victory. Therefore the Prophet adds: ‘He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand’ (Isa. liii. 10). After repeating (verse 11) the sum of all, ‘He shall bear their iniquities,’ he subjoins the cause of His reward: ‘Because He poured out His soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; for He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors’ (verse 12). The 5th verse, of which I have not yet spoken, renders this great truth still more evident: ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.’ He loved His own body less than His mystical body, the Church; and therefore gave the former for the latter, ‘to redeem and purchase it with His own blood’ by paying Himself as a ransom for it. Hereby ‘nailing the handwriting which was against us to His cross, He took it out of the way,’ and so became ‘our peace.’ (4) From all which it appears that Christ was not only a pattern, but first and principally the surety of the new covenant -- yea, a sacrifice and a victim for the sins of His people; ‘whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood’ (Rom. iii. 25). And that precious sacrifice offered on the cross is the very center and marrow of the gospel. To that one offering whereby our great High-priest ‘hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (Heb. x. 14) all the ancient sacrifices referred as well as numberless other types and figures. ‘All these,’ says the Apostle, ’were shadows of things to come; but the body is Christ’ (Col. ii. 17). He it was who, ‘not by the blood of bulls and goats, but by His own blood, entered into the holiest, having obtained eternal redemption for us’ (Heb. ix. 12). In consequence of this we are accepted ‘through the offering of the body of Christ once for all’ (x. 10). In all the ancient types and figures, ‘without shedding of blood there was no remission’; which was intended to show there never could be any without the blood of the great Antitype, without that grand propitiatory sacrifice which (like the figure of it) was to be offered ‘without the gate.’ Indeed, the whole worship of the Old Testament teaches nothing else but the satisfaction made by the blood of Christ, and our reconciliation with God thereby: hence He is styled ‘The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,’ with a view to the paschal lamb and the other lambs that were offered in sacrifice; on which account the inhabitants of heaven likewise ‘give glory, and sing a new song, because He hath redeemed’ them ‘unto God by His blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation’ (Rev. v. 9). (5) To this might be added the numerous figures that occur in the fives of the old patriarchs, prophets, and kings. But it may suffice to add to the preceding only two testimonies more of the manner of our redemption by a proper sacrifice: the one that of St. Paul – ‘Christ hath delivered us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree’ (Gal. iii. 13); the other of St. Peter – ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ (1 Pet. ii. 24). From all this abundantly appears the substitution of the Messiah in the place of His people, thereby atoning for their sins and restoring them to the favor of God. These are the points which are so vehemently opposed by Socinus and his followers, who rob Christ of the principal part of His priestly office, and leave Him only that of interceding for us by prayer; as if any intercession were worthy of Christ which had not His full satisfaction and propitiatory sacrifice for its foundation. Indeed, these cannot be put asunder, as sufficiently appears from the words cited before – ‘He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors’; where the Holy Ghost closely joins His intercession with His satisfaction made by sacrifice. These and a thousand other solid arguments that might be advanced in proof of this fundamental doctrine overturn all the cavils that flow from corrupt reason, which indeed are weak and thin as a spider’s web. I have dwelt the longer on this head because of its inexpressible moment. For whether or no the doctrine of Justification by Faith be, as all Protestants thought at the time of the Reformation, articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae, ‘a doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church,’ most certainly there can be none where the whole notion of justification is ridiculed and exploded, unless it be such a church as includes, according to your account, every child of man, of which, consequently, Turks, Deists, and Pagans are as real members as the most pious Christian under the sun. I cannot but observe that this is the very essence of Deism: no serious infidel need contend for more. I would therefore no more set one of this opinion to convert Deists than I would set a Turk to convert Mahometans. 4. As every one that is justified is born of God, I am naturally led to consider, in the next place (so far as it is delivered in the tracts now before us), your doctrine of the New Birth. ‘In the day that Adam ate of the tree he died -- that is, his heavenly spirit with its heavenly body were extinguished. To make that heavenly spirit and body to be alive again in man, this is regeneration’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 9). Oh no, this is not, nor anything like it. This is the unscriptural dream of Behmen’s heated imagination. ‘See the true reason why only the Son of God could be our Redeemer. It is because He alone could be able to bring to life again that celestial spirit and body which had died in Adam.’ (Ibid.) Not so; but He alone could be our Redeemer because He alone, ‘by that one oblation of Himself once offered,’ could make ‘a sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.’ ‘See also why a man must “be born again of water and of the Spirit.” He must be born again of the Spirit because Adam’s heavenly spirit was lost.’ (Ibid.) Nay, but because Adam had lost the inward image of God wherein he was created. And no less than the almighty Spirit of God could renew that image in his soul. ‘He must be born of water because that heavenly body which Adam lost was formed out of the heavenly materiality, which is called water’ (Ibid.). Vain philosophy! The plain meaning of the expression, ‘Except a man be born of water,’ is neither more nor less than this, ‘Except he be baptized.’ And the plain reason why he ought to be thus born of water is because God hath appointed it. He hath appointed it as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace; which grace is ‘a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.’ ‘The necessity of our regaining our first heavenly body is the necessity’ (I presume you mean the ground of the necessity) ‘of our eating the body and blood of Christ’ (page 10). Neither can I believe this till I find it in the Bible. I am there taught to believe that our ‘spiritually receiving the body and blood of Christ,’ which is most eminently done in the Lord’s Supper, is necessary to ‘strengthen and refresh our souls, as our bodies are by the bread and wine.’ ‘The necessity of having again our first heavenly spirit is shown by the necessity of our being baptized with the Holy Ghost’! (Ibid.) No. That we ‘must be baptized with the Holy Ghost’ implies this and no more -- that we cannot be ‘renewed in righteousness and true holiness’ any otherwise than by being overshadowed, quickened, and animated by that blessed Spirit. ‘Our fall is nothing else but the falling of our soul from its heavenly body and spirit into a bestial body and spirit. Our redemption’ (you mean our new birth) ‘is nothing else but the regaining our first angelic spirit and body.’ (Ibid.) What an account is here of the Christian redemption! How would Dr. Tindal [See letter of June 19, 1731.] have smiled at this! Where you say, ‘Redemption is nothing else but the life of God in the soul,’ you allow an essential part of it. But here you allow it to be nothing else but that which is no part of it at all; nothing else but a whim, a madman’s dream, a chimera, a mere non-entity! ‘This’ (angelic spirit and body) ‘in Scripture is called our “new” or “inward man”’ (ibid.). The ‘inward man’ in Scripture means one thing, the ‘new man’ another. The former means the mind opposed to the body: ‘Though our outward man,’ our body, ‘perish, yet the inward man,’ the mind or soul, ‘is renewed day by day’ (2 Cor. iv. 16). The latter means universal holiness: ‘Put off the old man, which is corrupt; and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness’ (Eph. iv. 22, 24). But neither does the one nor the other ever mean ‘this angelic spirit and body.’ You yourself know better what the new birth is. You describe it better, though still with amazing queerness of language, where you say, -- ‘Man hath the light and water of an outward nature to quench the wrath of his own life, and the light and meekness of Christ, as a seed born in him, to bring forth anew the image of God.’ But it is not strange that you speak so confusedly and darkly as you generally do of the new birth, seeing you seem to have no conception of that faith whereby we are born again. This abundantly appears from your frank declaration, ‘We are neither saved by faith nor by works’ (Part II. p. 36). Flatly contrary to the declaration of St. Paul, ‘By grace we are saved through faith.’ To put the matter out of dispute, you declare that you mean by faith ‘a desire to be one with Christ’ (Part I. p. 50). Again: ‘The desire of turning to God is the coming of Christ into the soul. This faith will save thee.’ (Page 76.) So in your judgment saving faith is ‘a desire of coming to God or of being one with Christ.’ I know the contrary from experience. I had this desire many years before I even knew what saving faith was. Faith is so far from being only this desire that it is no desire at all. It differs from all desire toro genere, although doubtless all good desires accompany it. It is, according to St. Paul, an ’e an ‘evidence’ or ‘conviction’ (which is totally different from a desire) ‘of things not seen,’ a supernatural, a divine evidence and conviction of the things which God hath revealed in His Word; of this in particular, that the Son of God hath loved me and given Himself for me. Whosoever hath this faith is born of God. Whosoever thus believeth is saved; and if he endure therein to the end, shall be saved everlastingly. The process of this work in the soul, of the present salvation which is through faith, you likewise describe confusedly and obscurely. The sum of what you say is this: ‘The painful sense of what you are, kindled into a working state of sensibility by the light of God, is the light and fire from whence the spirit of prayer proceeds. In its first kindling nothing is found but pain, wrath, and darkness; and therefore its first prayer is all humility.’ (Part II. p. 172.) Would it not be more intelligible if one had said, ‘The convincing Spirit of God gives you to see and feel that you are a poor, undone, guilty, helpless sinner; at the same time He incites you to cry for help to Him who is “mighty to save”’ This is true. But it is not true that in the first kindling of this fire, in plain terms, during the first convictions, ‘nothing is found but pain, wrath, and darkness.’ Very often there are found even in the first conviction sweet gleams of light, touches of joy, of hope, and of love, mixed with sorrow and fear. Much less is it true that the first prayer of an awakening sinner is all humility (ibid.). On the contrary, a sinner newly awakened has always more or less confidence in himself, in what he is, or has, or does, and will do; which is not humility, but downright pride. And this mingles itself with all his prayer till the day-star is just rising in his heart. You add: ‘This prayer is met by the divine love, and changed into hymns and songs and thanksgivings’ (ibid.). It is so when, ‘being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ‘This state of fervor melts away all earthly passions and affections, and leaves no inclination in the soul but to delight in God alone ’ (ibid.). It is certain this is the genuine effect of’ the love of God shed abroad in the heart’; which expression of St. Paul, I suppose, means the same with ‘this state of fervor.’ ‘Then its prayer changes again, and continually stands in fullness of faith, in purity of love, in absolute resignation to do and be what and how his Beloved pleaseth. This is the last state of the spirit of prayer, and is our highest union with God in this life.’ (Page 173.) Assuredly it is: fullness of faith, beholding with open face the glory of the Lord; purity of love, free from all mixture of its contrary, yielding the whole heart to God; absolute resignation, excluding every degree of self-will, sacrificing every thought, word, and work to God. But do we change directly from our first love into the highest union with God Surely not. There is an intermediate state between that of ‘babes in Christ’ and that of fathers. You yourself are very sensible there is, although you here speak as if there were not. You go on: ‘People who have long dwelt in this fervor are frighted when coldness seizes upon them’ (page 174) -- that is, when they lose it, when their love grows cold. And certainly, well they may, if this fervor was to bring them to ‘fullness of faith, purity of love, and absolute resignation.’ Well they may be affrighted, if that fervor be lost before ‘it has done its work.’ Indeed, they might be affrighted when it is not lost, if that which follows be true: ‘Fervor is good, and ought to be loved; but distress and coldness are better. It brings the soul nearer to God than the fervor did.’ (Pages 175-6.) The fervor, you said, brought the soul to ‘its highest union with God in this life.’ Can coldness do more Can it bring us to an union higher than the highest To explain this you say: ‘The fervor made the soul delight in God. But it was too much an own delight. It was a fancied self-holiness, and occasioned rest and satisfaction in itself, in a spiritual self.’ (Page 175.) Either fervor does bring us to purity of love and absolute resignation or not. To say it does not, contradicts what you said before: to say it does, contradicts what you say now, For if it does, we cannot say, ‘Coldness does the work which fervor did in an higher degree.’ I should not insist so long on these glaring inconsistencies, were not the doctrine you are here laboring to support absolutely inconsistent with that of St. Paul, and naturally productive of the most fatal consequences. St. Paul asserts the present kingdom of God in the soul is ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ He continually teaches that these, which God hath joined, man ought not to put asunder; that peace and joy should never be separated from righteousness, being the divine means both of preserving and increasing it; and that we may, yea ought to, rejoice evermore, till the God of peace sanctifies us wholly. But if these things are so, then ‘distress and coldness are’ not ‘better’ than fervent love and joy in the Holy Ghost. Again: the doctrine that it is better and more profitable for the soul to lose its sense of the love of God than to keep it is not only unscriptural but naturally attended with the most fatal consequences. It directly tends to obstruct, if not destroy, the work of God in the heart, by causing men to bless themselves in those ways which damp the fervor of their affections, and to imagine they are considerably advanced in grace when they have grieved, yea quenched, the Spirit. Nay, but let all who now feel the love of God in their hearts, and ‘walk in the light as He is in the light,’ labor by every possible means to ‘keep themselves in the love of God.’ Let them be ever ‘fervent in spirit’; let them ‘rejoice evermore,’ and stir up the gift of God which is in them. And if at any time ‘coldness seizes upon them,’ let them be assured they have grieved the Spirit of God. Let them be affrighted; let them fear lest they sink lower and lower -- yea, into total deadness and hardness of heart. At the peril of their souls, let them not rest in darkness, but examine themselves, search out their spirits, cry vehemently to God, and not cease till He restores the light of His countenance. 5. If this doctrine of the profitableness of coldness above fervor directly tends to make believers easy while they are sliding back into unbelief, you have another which tends as directly to make them easy who never believed at all -- I mean, that of Christ in every man. What you advance on this head I desire next to consider, as the importance of it requires. ‘The birth of Christ is already begun in every one. Jesus is already within thee (whoever thou art), living, stirring, calling, knocking at the door of thy heart.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 55.) ‘Every man has Christ in his spirit, lying there as in a state of insensibility and death’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 34). But He is living, for all that. And though ‘in a state of insensibility,’ He is ‘stirring, calling, knocking at the door of the heart’! ‘Something of heaven’ (you use this phrase as equivalent with Christ) ‘lies in every soul in a state of inactivity and death’ (page 35). ‘All the holy nature, tempers, and Spirit of Christ lie hid as a seed in thy soul’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 68). But are they active or inactive living and stirring or in a state of insensibility and death ‘Thou art poor, and blind, and naked, and miserable, while all the peace and joy of God are within thee’ (page 74). This is most wonderful of all! Are these within him who is ‘dead in sin,’ who is a ‘stranger to all that is holy and heavenly’ If they are, how can he be miserable who has ‘all the peace and joy of God within him’ Will you say, ‘They are in him, but he does not feel them’ Nay, then they are not in him. I have peace in me no longer than I feel peace; I feel joy, or I have it not. ‘See here the extent of the catholic Church of Christ! It takes in all the world.’ (Page 56.) So Jews, Mahometans, Deists, heathens are all members of the Church of Christ! Should we not add devils too, seeing these also are to dwell with us in heaven ‘Poor sinner, Christ dwelleth in the center, the fund or bottom, of thy soul’ (page 59). What is this What is either the center, the top, or bottom of a spirit ‘When Adam fell, this center of his soul became a prisoner in an earthly animal. But from the moment God spoke Christ into Adam, all the treasures of the divine nature, the light and Spirit of God, came again into man, into the center of his soul.’ (Page 60.) I cannot find in the Bible when that was, when ‘God spoke Christ into Adam.’ We come now to the proofs of these strong assertions. And (1) ‘No faith could ever begin, unless every man had Christ in him’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 34). This proposition needs just as much proof itself as that which it is brought to prove. (2) ‘Unless the remains of the perfect love of God were in every man, it would be impossible he should ever love God at all’ (page 38). Why so Cannot God give His love this moment to one who never loved Him before (3) ‘Unless Christ was hidden in the soul, there could not be the least beginning of man’s salvation. For what could begin to desire heaven, unless something of heaven was hid in the soul’ (Page 35.) What could Why, any soul which had nothing but hell in it before, the moment grace was infused from above. (4) ‘The Ten Commandments lay hid in men’s souls’ (how) ‘till called into sensibility by writing them on stone. Just so Christ lies in the soul till awakened by the mediatorial office of the holy Jesus.’ (Page 37.) This is only assertion still, not proof. But what do you mean by the mediatorial office of Christ And how is Christ ‘awakened by the mediatorial office of the holy Jesus’ (5) ‘The sea cannot be moved by any other wind than that which had its birth from the sea itself’ (page 40). I think it can. I have seen it ‘moved by a wind which had its birth from the’ land. (6) ‘The musician cannot make his instrument give any other melody than that which lies hid in it as its own inward state’ (page 42). Did the tune, then, lie hid in the trumpet before the trumpeter blew And was this tune, or another, or all that ever were and will be played on it, the inward state of the trumpet ‘No more can the mind have any grief or joy but that which is from itself’ (page 43). An unhappy comparison! For the instrument can have no melody or sound at all from itself. And most unhappily applied to the operations of God upon the souls of men. For has God no more power over my soul than I have over a musical instrument These are your arguments to prove that Christ is in every man -- a blessing which St. Paul thought was peculiar to believers. He said, ‘Christ is in you except ye be reprobates,’ unbelievers. You say, Christ is in you whether ye be reprobates or no. ‘If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His,’ saith the Apostle. Yea, but ‘every man,’ saith Mr. Law, ‘hath the Spirit of God. The Spirit of Christ is in every soul’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 63). ‘He that hath not the Son of God hath not life,’ saith St. John. But Mr. Law saith, ‘Every man hath the Son of God.’ Sleep on, then, ye sons of Belial, and take your rest; ye are all safe: for ‘he that hath the Son hath life.’ There can hardly be any doctrine under heaven more agreeable to flesh and blood; nor any which more directly tends to prevent the very dawn of conviction, or at least to hinder its deepening in the soul and coming to a sound issue. None more naturally tends to keep men asleep in sin and to lull asleep those who begin to be awakened. Only persuade one of this, ‘Christ is already in thy heart; thou hast now the inspiration of His Spirit; all the peace and joy of God are within thee -- yea, all the holy nature, tempers, and Spirit of Christ’; and you need do no more: the siren-song quiets all his sorrow and fear. As soon as you have sewed this pillow to his soul he sinks back into the sleep of death. 6. But you have made an ample amends for this by providing so short and easy a way to heaven; -- not a long, narrow, troublesome, round-about path, like that described in the Bible, but one that will as compendiously save the soul as Dr. Ward’s ‘pill and drop’ heal the body [Joshua Ward (1685-1761), a quack doctor, made a fortune by his ’ drop and pill’ remedy, a compound of antimony. See Dic. Nat. Biog.]; a way so plain that they who follow it need no Bible, no human teaching, no outward means whatever, being every one able to stand alone, every one sufficient for himself! ‘The first step is to turn wholly from yourself and to give up yourself wholly unto God’ (Part II. p. 22). If it be, no flesh living shall be saved. How grievously do we stumble at the threshold! Do you seriously call this ‘the first step’ -- to turn wholly from myself and give up myself wholly unto God Am I, then, to step first on the highest round of the ladder Not unless you turn it upside down. The way to heaven would be short indeed if the first and the last step were all one, if we were to step as far the moment we set out as we can do till we enter into glory. But what do you mean by giving up myself to God You answer: ‘Every sincere wish and desire after Christian virtues is giving up yourself to Him and the very perfection of faith’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 217). Far, very far from it: I know from the experience of a thousand persons, as well as from Scripture and the very reason of the thing, that a man may have sincere desires after all these long before he attains them. He may sincerely wish to give himself up to God long before he is able so to do. He may desire this, not only before he has the perfection, but before he has any degree of saving faith. More marvelous still is that which follows: ‘You may easily and immediately, by the mere turning of your mind, have all these virtues -- patience, meekness, humility, and resignation to God’ (page 212). Who may Not I; not you; not any that is born of a woman: as is proved by the daily experience of all that know what patience, meekness, or resignation means. But how shall I know whether I have faith or not ’ I will give you an infallible touchstone. Retire from all conversation only for a month. Neither write, nor read, nor debate anything with yourself. Stop all the former workings of your heart and mind, and stand all this month in prayer to God. If your heart cannot give itself up in this manner to prayer, be fully assured you are an infidel.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 163.) If this be so, the infidels are a goodly company! if every man be of that number who cannot ‘stop all the former workings of his heart and mind, and stand thus in prayer to God for a month together.’ But I would gladly know by what authority you give us this touchstone, and how you prove it to be infallible. I read nothing like it in the oracles of God. I cannot find one word there of refraining from all conversation, from writing and reading, for a month.’ (I fear you make no exception in favour of public worship or reading the Word of God.) Where does the Bible speak of this of stopping for a month or a day all the former workings of my heart and mind of refraining from all converse with the children of God, and from reading His Word It would be no wonder, should any man make this unscriptural (if not anti-scriptural) experiment, if Satan were permitted to work in him ‘a strong delusion’ so that he should ‘believe a lie.’ Nearly related to this touchstone is the direction which you give elsewhere: ‘Stop all self-activity; be retired, silent, passive, and humbly attentive to the inward light’ (Part I. pp. 77, 82). But beware ‘the light which is in thee be not darkness’; as it surely is, if it agree not with ‘the law and the testimony.’ ‘Open thy heart to all its impressions,’ if they agree with that truly infallible touchstone. Otherwise regard no impression of any kind, at the peril of thy soul, ‘wholly stopping the workings of thy own reason and judgment.’ I find no such advice in the Word of God. And I fear they who stop the workings of their reason lie the more open to the workings of their imagination. There is abundantly greater danger of this when we fancy we have no longer need to ‘be taught of man.’ To this your late writings directly lead. One who admires them will be very apt to cry out, ‘I have found all that I need know of God, of Christ, of myself, of heaven, of hell, of sin, of grace, and of salvation’ (Part 114 p. 4). And the rather because you yourself affirm roundly, ‘When once we apprehend the all of God and our own nothingness’ (which a man may persuade himself he does in less than four-and-twenty hours), ‘it brings a kind of infallibility into the soul in which it dwells; all that is vain and false and deceitful is forced to vanish and fly before it’ (Part I. p. 95). Agreeably to which you tell your convert, ‘You have no questions to ask of anybody’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 218). And if, notwithstanding this, he will ask, ‘But how am I to keep up the flame of love’ you answer, ‘I wonder you should want to know this. Does a blind or sick or lame man want to know how he should desire sight, health, or limbs’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 165.) No; but he wants to know how he should attain and how he should keep them. And he who has attained the love of God may still want to know how he shall keep it. And he may still inquire, ‘May I not take my own passions or the suggestions of evil spirits for the workings of the Spirit of God’ (page 198). To this you answer, ‘Every man knows when he is governed by the spirit of wrath, envy, or covetousness as easily and as certainly as he knows when he is hungry’ (ibid.). Indeed he does not; neither as easily nor as certainly. Without great care he may take wrath to be pious zeal, envy to be virtuous emulation, and covetousness to be Christian prudence or laudable frugality. ‘Now, the knowledge of the Spirit of God in yourself is as perceptible as covetousness.’ Perhaps so; for this is as difficultly perceptible as any temper of the human soul. ‘And liable to no more delusion.’ Indeed it need not; for this is liable to ten thousand delusions. You add: ‘His Spirit is more distinguishable from all other spirits than any of your natural affections are from one another’ (page 199). Suppose joy and grief: is it more distinguishable from all other spirits than these are from one another Did any man ever mistake grief for joy No, not from the beginning of the world. But did none ever mistake nature for grace Who will be so hardy as to affirm this But you set your pupil as much above the being taught by books as being taught by men. ‘Seek,’ say you, ‘for help no other way, neither from men nor books; but wholly leave yourself to God’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 225). But how can a man ‘leave himself wholly to God’ in the total neglect of His ordinances The old Bible way is to ‘leave ourselves wholly to God’ in the constant use of all the means He hath ordained. And I cannot yet think the new is better, though you are fully persuaded it is. ‘There are two ways,’ you say, ‘of attaining goodness and virtue: the one by books or the ministry of men; the other by an inward birth. The former is only in order to the latter.’ This is most true, that all the externals of religion are in order to the renewal of our soul in righteousness and true holiness, But it is not true that the external way is one and the internal way another. There is but one scriptural way wherein we receive inward grace -- through the outward means which God hath appointed. Some might think that when you advised ‘not to seek help from books’ you did not include the Bible. But you clear up this where you answer the objection of your not esteeming the Bible enough. You say: ‘How could you more magnify John the Baptist than by going from his teaching to be taught by that Christ to whom he directed you Now, the Bible can have no other office or power than to direct you to Christ. How, then, can you more magnify the Bible than by going from its teaching to be taught by Christ’ So you set Christ and the Bible in flat opposition to each other! And is this the way we are to learn of Him Nay, but we are taught of Him, not by going from the Bible, but by keeping close to it. Both by the Bible and by experience we know that His Word and His Spirit act in connection with each other. And thus it is that, by Christ continually teaching and strengthening him through the Scripture, ‘the man of God is made perfect, and thoroughly furnished for every good word and work.’ According to your veneration for the Bible is your regard for public worship and for the Lord’s Supper. ‘Christ,’ you say, ‘is the church or temple of God within thee. There the supper of the Lamb is kept. When thou art well grounded in this inward worship, thou wilt have learned to live unto God above time and place. For every day will be Sunday to thee, and wherever thou goest thou wilt have a priest, a church, and an altar along with thee.’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 73.) The plain inference is: Thou wilt not need to make any difference between Sunday and other days. Thou wilt need no other church than that which thou hast always along with thee; no other supper, worship, priest, or altar. Be well grounded in this inward worship, and it supersedes all the rest. This is right pleasing to flesh and blood; and I could most easily believe it if I did not believe the Bible. But that teaches me inwardly to worship God, as at all times and in all places, so particularly on His own day, in the congregation of His people, at His altar, and by the ministry of those His servants whom He hath given for this very thing, ‘for the perfecting of the saints,’ and with whom He will be to the end of the world. Extremely dangerous, therefore, is this other gospel, which leads quite wide of the gospel of Christ. And what must the consequence be if we thus ‘break,’ yea, ‘and teach men so,’ not ‘one’ only, neither ‘the least,’ of ‘His commandments’ Even that we ‘shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.’ God grant this may not fall on you or me! 7. However, whether we have a place in heaven or not, you are very sure we shall have none in hell. For there is no hell in rerum natura, ‘no such place in the universe.’ You declare this over and over again in great variety of expressions. It may suffice to mention two or three: ‘Hell is no penalty prepared or inflicted by God’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part II. p. 33). ‘Damnation is only that which springs up within you’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 47). ‘Hell and damnation are nothing but the various operations of self’ (Spirit of Prayer, Part I. p. 79). I rather incline to the account published a few years ago by a wise and pious man (the late Bishop of Cork [Dr. Peter Browne’s Procedure (or Progress), Extent, and Limits of Human Understanding, pp. See letter of Feb. 18, 1756, to Samuel Furly.]), where he is speaking of the improvement of human knowledge by revelation. Some of his words are,-- Concerning future punishments, we learn from revelation only: (1) That they are both for soul and body, which are distinguished in Scripture by ‘the worm that dieth not’ and ‘the fire which never shall be quenched’; and accordingly we are bid to ‘fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.’ Upon which I shall only remark, that whereas we find by experience the body and soul in this life are not capable of suffering the extremity of pain and anguish at the same time, insomuch that the greatest anguish of mind is lost and diverted by acute and pungent pain of body; yet we learn from Scripture that in hell the wicked will be subject to extreme torments of both together. (2) That the chief cause of their eternal misery will be an eternal exclusion from the beatific vision of God. This exclusion seems to be the only punishment to which we can now conceive a pure spirit liable. And according as all intelligent beings are at a less or greater distance from this fountain of all happiness, so they are necessarily more or less miserable or happy. (3) That one part of those punishments will be by fire, than which we have not any revelation more express and positive. And as it is an instance of great goodness in God that the joys of heaven are represented to us under the figurative images of light and glory and a kingdom, and that the substance shall exceed the utmost of our conception; so it is an argument of His strict justice that future punishments are more literally threatened and foretold. (4) The eternity of these punishments is revealed as plainly as words can express it. And the difficulty of that question, ‘What proportion endless torments can bear to momentary sins,’ is quite removed by considering that the punishments denounced are not sanctions entirely arbitrary, but are withal so many previous warnings or declarations of the natural tendency of sin itself. So that an unrepenting sinner must be miserable in another life by a necessity of nature. Therefore he is not capable of mercy; since there never can be an alteration of his condition, without such a change of the whole man as would put the natural and settled order of the creation out of course. Doubtless this eminent man (whose books on the Human Understanding and on Divine Analogy I would earnestly recommend to all who either in whole or in part deny the Christian Revelation) grounded his judgment both of the nature and duration of future punishments on these and the like passages of Scripture: -- ‘If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge Of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy: of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God! For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.’ (Heb. x. 26-31.) And let not any who live and die in their sins vainly hope to escape His vengeance. ‘For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished’ (2 Pet. if. 4-9). In that day, peculiarly styled ‘the day of the Lord,’ they ‘that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt’ (Dan. xii. 2). Among the latter will all those be found who are now by their obstinate impenitence ‘treasuring up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will’ then render ‘indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil’ (Rom. if. 5, 8-9). He hath declared the very sentence which He will then pronounce on all the workers of iniquity: ‘Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. xxv. 4x). And in that hour it will be executed: being ‘cast into outer darkness, where is wailing and gnashing of teeth’ (verse 30), they ‘will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thess. i. 9). A punishment not only without end, but likewise without intermission. For when once ‘they are cast into that furnace of fire,’ that ‘lake of fire burning with brimstone, the worm,’ gnawing their soul, ‘dieth not, and the fire,’ tormenting their body, ‘is not quenched.’ So that ‘they have no rest day or night; but the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.’ Now, thus much cannot be denied, that these texts speak as if there were really such a place as hell, as if there were a real fire there, and as if it would remain for ever. I would then ask but one plain question: If the case is not so, why did God speak as if it was Say you, ‘To affright men from sin’ What, by guile, by dissimulation, by hanging out false colors Can you possibly ascribe this to the God of truth Can you believe it of Him Can you conceive the Most High dressing up a scarecrow, as we do to fright children Far be it from Him! If there be, then, any such fraud in the Bible, the Bible is not of God. And, indeed, this must be the result of all: If there be ‘no unquenchable fire, no everlasting burnings,’ there is no dependence on those writings wherein they are so expressly asserted, nor of the eternity of heaven any more than of hell. So that if we give up the one, we must give up the other. No hell, no heaven, no revelation! In vain you strive to supply the place of this by putting purgatory in its room, by saying, ‘These virtues must have their perfect work in you, if not before, yet certainly after death. Everything else must be taken from you by fire either here or hereafter.’ (Spirit of Love, Part II. p. 232.) Poor, broken reed! Nothing will ‘be taken from you’ by that fire which is ‘prepared for the devil and his angels,’ but all rest, all joy, all comfort, all hope. For ‘the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.’ I have now, sir, delivered my own soul. And I have used great plainness of speech; such as I could not have prevailed on myself to use, to one whom I so much respect, on any other occasion. Oh that your latter works may be more and greater than your first! Surely they would, if you could ever be persuaded to study instead of the writings of Tauler and Behmen, those of St. Paul, James, Peter, and John; to spew out of your mouth and out of your heart that vain philosophy, and speak neither higher nor lower things, neither more nor less, than the oracles of God; to renounce, despise, abhor all the high-flown bombast, all the unintelligible jargon of the Mystics, and come back to the plain religion of the Bible, ‘We love Him, because He first loved us.’ To his Wife [LEWISHAM, January 7, 1756.] Wednesday Afternoon. When I saw you, my dear, I did not expect to have so large a demand made so suddenly upon me. I shall be puzzled to answer it without coming to town on purpose, which I am unwilling to do before I have flushed the Address. [The Address to the Clergy is dated Feb. 6 1756. It was written in the first week of January. Wesley probably spent the week at Lewisham, returning to town on Friday, when the Sermon Register shows that he preached at Zoar, the chapel he had taken over in Southwark in November. See Journal, iv. 140, 141, 143; Works, x. 480-500; Green’s Bibliography, No. 175.] I desire you would give John Spencer [Sometimes spelt ‘Spenser’ by Wesley.] (taking his receipt) or Brother Atkinson (unless you choose to pay Mr. Davenport yourself) what note-money remains in your hands. Unless you can help me out for a month or two, I must borrow some more in town. If you can, you will do it with pleasure. My dear, adieu. To Joseph Cownley LONDON, January 10, 1756. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I have no objection to anything but the blister. If it does good, well. But if I had been at Cork, all the physicians in Ireland should not have put it upon your head. Remember poor Bishop Pearson. An apothecary, to cure a pain in his head, covered it with a large blister. In an hour he cried out, ‘Oh my head, my head!’ and was a fool ever after to the day of his death. I believe cooling things (if anything under heaven) would remove that violent irritation of your nerves, which probably occasions the pain. Moderate riding may be of use -- I believe of more than the blister; only do not take more labor upon you than you can bear. Do as much as you can, and no more. Let us make use of the present time. Every day is of importance. We know not how few days of peace remain. [Is this national peace ‘French preparations made at Dunkirk and Brest, apparently intended for a descent upon England, produced the wildest alarm. It was stated that there were only three regiments in the country fit for service; and “the nation,” in the words of Burke, “trembled under a shameful panic too public to be conceded, too fatal in its consequences to be ever forgotten.”’ See Lecky’s England, ii. 362; and letters of March 1 and 4, April 19, and July 10.] We join in love to you and yours. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jonathan Pritchard LONDON, January 16, 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If our brethren at Chester purpose ever to prosecute, they cannot have a fairer opportunity; provided they have a sufficient number of witnesses whose depositions will come home to the point, particularly with regard to those words, ‘You shah have no justice from me.’ Those depositions might be drawn up in the country, and sent up to Mr. I’Anson [See letter of Aug. 8, 1752.] in New Palace Yard, Westminster. The sooner the better; for Term will begin shortly. Delay does much hurt in cases of this kind. Do you hear how the Manchester mob is now [In April 1755, when Wesley was there, the mob ‘raged horribly. This, I find, has been their manner for some time. No wonder, since the good Justices encourage them.’ See Journal iv. 111.] --I am Your affectionate brother. Is Brother Moss gone yet into the Bristall Circuit To Samuel Furly LONDON, February 3, 1756. DEAR SAMMY, -- The Serious Thoughts [Serious Thoughts occasioned by the late Earthquake at Lisbon, published in 1755, reached a sixth edition. See Journal, iv. 141.] will be sent as soon as they are reprinted. I sha;; make an addition of eight or ten pages, consisting chiefly of a correct and regular account of the earthquakes at Lisbon and other places. Now is the time to arise and shake yourself from the dust. Now assert your liberty. When you are on the field, you can’t make head against the enemy. But now you may secure armor of proof. You may be stronger every day than the other. Only be instant in prayer. I have an extremely pretty letter from Mr. Dodd. [Wesley’s answer to William Dodd was written two days later, also that to ‘P. V.’ (Richard Tompson).] It is wonderfully civil and peremptory. I purpose to answer him this week, and perhaps P. V. too. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To William Dodd LONDON, February 5, 1756. REVRAND SIR -- I am favored with yours of January 26, for which I return you my sincere thanks. Your frank and open manner of writing is far from needing any apology and I hope will never occasion your receiving such treatment from me as I did from Mr. Law, who, after some very keen expressions, in answer to the second private letter I sent him, plainly told me he desired to ‘hear no more on that head.’ I do desire to hear, and am very willing to consider whatever you have to advance on the head of Christian Perfection. When I began to make the Scriptures my study (about seven-and-twenty years ago), I began to see that Christians are called to love God with all their heart and to serve Him with all their strength; which is precisely what I apprehend to be meant by the scriptural term Perfection. After weighing this for some years, I openly declared my sentiments before the University [On Jan. 1, 1733. See Works, v. 202-12.] in the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, now printed in the second volume. About six years after, in consequence of an advice I received from Bishop Gibson, ‘Tell all the world what you mean by perfection,’ I published my coolest and latest thoughts in the sermon on that subject. I therein build on no authority, ancient or modern, but the Scripture. If this supports any doctrine it will stand; if not, the sooner it falls the better. Neither the doctrine in question nor any other is anything to me, unless it be the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles. If, therefore, you will please to point out to me any passages in that sermon which are either contrary to Scripture or not supported by it, and to show that they are not, I shall be full as willing to oppose as ever I was to defend them. I search for truth, plain Bible truth, without any regard to the praise or dispraise of men. If you will assist me in this search, more especially by showing me where I have mistaken my way, it will be gratefully acknowledged by, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Richard Tompson LONDON, February 5, 1756. SIR, -- I was in Cornwall when your last was brought to the Foundry and delivered to my brother. When I returned, it was mislaid and could not be found; so that I did not receive it till some months after the date. You judge right with regard to the tract [The Address to the Clergy. Probably intended for the Rev. George Thompson Vicar of St. Gennys.] enclosed to you. It was sent to you by mistake for another that bears the same name. Christian perfection, we agree, may stand aside for the present. The point now to be considered is Christian faith. This, I apprehend, implies a divine evidence or conviction of our acceptance. You apprehend it does not. In debating this (or indeed any) point with you, I lie under a great disadvantage. (1) You know me; whereas I do not know you. (2) I am a very slow, you seem to be a very swift, writer. (3) My time is so taken up, from day to day and from week to week, that I can spare very little from my stated employments; so that I can neither write so largely nor so accurately as I might otherwise do. All, therefore, which you can expect from me is, not a close-wrought chain of connected arguments, but a short sketch of what I should deduce more at large if I had more leisure. I believe the ancient Fathers are far from being silent on our question; though none that I know have treated it professedly. But I have not leisure to wade through that sea. Only to the argument from the baptism of heretics I reply, If any had averred during that warm controversy, ‘I received a sense of pardon when I was baptized by such an heretic’ those on the other side would in no wise have believed him; so that the dispute would have remained as warm as ever. I know this from plain fact. Many have received a sense of pardon when I baptized them. But who will believe them when they assert it Who will put any dispute on this issue I know likewise that Luther, Melanchthon, and many other (if not all) of the Reformers frequently and strongly assert that every believer is conscious of his own acceptance with God, and that by a supernatural evidence, which if any choose to term immediate revelation he may. But nether have I leisure to re-examine this cloud of witnesses. Nor, indeed, as you justly observe, would the testimony of them all together be sufficient to establish an unscriptural doctrine. Therefore, after all, we must be determined by higher evidence. And herein we are dearly agreed: we both appeal ‘to the law and to the testimony.’ May God enable us to understand it aright! But first, that you may not beat the air by disproving what I never intended to prove, I will show you as distinctly as I can what my sentiments are upon the question, and the rather because I plainly perceive you do not yet understand them. You seem to think I allow no degrees in grace, and that I make no distinction between the full assurance of faith and a low or common measure of it. Several years ago some clergymen and other gentlemen with whom we had a free conversation proposed the following questions to my brother and me, to which we gave the answers subjoined: -- ‘June 25, 1744. ‘QUESTION. What is faith ‘ANSWER. Faith in general is a divine, supernatural ‘e [‘Evidence’ or ‘conviction.’] of things not seen--that is, of past, future, or spiritual. It is a spiritual sight of God and the things of God. Justifying faith is a divine ‘e, that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. ‘Q. Have all Christians this faith And may not a man have it and not know it ‘A. That all Christians have such a faith as implies a consciousness of God’s love appears from Rom. viii. 15; Eph. iv. 32; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Heb. viii. 10; 1 John iv. 10, v. 1, &c. And that no man can have it and not know that he has appears from the nature of the thing. For faith after repentance is ease after pain, rest after toil, light after darkness. It appears also from its immediate fruits, which are peace, joy, love, and power over sin. ‘Q. Does any one believe any longer than he sees, loves, obeys God ‘A. We apprehend not; “seeing God” being the very essence of faith, love and obedience the inseparable properties of it.’ ‘August 2, 1745. ‘QUESTION. Is an assurance of God’s pardoning love absolutely necessary to our being in His favor Or may there possibly be some exempt cases ‘ANSWER. We dare not positively say there are not. ‘Q. Is it necessary to final salvation in those (as Papists) who never heard it preached ‘A. We know not how far invincible ignorance may excuse. “Love hopeth all things.” ‘Q, But what if one who does hear it preached should die without it ‘A. We determine nothing. We leave his soul in the hands of Him that made it. ‘ Q. Does a man believe any longer than he sees a reconciled God ‘A. We conceive not. But we allow there may be very many degrees of seeing God, even as many as are between seeing the sun with the eyelids closed and with the eyes open.’ The doctrine which I espouse, till I receive farther light, being thus explained and limited, I observe, -- (1) A divine conviction of my being reconciled to God is, I think, directly implied, not in a divine evidence or conviction of something rise, but in a divine conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me, and still more clearly in the Spirit’s bearing witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. (2) I see no reason either to retract or soften the expression ‘God’s mercy in some cases obliges Him to act thus and thus.’ Certainly, as His own nature obliges Him (in a very clear and sound sense) to act according to truth and justice in all things; so in some sense His love obliged Him to give His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish. So much for the phrase. My meaning is, The same compassion which moves God to pardon a mourning, broken-hearted sinner moves Him to comfort that mourner by witnessing to his spirit that his sins are pardoned. (3) You think ‘full assurance excludes all doubt.’ I think so too. But there may be faith without fun assurance. And these lower degrees of faith do not exclude doubts, which frequently mingle therewith, more or less. But this you cannot allow. You say it cannot be shaken without being overthrown; and trust I shall be ‘convinced upon reflection that the distinction between “shaken” and “destroyed” is absolutely without a difference.’ Hark! The wind rises: the house shakes, but it is not overthrown; it totters, but it is not destroyed. You add: ‘Assurance is quite a distinct thing from faith. Neither does it depend upon the same agent. Faith is an act of my mind; assurance an act of the Holy Ghost.’ I answer: (1) The assurance in question is no other than the full assurance of faith; therefore it cannot be a distinct thing from faith, but only so high a degree of faith as excludes all doubt and fear. (2) The plerophory, or full assurance, is doubtless wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. But so is every degree of true faith; yet the mind of man h the subject of both. I believe feebly; I believe without all doubt. Your next remark is: ‘The Spirit’s witnessing that we are accepted cannot be the faith whereby we are accepted,’ I allow it. A conviction that we are justified cannot be implied in justifying faith. You subjoin: ‘A sure trust that God hath accepted me is not the same thing with knowing that God has accepted me.’ I think it is the same thing with some degree of that knowledge. But it matters not whether it be so or no. I will not contend for a term. I contend only for this -- that every true Christian believer has ‘a sure trust and confidence in God that through the merits of Christ he is reconciled to God’; and that in consequence of this he is able to say, ‘The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.’ It is a very little thing to excuse a warm expression [In his letter of Feb. 25 ’P. V.’ says: ‘I hope sir, that I have not (in the course of my papers) been wanting in respect towards you; willingly, I am sure I have not: you do indeed intimate something concerning a warm expression, which I am entirely ignorant of; so hope you will excuse it.’] (if you need any such excuse) while I am convinced of your real goodwill to, sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Samuel Furly LONDON, February 18, 1756. DEAR SAMMY, -- You are a very complaisant person. I know in my little circle of acquaintance more than twenty who have all the natural qualifications mentioned in the Address to the Clergy, and several others who have a~ the acquired ones, either by education or by grace; and I would engage to take any person of fourteen years of age who has good natural abilities and to teach him in seven years everything which is there required to a good degree of perfection. Ex pede Herculem. You may easily see what Latin I write by one of the Dissertations in Jobum, [By his father. See note to letter of Oct. 15, 1735.] or even by the short conversation with Count Zinzendorf which is printed in the Journal, [See Journal, ii. 488-90.] I do not know that I have any theme or declamation left. But why do you not talk Latin when you are with me Do this, and you will see the excellence of Terence’s language; whereas Tully would make you talk like a mere stiff pedant. Randal’s Geographical Grammar is far the best compendium of geography which I have seen; and you need nothing more on that subject, adding only the terrestrial globe. If you are master of Hutcheson’s [Francis Hutcheson (1694-1764), Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow x729-46. His System of Moral Philosophy was published by his son in 1755. See Journal, v. 492; and letter of March 14.] Metaphysicks and Clerc’s [Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736), professor in Amsterdam.] Ontologia, I advise you to look no farther that way; unless you would add Malebranche’s Search after Truth [Nicolas Malebranche (1658-1715). His De la Recherche de la Vrit, 1674, regards the intervention of God as necessary to bridge the gun between the human soul and body. It is mentioned in the Address among books to be read.] or the Bishop of Cork’s two books [In December of this year Wesley began reading with his preachers the Bishop of Cork’s Procedure (or Progress), Extent and Limits of Human Understanding, which he thought superior to Locke’s treatise (see Journal, iv. 192; and for his earlier references, the letters of Oct. 3, 1730, and Feb. 13, 1731). Possibly the other book recommended was Dr. Browne’s Things Divine and Supernatural Conceived by Analogy with Things Natural and Human, 1733.] again. The main point is, with all and above all, study the Greek and Hebrew Bible, and the love of Christ. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Richard Tompson LONDON, February 18, 1756. SIR, -- You ask, 1. ‘Can a man who has not a clear assurance that his sins are forgiven be in a state of justification’ I believe there are some instances of it. 2. ‘Can a person be in a state of justification who, being asked, “Do you know your sins are forgiven’ answers, “I am not certainly sure; but I do not entertain the least doubt of it”’ I believe he may. 3. ‘Can he who answer “I trust they are”’ It is very possible he may be in that state. 4. ‘Can any one know that his sins are forgiven while he doubts thereof’ Not at the instant when he doubts of it. But he may generally know it, though he doubts at some particular time. I answer as plainly and simply as I can, that, if I am in a mistake, I may the more easily be convinced of it. To Samuel Furly LONDON February 21, 1756. DEAR SAMMY, -- There is but one possible way to gain the victory: conquer desire, and you will conquer fear. But as long as you are a slave you must be a coward. Be free therefore, or you can’t be bold. Never write to that person at all, nor of her [The reference is to his love affairs. See letter of March 14.]; and continue instant in prayer. Cut off the right hand and cast it from you; otherwise you will be a poor dastardly wretch all your days, and one sin will punish another till the day of grace is at an end. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell MARLBOROUGH, March 1, 1756. DEAR SIR, -- I hope the enclosed [See next letter, which was probably enclosed to Blackwell to be forwarded to James West.] will do, for I have not leisure to alter it any more. To make professions does not belong to me; it is quite foreign to my character. Let those who mean nothing talk like Goneril and Regan in King Lear. [Wesley knew his Shakespeare, and annotated the fine quarto copy presented to him by a gentleman in Dublin. The two unworthy daughters make great professions: Goneril: Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter; Dearer than eye-sight, space, and liberty. Regan: I . . . find I am alone felicitate In your dear highness’s love.] By God’s help I will do what a good subject ought. Wishing Mrs. Blackwell and you all health of soul and body, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To James West MARLBOROUGH, March 1, 1756. SIR, -- A few days since, Mr. Whitefield and I desired a friend to ask your advice, to whom it would be proper to make an offer of rafting a company of volunteers for His Majesty’s service. We apprehended the number would be about five hundred, Finding Mr. Whitefield has since been persuaded that such an offer is premature, I am constrained to make the following independently of him: To raise for His Majesty’s service at least two hundred volunteers, to be supported by contributions among themselves; and to be ready in case of an invasion to act for a year (if needed so long) at His Majesty’s pleasure; only within . . . miles of London. If this be acceptable to His Majesty, they beg to have arms out of the Towel giving the usual security for their return, and some of His Majesty’s sergeants to instruct them in the military exercise. I am now hastening to Bristol on account of the election, concerning which I wrote to my brother last week; but if my return to London would be of any service, you may command, Your obedient servant. To Ebenezer Blackwell BRISTOL March 4, 1756. DEAR SIR-- If the election of Mr. Spencer be a thing of any consequence, then it was extremely ill-judged to prevent his coming down. He ought to have been here at all hazards if he was not very dangerously ill. His absence will probably turn the scale; and if the Jacobites gain one member now, they will have two the next time. Whereas there is reason to believe, had Mr. Spencer appeared, there would have been no opposition. Last night I desired all the freemen of our Society to meet me after preaching, and enlarged a little upon His Majesty’s character and the reasons we had to spare no pains in his service. I believe all who had been wavering were fully convinced. But some had absolutely promised to vote for Mr. Smith, it having been confidently reposed that both the candidates were equally acceptable to His Majesty. The whole city is in confusion. Oh what pity there could not be some way of managing elections of every sort without this embittering Englishmen against Englishmen and kindling fires which cannot be quenched in many years! Wishing Mrs. Blackwell and you the peace which the world cannot give, I remain, dear sir, Yours most affectionately. To the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine’ BRISTOL March 8, 1756. MR. URBAN, -- I have met with many persons in my life who did not abound with modesty; but I never yet met with one who had less of it than your anonymous correspondent. The whole account of Whiston Cliff, inserted in one of your magazines, I aver to be punctually true, having been an eye-witness of every particular of it. And if F. D. will set his name and aver the contrary, I will make him ashamed, unless shame and he have shook hands and parted. -- Yours, &c. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Southey says: ‘Law himself, who has shaken so many intellects, sacrificed his own at last to the reveries and rhapsodies of Jacob Behmen.’ Canon Overton considers that Wesley had to ask how Law’s later books (The Spirit of Prayer and The Spirit of Love) would affect the Methodist people. Hence this ‘well-meant if not very judicious attempt to counteract the evil.’ The letter was begun on December 1755, and sent on January 6, 1756. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 174; and letter of September 17, 1760. [2] John Spencer and William Atkinson were evidently connected with the Foundry Book-Room. Atkinson wrote to Wesley from Dock on November 20, 1753, offering himself as a preacher. His difficulty was what was to become of his wife. He says in his postscript, ‘My spouse with all our friends join in much affection to you and Mrs. Wesley. I wrote to Mr. Briggs for some of the [Christian] Library with other tracts, but have never had any account. We are in great need of some of the tracts to disperse about, for many are catching at anything.’ His receipt to Mrs. Wesley for 20 is dated January 9, ‘on account of paying for press materials &c.’ The particulars even are, -- May 31, to Mr. Bowyer for quires, 6 3s.; June 3, lent to Mr. Butts on Book account, 5 5s.; to Mr. Spencer for paper, &c. 26. See letter of May 7. [3] Cownley’s labors had overtaxed his strength. He had ‘fallen into a languid habit of body, which was succeeded by a malignant fever.’ His life had been in danger; but he recovered, and married in October 1755 the daughter of James Massiot of Cork one of Wesley’s preachers. His strength was not fully restored, and ‘a pain settled in his head, which no medicine could ever remove. After consulting the most able physicians in Ireland, he stated his case to Mr. Wesley.’ This is the answer. ‘Though no radial cure was effected, yet the seventy of the disorder abated by some attention to his manner of living and preaching’ He lived till October 1792. [4] This letter has no name or address, but it was probably written to Jonathan Pritchard. In the Chester riots of July 1752 the mob pulled down the barn in St. Martin’s Ash, where the Methodist services were held, and the Mayor refused to grant a warrant against the rioters. The riots had probably been renewed in 1755. See Journal, iv. 36; Bretherton’s Early Methodism in and around Chester, pp. 29, 46; and letter of January 16, 1753. Richard Moss, a native of Hurlstone, Cheshire, was converted in 1759 under Wesley at the Foundery, where in 1744 he went to live as a servant and traveled with Wesley. He was one of the first masters at Kingswood School in 1748. Wesley says he ‘was grave and weighty in his behavior, and did much good till Walter Sellon set the children against him, and, instead of restraining them from play, played with them himself.’ At the Conference of 1755 Moss was appointed to the Cheshire Circuit. He was ordained by the Bishop of London as a missionary to the Bahamas. See Journal, iii. 164, 199, 380, 530-1; Methodist Magazine, 1798, pp. 3, 53; Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 286--8; and letter of March 21, 1767. [5] William Dodd, born in 1729 at Bourne, Lincolnshire, had been 15th Wrangler at Cambridge, and was lecturer at West Ham (where he lived), and evening lecturer at St. Olave’s, Hart Street. He became Chaplain to the Magdalen Hospital in 1758. He took his LL.D. in 1766. Wesley printed this letter in the Arminian Magazine 1779, p. 435, with the ‘N.B. I had at this time no acquaintance with Dr. Dodd; nor did I ever see him till I saw him in prison.’ Dodd was executed in 1777 for forgery. In Some Account of the late Dr. Dodd, published in July 1783, Wesley says: ‘I had no knowledge of Dr. Dodd till he told that excellent woman Mrs. Lefevre that he was gong to publish something against Mr. Wesley. She advised him to send it to me first He did so, and was so far at least satisfied with my answer that his treatise against Christian Perfection never saw the light. That was about thirty years ago. And hem our intercourse ended; which indeed was very slight, as I had never seen him, either in private or public.’ See Journal v. 196, vi. 138; Sugden’s Wesley’s Standard Sermons, ii. 373; Compston’s Magdalen Hospital, p. 117; and letters of September 12, 1755 (to Ebenezer Blackwell), and March 12, 1756. [6] ‘P. V.’ replied to Wesley’s letter of July 25, 1755, on August 15. He had not received it till August 9. He discuses the doctrine of Assurance in much detail, and criticizes the statement. ‘His mercy obliges Him to another act.’ This is acute, and Wesley must have admired the dexterity of his opponent; but Wesley’s meaning is clear enough. God was not likely to let man remain ignorant of His mercy. ‘P. V.’ returns to his hypothesis about marriage between two perfect Christians. He wrote in haste, as he understood Wesley was going from London, but the letter was not delivered at the Foundery until Wesley had left for Cornwall on August 17; Wesley’s patience and courtesy amid his crowd of engagements with this leisured correspondent are striking. [7] Here is the old Oxford tutor revived. This letter, addressed to Queen’s College, Cambridge, is a fine illustration of Wesley’s readiness to guide his young friend’s study, as he had guided the reading of Miss Ann Granville in his Oxford days. [8] ‘P. V.’ in his letter of February 12 had put these questions, ‘which if you will please to answer with a monosyllable only, I shall esteem it a favor.’ He adds: ‘I must beg the favor of you to excuse my concealment at present. It is probate that my reasons for so doing may not long subsist.’ Wesley lost no time in replying. [9] The Honorable James West (1704-72), politician and antiquary, was Member for St. Albans 1741-68, and Joint Secretary to the Treasury 1741-62. Charles Wesley wrote to his wife on December 7, 1755: ‘My brother tells me the French are expected every hour by General Hawley in battle array, &c; that the Government have not the least doubt of the invasion, but will do their best to repel force by force. I question whether my brother’s soldiers, with all his pains and haste to train them up, will not be too tardy to rescue us.’ A National Fast was kept on February 6; and Whitefield issued an ‘Address,’ in which he spoke of ‘an insulting enraged, and perfidious enemy advancing nearer to the British borders.’ Wesley’s proposal shows that he was deeply concerned by these national troubles. See Journal, iv. 147, 150-1; C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 200; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 234; also previous letter and that of March 4. [10] This letter shows Wesley’s interest in a parliamentary election. The candidates were Jarrit Smith and John Spencer. Wesley ‘found Bristol all in a flame, voters and non-voters being ready to tear each other in pieces.’ He had not recovered his voice, but met the Methodist freemen, ‘whom I mildly and lovingly informed how they ought to act in this hour of temptation; and I believe the far greater part of them received and profited by the advice.’ Smith was returned by 2,418 votes; Spencer had 2,347. See letter in October 1764 to the Societies at Bristol. [11] An extract from Wesley’s Journal for June 2, 1755, had been printed on page 514 of the Gentleman’s Magazine of that year. In February 1756 ‘F. D.’ says he has inquired in the neighborhood, ‘and found the whole to be a falsehood, without the last degree of truth for its foundation. Those who have deliberately invented and propagated this lie are most certainly of their father the devil, who was a liar from the beginning. I am extremely unwilling to believe that it was invented and propagated by any person who pretends to a sacred character, as such person could have no view but to increase his influence over ignorant and credulous minds.’ Next month Mr. Urban introduces Wesley’s letter, in which our anonymous correspondent, if he does not make good his assertion, is treated with less severity than he deserves. John Langhorne, then a youth in his twentieth year, afterwards known as the translator of Plutarch’s Lives, was as the time a private tutor at Thirsk, five miles from Whiston Cliff, and wrote to the Gentleman’s Magazine in April and June confirming Wesley’s statement. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 45: 43. 1756 ======================================================================== 1756 To William Dodd KINGSWOOD, March 12, 1756. REVERAND, SIR, --You and I the more easily bear with each other, because we are both of us rapid writers, and therefore more the more liable to mistake. I will thank you for showing me any mistake I am in, being not so tenacious of my opinions now as I was twenty or thirty years ago. Indeed, I am not fond of any opinion as such. I read the Bible with what attention I can, and regulate all my opinions thereby to the best of my understanding. But I am always willing to receive more light; particularly with regard to any less common opinions, because the examining and defending them takes up much time, which I can ill spare from other employments. Whoever, therefore, will give me more fight with regard to Christian Perfection will do me a singular favor. The opinion I have concerning it at present I espouse merely because I think it is scriptural; if, therefore, I am convinced it is not scriptural, I shall willingly relinquish it. 2. I have no particular fondness for the term. It seldom occurs either in my preaching or writings. It h my opponents who thrust it upon me continually, and ask me what I mean by it. So did Bishop Gibson, till by his advice I publicly declared what I did not mean by it and what I did. This I supposed might be best done in the form of a sermon, [On Christian Perfection. See Works, vi. 1-19.] having a text prefixed wherein that term occurred. But that text is there used only as an occasion or introduction to the subject. I do not build any doctrine thereon, nor undertake critically to explain it. 3. What is the meaning of the term ‘perfection’ is another question; but that is a scriptural term is undeniable. Therefore none ought to object to the use of the term, whatever they may do to this or that explication of it. I am very willing to consider whatever you have to object to what is advanced under the flint head of that sermon. But I still think that perfection is only another term for holiness or the image of God in man. God made man perfect, I think, is just the same as He made him holy, or in His own image. You are the very first person I ever read of or spoke with who made any doubt of it. Now, this perfection does certainly admit of degrees. Therefore I readily allow the propriety of that distinction, perfection of kinds and perfection of degree. Nor do I remember one writer ancient or modern who excepts against it. 4. In the sermon on Salvation by Faith [See Works, v. 7-16.] I say, ‘He that is born of God sinneth not’ (a proposition explained at large in another sermon, and there everywhere either explicitly or virtually connected with while he keepeth himself.) ‘by any sinful desire; for any unholy desire he stifleth in the birth.’ Assuredly he does while he keepeth himself. ‘Nor doth he sin by infirmities; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this they am not properly tins.’ Taking the words as they lie in connexion thus (and taken otherwise they are not my words, but yours), I must still aver they speak both my own experience and that of many hundred children of God whom I personally know. And all this, with abundantly more than this, is contained in that single expression ‘the loving God with all our hearts and serving Him with all our strength.’ Nor did I ever say or mean any more by perfection than thus loving and serving God. But I dare not say less than this; for it might be attended with worse consequences than you seem to be aware of. If there be a mistake, it is far more dangerous on the one ride than on the other. If I set the mark too high, I drive men into needless fears: if you set k too low, you drive them into hell-fire. 5. We agree that true ‘Christianity implies a destruction of the kingdom of sin and a renewal of the soul in righteousness; which even babes in Christ do in a measure experience, though not in so large a measure as young men and fathers.’ But here we divide. I believe even babes in Christ (while they keep themselves) do not commit sin. By sin I mean outward sin; and the word ‘commit’ I take in its plain, literal meaning. And this I think is fully proved by all the texts cited (sect. 3) from the 6th chapter to the Romans. Nor do I conceive there is any material difference between committing sin and continuing therein. I tell my neighbor here, ‘William, you are a child of the devil; for you commit sin: you was drunk yesterday.’ ‘No, sir,’ says the man, ‘I do not live or continue in sin’ (which Mr. Dodd says is the true meaning of the text), ‘I am not drunk continually, but only now and then, once in a fortnight or a month.’ Now, sir how shall I deal with this man Shah I tell him he is in the way to heaven or to hell I think he is in the high road to destruction, and that if I tell~ him otherwise him blood will be upon my head; and all that you say of living, continuing in, serving sin, as different from committing it and of its not reigning, not having domain over him who still frequently commits it, is making so many loop-holes whereby any impenitent sinner may escape from all the terrors of the Lord. I dare not, therefore, give up the plain, literal meaning either of St. Paul’s or St. Peter’s words. 6. As to those of St. John’ (cited sect. 5), I do not think you have proved they are not to be taken literally. In every single act of obedience, as well as in a continued coupe of it, p das; and in eiher an act or a course of sin p ata. Therefore, that I may give no countenance to any kind or degree of sin, I still interpret these words by those in the 5th chapel and believe he that is born of God (while he keepeth himself) sinneth not, doth not commit outward sin. 7. But ‘it is absolutely necessary, as you observe, to add sometimes explanatory words to those of the sacred penmen.’ It is so: to add words explanatory of their sense, but not subversive of it. The words added to that text, ‘Ye know all things,’ are such. And you yourself allow them so to be. But I do not allow the words willfully and habitually to be such. These do not explain but overthrow the text. That the first Fathers thus explained it I deny; as also that I ever spoke lightly of them. 8. You proceed, ‘You allow in another sermon, in evident contradiction to yourself, that the true children of God could and did commit sin.’ This is no contradiction to anything I ever advanced. I everywhere allow that a child of God can and will commit sin, if he does not keep himself. But this, you say, is nothing to the present argument. Yes: it is the whole thing. If they keep themselves they do not, otherwise they can and do commit sin. I say nothing contrary to this in either sermon. But, ‘hence, you say, we conclude, that he who is born of God may possibly commit sin.’ An idle conclusion as ever was formed. For who ever denied it I flatly affirm it in both the sermons and in the very paragraph now before us. The only conclusion which I deny is that all Christians do and must commit sin as long as they live. Now, this you yourself (though you now seem to start at it) maintain from the beginning of your letter to the end viz. that all Christians do, and cannot but sin, more or less to their lives’ end. Therefore I do not ‘artfully put this conclusion’; but it is your own conclusion from your own premises. Indeed, were I artfully to put in anything in expounding the Word of God, I must be an errant knave. But I do not: my conscience bears me witness that I speak the very truth, so far as I know it, in simplicity and godly sincerity. 9. I think that all this time you are directly pleading for looseness of manners, and that everything you advance naturally tends thereto. This is my grand objection to that doctrine of the necessity of sinning; not only that it is false, but that it is directly subversive of all holiness. The doctrine of the Gnostics was not that a child of God does not commit sin, i.e. act the things which are forbidden in Scripture, but that they are not sin in him, that he is a child of God still; so they contended not for sinless but sinful perfection: just as different from what I contend for as heaven is from hell. What the Donatists were I do not know. But I suspect they were the real Christians of that age, and were therefore served by St. Augustine and his warm adherents as the Methodists are now by their zealous adversaries. It is extremely easy to blacken; and could I give myself leave, I could paint the consequences of your doctrine in at least as dark and odious colors as you could paint mine. 10. The passage of St. Peter (mentioned sect. 12) I still think proves all which I brought it to prove. ‘But you allow’ (sect. 14) ‘that Paul and Barnabas did commit sin; and these were without all controversy fathers in Christ.’ That is not without controversy -- that either Barnabas when he left Paul or Peter when he dissembled at Antioch was at that time a father in Christ in St. John’s sense; though by office undoubtedly they were. Their example, therefore, only proves what no one denies – viz. that if a believer keep not himself, he may sin. Would the conclusion there drawn ‘be made only by a very weak opponent’ You are the man who makes them all, either from these or other premises: for you believe and maintain (1) that all the other Apostles committed sin sometimes; (2) that all the other Christians of the apostolic age sometimes committed sin; (3) that all other Christians in all ages do and will commit sin as long as they live; and (4) that every man must comitt sin, cannot help it, as long as he is in the body. You cannot deny one of these propositions, if you understand your own doctrine. It is you, therefore, who ‘cast dust in people’s eyes,’ if you dissemble your real sentiments. I declare mine with all the plainness I can; that, if I err, I may the sooner be convinced of it. Neither does it appear that St. Paul was ‘an aged father in Christ’ when he had that thorn in the flesh. I doubt whether he was above thirty years of age, fourteen years before he mentioned it to the Corinthians.’ You conclude’ (these are your words) ‘a Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin, as to be free from all possibility of sinning. That this is your meaning is evident from your whole discourse.’ Not so. The contrary is glaringly evident from that whole discourse to which you before referred, as weR as from many parts of this. I conclude just this much, -- While he keepeth himself, a Christian doth not commit sin. 11. With regard to fathers in Christ, before you enter on the subject, you say I ‘set aside the experience of the best Christians.’ I did not tell you so: I say nothing about them. In a sermon of a single sheet (such it is, printed single) I had no room for anything but plain arguments from Scripture. I have somewhat to say, if need should be, from the head of Authority likewise -- yea, and abundantly more than you seem to apprehend. Sed nunc non erat his locus. [‘But now there was no room for them.’] 12. I think section 23 very closely and directly concerns the present subject. For if you have sinful thoughts still, then certainly every thought is not brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. With regard to the 24th, you give one interpretation of those words, Every one that is perfect shall be as his Master; I another. You likewise appeal to the context; so do I. Sed adhuc sub judice lis est. [Horace’s Ars Poetica, 1. 78: ‘But just now the matter is in the judge’s hands.’] But I must observe, whether one interpretation or the other be true, to assert God can or does so renew His children as to save them from all evil tempers has no more alliance with blasphemy than with adultery. You make a little mistake as to section 26. I do not cite ‘is purified’ as St. John’s words; you say (in sect. 27) ‘As He is, so are we,’ refers to our being conformed to His patient longsuffering. It may; but it directly refers to our being made perfect in love. You do not answer or attempt to answer either of the arguments whereby I have proved that the cleansing from all unrighteousness does not mean justification only. Hitherto, therefore, the conclusion stands good -- that it relates chiefly, if not wholly, to sanctification. 13. In your last paragraph you say, ‘You set aside all authority, ancient and modern.’ Sir, who told you so I never did; it never entered my thoughts. Who it was gave you that rule I know not; but my father gave it me thirty years ago (I mean concerning reverence to the ancient Church and our own), and I have endeavored to walk by it to this day. But I try every Church and every doctrine by the Bible. This is the word by which we are to be judged in that day. Oh that we may then give up our account with joy! Whatever farther thoughts you are pleased to communicate will be seriously considered by, reverend dear sir, Your affectionate brother and fellow laborer. To Samuel Furly KINGSWOOD, March 14, 1756. DEAR SAMMY, -- You are sick of two diseases: that affection for a poor silly worm like yourself, which only absence (through the grace of God) will cure [See letters of Feb. 21 and April 16.]; and that evil disease which Marcus Antoninus complains of -- the da . [‘Thirst after books,’ Meditations II. sect. 3. See letter of Nov. 30, 1770.] That you are far gone in the latter plainly appears from your not loving and admiring that masterpiece of reason and religion, the Reflections on the Conduct of Human Life, with Regard to Knowledge and Learning, [Extracts from a work by John Norris, published by Wesley in 1734, 12mo 36 pp. The third edition, issued in 1755, has ‘A Scheme of Books suited to the preceding Reflections’’ Wesley alludes to page 33 of the extract: ‘I now intend to follow the advice of the heathen (Marcus Antoninus), as I remembeh t da ‘ (“Rid thyself of the thirst after books”); and to study nothing at all but what serves to the advancement of piety and a good life.’ See letters of April 16, 1756 and Sept. 28, 1745, sect. 21.] every paragraph of which must stand unshaken (with or without the Bible) till we are no longer mortal. If your French book is The Art of Thinking, the author is a very poor tool. But there is none like Aldrich. [Henry Aldrich (1647-1710), Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, 1689. See Journal iii. 391, 459.] I scarce know one Latin writer who says so much in so few words. Certainly I shall not write much on Metaphysics or Natural Philosophy. My life is too far spent. But if you can tall me of anything (not stuffed with Mathematics) which is worth abridging, well. Hutcheson’s compendium is entitled Synopsis Metaphysicae Ontologiam et Pneumatologiam complectens. It is a masterly thing. I believe there is nothing yet extant in Natural Philosophy like the abridgement of the Philosophical Transactions. But an abridgement of that abridgement would be far better. Fight, Sammy, fight. If you do not conquer soon, probably God may send a French army [See letter of March 1 to James West.] to help you. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Richard Tompson COLEFORD, March 16, 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- My belief in general is this -- that every Christian believer has a divine conviction of his reconciliation with God. The sum of those concessions is, ‘I am inclined to think there may be some exceptions.’ Faith implies both the perceptive faculty itself and the act of perceiving God and the things of God. And the expression ‘seeing God’ may include both, the act and the faculty of seeing Him. Bishop Pearson’s definition [To which he had referred in his letter.] is abundantly too wide for the faith of which we are speaking. Neither does he give that definition either of justifying or saving faith. But if he did, I should prefer the definition of Bishop Paul. A clear conviction of the love of God cannot remain in any who do not walk closely with God. And I know no one person who has lost this without some voluntary defect in his conduct; though perhaps at the time he was not conscious of it, but upon prayer it was revealed to him. Your reasons for concealing your name were good. We cannot too carefully guard against prejudice. You have no need of any excuse at all; for you have done no wrong but rather a pleasure to Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly DUBLIN, Good Friday, April 16, 1756. How going up to town Are you stark, staring mad Will you leap into the fire with your eyes open [See letters of March 14 and Nov. 20.] Keep off. What else have you to do Fly for your life, for your salvation. If you thus tempt the Spirit of God any more who knows what may be the consequence I should not wonder at all to hear you was confined in St. Luke’s Hospital; and then, farewell study! Farewell all hope either of intellectual or moral improvement; for after this poor machine has received a shock of that kind, it is never more capable of close thinking. If you have either sense or religion enough to keep you close to the College, it is well. If not, I see but one possible way to save you from destruction, temporal and eternal. Quit the College at once. Think of it no more, and come away to me. You can take a little advice from me; from other people none at all. You are on the brink of the pit; fly away, or you perish. There is no disagreement at all between the Reflections and the Address to the Clergy. I have followed Mr. Norris’s advice these thirty years, [He read Norris on Christian Prudence to Mrs. Moore on the voyage to Georgia (Journal, i. 125-6). For An Address to the Clergy, see letter of Jan. 7.] and so must every man that is well in his senses. But whether you study more or less does not signify a pin’s point. You are taking all this pains in a sinking ship. Stop the leak, stop the leak, the first thing you do; else what signifies it to adorn the ship As to the qualifications of a gospel minister -- Grace is necessary; learning is expedient. Grace and supernatural gifts are ninety-nine parts in an hundred. Acquired learning may then have its place. -- I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Ebenezer Blackwell DUBLIN, April 19, 1756. DEAR SIR, -- While you in England are under I know not what apprehensions, all here are as safe as if they were already in paradise. We have no fortifying of seaports, no military preparations, but all is in absolute peace and safety. Both high and low seem fully persuaded that the whole talk of an invasion is only a trick to get money. [See letters of Jan. 10 and March 1, 4, and 14.] I dined at Mrs. Moreland’s last week, and promised to drink tea with her this evening. She has been at the preaching several times, and desires much to be remembered to Mrs. Blackwell and you. She seems to have a liking to the gospel. It may sink deeper. There is nothing too hard for God. I hope Mrs. Blackwell and you are improving to the utmost these days of tranquility. I purpose going to Cork directly, and after two or three weeks turning back toward the North of Ireland. If it please God that troublous times come between the design and the execution, I shall go as far as I can go, and no farther. But I take no thought for the morrow. To-day I am determined by His grace to do the work of Him that sent me. I find encouragement so to do; for all the people here are athirst for the word of life. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. Do you at London believe that the danger of an invasion is over To his Wife WAERFORD, May 7, 1756. MY DEAR MOLLY, -- From Portarlington we rode (twenty miles as they call it) in about eight hours to Kilkenny. There our brethren in the Army received us gladly and opened a door which none were able to shut. Yesterday in the afternoon (through heavy rain; but it was nothing to me) we came hither. Here is a poor, shattered Society, who have been for these seven years tearing one anther in pieces. What I shall be able to do with them I know not; but it is enough if I can deliver my own soul. On Monday I hope to be in Clonmell, and on Wednesday evening in Cork. From time to time, my love, you should tell me all you know concerning public affairs; for it is hard to depend on the authority of the newspapers for the truth of anything. If King George recovers, [George II lived till 1760. The future George III came of age on June 4, 1756.] I know there will be a lengthening of our tranquility. If God should take him away, for anything I see yet, I should quit this kingdom as soon as possible. In the meantime let you and I improve to-day. The morrow will take thought for the things of itself. [See letter of April 19.] Sister Cownley [See letter of Jan. 10.] sends her kindest love to you and Jenny. Is there something remarkable in her dream I have heard of several other uncommon notices which have been given to others in this kingdom. But I shall stay till I can see the Persons concerned and like the accounts from their own mouths. I dreamed last night that I was carried to execution and had but a few minutes to live. We had not been talking of anything of the kind over-night. What I gather hence is, While we live, let us live; that if we do not meet again here, we may in a better place -- My dear Molly, adieu! I have now yours of April 29. It is all in all to keep the issues of our heart, and by His strength we are able so to do. Draw us, and we will run after Thee! Pay the printers yourself; that is the sure way, unless Jo. Spencer [See letters of Jan. 7, March 4, and June 18.] gives you his account as I have written. I hope H. Brown [Brown was apparently engaged at the Book-Room.] will do everything you bid him. Else you must send him home. I have wrote to Mr. Blackwell from Dublin. Peace be with your spirit! To Mr. ---- CORK, May 14, 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have consulted the preachers that are with me here, and they have no objection to your proposal; only it might be well if you delayed the putting it in execution till there is another traveling preacher in the Round, because otherwise many of the other Societies will suffer great loss. You should wherever you are take care of one thing: do not puzzle people about the Church. Those that are there, let them continue there, elsee the gain will not countervail the damage. Take care likewise that you do not buy the favor of the world too dear. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To his Wife LIMERICK, June, 18, 1756. MY DEAR LOVE -- At Newmarket on Wednesday night and last night at Ballingarrane our lodging was not very warm or elegant. But I do not perceive that I have taken any cold. Rather I am better than when I set out. A week or two ago I was not very strong; but I have now no reason to complain. I preach no more than twice a day, and not once abroad since my coming to Limerick. Let the wind be east, west, or north, we have rain every day; so that I keep to the Abbey [An old abbey at Limerick which the Society had secured and fitted up as a place of worship. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland i. 50.] whether I will or no. I think the paper was to be 15s. a ream. I shall not be sorry if an hundred people will return the subscription money. Let not one copy unsubscribed for go under fifteen shinings. Many will be glad of them at any price. They may have the picture (and the errata) or let it alone. It is well done. I saw it before I left London. I am afraid there have not copies enough been sent to Ireland. The money remitted from hence at four payments was between fifty and sixty pounds. Brother Atkinson [See letter of Jan. 7.] can early compute how many subscribers this implies. I hear nothing of any books come to Dublin yet. I hope they were directed to Mr. Powell. [Samuel Powell was his Dublin printer. See W.H.S. vi. 90.] ’Tis not unlikely poor Sister Atkinson may talk so. But (unless you heard them with your own ears) do not believe a word of it concerning Jo. Downes or Rob. Windsor. You did well to send G. Whitefield and my brother the Notes. I will trust you; give a copy to any preacher or any other person you judge proper. Pray pay Mr. Wyat and Brother Birket [Birket may be Bowyer, the printer of the Notes.] as soon as you can. The next money should pay our printing debts. If J. Spencer [See letter, May 7.] can spare you for three weeks, go to Bristol by all means. It is an excellent thought. Now, my Molly, overcome evil with good. Indeed, I fear our fleets are bought and sold. Poor King George! where will he find an honest man If I hear of the French landing, or beating our fleet on the 14th of July (the day those sights appeared in the air over Cornwall), I shall endearor to come into England directly; otherwise to go on my way. My brother does not oppose field-preaching in general; but he does not like preaching in Smithfield: though I know not why any should oppose it, unless they are apprehensive of the mob. I am now writing on Original Sin [The Doctrine on Original Sin, a reply to Doctor John Taylor of Norwich, was published in Jan 1757. Wesley decided to write it as early as April 10, 1751. See Journal, iii. 520; Green’s Bibliography, No. 182; and letter of July 3, 1759.]; so the papers came in good time. Jo. Haughton is in Dublin. Michael with his little wit does much good. Watch over Jo. Spencer. It win do him a solid kindness. You may perhaps convince him it is his interest to be honest and to save me all the money he can. Should not one preacher go to Norwich immediately and another to Portsmouth Molly, let us make the best of it. Oh for zeal! I want to be on the full stretch for God! -- My dear Love adieu! Pray put Brother Norton’s [See letter of Sept. 3 to Nicholas Norton, which refers to one from him in July.] into the post. To James Clark CASTLEBAR July 3, 1756. REVEREND SIR, -- I am obliged to you for the openness and candor with which you write, and will endeavor to follow the pattern which you have set me. [I did not know of John Langston’s affair till you gave me an account of it. He is no preacher allowed of by me; I do not believe that God ever called him to it; neither do I approve his conduct with regard to you: I fear he is, or at least was, a real enthusiast. The same character, I fear, may be justly given to poor Mr. Bermingham.] I sent you that sermon with no particular view, but as a testimony of love to a fellow laborer in the gospel. From the text of that sermon I do not infer that Christians should not inquire into each other’s opinions. Indeed, from the text I infer nothing; I use it to illustrate, not to prove. I am very sensible ‘Jehu had more regard to State policy than to religion’ (page 15); and have no objection to the very fair explication you have made of his words. Accordingly I say (page 13), ‘I do not mean what Jehu implied therein, but what a follower of Christ should understand by it when he proposes it to any of his brethren’: of these only I speak. My general proposition, you may please to remember, was this (page 5): ‘All the children of God may unite in love, notwithstanding their differences in opinion or modes of worship.’ From this persuasion, when I meet with any whom I have reason to believe to be children of God, I do not ask of him (never at our first meeting, seldom till we are better acquainted), ‘Do you agree with me in opinion or modes of worship, particularly with regard to Church Government, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper’ I let these stand by till we begin to know and confirm our love to each other. Then may come a more convenient season for controversy. My only question at present is, ‘Is thy heart fight with my heart, &c.’ At present I say, ‘Keep your own opinion’ (page 13); I mine. I do not desire you to dispute these points. Whether we shall dispute them hereafter is another question; perhaps we may, perhaps we may not. This will depend on a great variety of circumstances -- particularly on a probability of success; for I am determined never to dispute at all if I have no hopes of convincing my opponent. As to my own judgment, I still believe ‘the Episcopal form of Church government to be both scriptural and apostolical’: I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the Apostles. But that it is prescribed in Scripture I do not believe. This opinion (which I once heartily espoused) I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read Dr. Stillingfleet’s Irenicon. [See letters of July 16, 1755, and April 10, 1761.] I think he has unanswerably proved that neither Christ or His Apostles prescribed any particular form of Church government, and that the plea for the divine right of Episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive Church. But were it otherwise, I would still call these ‘smaller matters than the love of God and mankind’ (page 18). And could any man answer these questions, -- ‘Dost thou believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, God over all, blessed for evermore’ (which, indeed, no Arian, semi-Arian, or Socinian can do); ‘Is God the center of thy soul Art thou more afraid of offending God than of death or hell’ (page 15) (which no wicked man can possibly do, none that is not a real child of God); -- if, I say, any man could answer these questions in the affirmative, I would gladly give him my hand. This is certainly a principle held by those that are in derision called Methodist, and to whom a Popish priest in Dublin gave the still more unmeaning title of Swaddlers. They all desire to be of a catholic spirit; meaning thereby, not an indifference to all opinions, not an indifference as to modes of worship: this they know to be quite another thing. ‘Love, they judge, alone gives a rifle to this character. Catholic love k a catholic spirit.’ (Page 25.) As to heresy and schism, I cannot find one text in Scripture where they are taken in the modern sense. I remember no one scripture where heresy signifies error in opinion, whether fundamental or not; nor any where schism signifies separation from the Church, either with or without cause. I wish, sir, you would reconsider this point, and review the scriptures where these terms occur. Yet I would take some pains to recover a man from error and reconcile him to our Church: I mean the Church of England; from which I do not separate yet, and probably never shall. The little church, in the vulgar sense, which I occasionally mentioned at Holymount is that wherein I read prayers, preach, and administer the sacrament every Sunday when I am in London. [West Street.] But I would take much more pains to recover a man from sin. A man who lives and dies in error or in dissent from our Church may yet be saved; but a man who lives and dies in sin must perish. O sir, let us bend our main force against this, against all sin, both in ourselves and those that hear us! I would to God we could a~ agree in opinion and outward worship. But if that cannot be, may we not agree in holiness May we not all agree in being holy, as He that has called us is holy in heart and conversation This h the great desire of, reverend sir, Yours &c. PS.--Perhaps I have not spoke distinctly enough on one point. Orthodoxy, I say, or right opinion, is but a slender part of religion at best, and sometimes no part at all. I mean, if a man be a child of God, holy in heart and life, his right opinions are but the small part of his religion: if a man be a child of the devil, his right opinions are no part of religion, they cannot be; for he that does the works of the devil has no religion at all. [This postscript and the lines in brackets on page 181 were not given in the Arminian Magazine, 1779, 598-601. See letter of Sept. 18, sect. 7.] To Thomas Olivers ATHLOE, July 10, 1756. DEAR TOMMY, -- I cannot imagine how a letter of yours written March 9 should come to me on the 9th of July. Certainly you should write to me a little oftener, once a month at the least. Now there are several preachers in town, you should take care to supply Portsmouth, Bedford, Norwich, Leigh, and Canterbury by turns. O Tommy, how precious are these days! We must not always have this sunshine. But make the best of the present calm [See letters of Jan. 10 March 1 and 4, and April 19.]; and then, if a storm comes, you are ready. Your affectionate brother. To Robert Marsden BRISTOL August 31, 1756. A careless reader of the Address may possibly think ‘I make it necessary for a minister to have much learning,’ and thence imagine I act inconsistently, seeing many of our preachers have no learning at all. But the answer is easy. (1) I do not-make any learning necessary even for a minister (the minister of a parish, who, as such, undertakes single to guide and feed, to instruct, govern that whole flock) but the knowledge of the Scriptures; although many branches of learning are highly expedient for him. (2) These preachers are not ministers: none of them undertakes single the care of an whole flock, but ten, twenty, or thirty, one following and helping another; and all, under the direction of my brother and me, undertake jointly what (as I judge) no man in England is equal to alone. Fight your way through all. God is on your side; and what then can man do to you Make known all your wants to Him, and you shall have the petitions you ask of Him. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Rob. Marsden At Mr. Frith’s, Grocer, In Sheffield. To Mr. ---- [September 3, 1756.] You give five reasons why the Rev. Mr. P.---- will come no more amongst us: (1) ‘Because we despise the ministers of the Church of England.’ This I flatly deny. I am answering letters this very post which bitterly blame me for just the contrary. (2) ‘Because so much backbiting and err-speaking is suffered amongst our people.’ It is not suffered: all possible means are used both to prevent and remove it. (3) ‘Because I, who have written so much against hoarding up money, have put out seven hundred pounds to interest.’ I never put sixpence out to interest since I was born; nor had I ever an hundred pounds together my own since I came into the world. (4) ‘Because our lay preachers have told many stories of my brother and me.’ If they did, I am sorry for them; when I hear the particulars, I can answer, and perhaps make those ashamed who believed them. (5) ‘Because we did not help a friend in digress.’ We did help him as far as we were able. ‘But we might have made his case known to Mr. G----, Lady Huntingdon, &c.’ So we did more than once; but we could not pull money from them whether they would or no. Therefore these reasons are of no weight. You conclude with praying that God would remove pride and malice from amongst us. Of pride I have too much; of malice I have none: however, the prayer is good, and I thank you for it. To Nicholas Norton KINGSWOOD, September 3, 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In your letters of July, and August 27, you charge me (1) with self-inconsistency in tolerating lay-preaching, and not lay-administering; and (2) with showing a spirit of persecution in denying my brethren the liberty of acting (as well as thinking) according to their own conscience. As to the former charge, the fact alleged is true: I do tolerate unordained persons in preaching the gospel, whereas I do not tolerate them in administrating the sacraments. But it is not true I am inconsistent in so doing. I act on one and the same principle still. My principle (frequently declared) is thus: ‘I submit to every ordinance of man wherever I do not conceive there is an absolute necessity for acting contrary to it.’ Consistently with this I do tolerate lay-preaching, because I conceive there is an absolute necessity for it; inasmuch as, were it not, thousands of souls would perish everlastingly. Yet I do not tolerate lay-administering, because I do not conceive there is any such necessity for it; seeing it does not appear that, if this is not all, one soul will perish for want of it. I am therefore so far from self-inconsistency in tolerating the former and not the latter, that I readily should be self-inconsistent were I to act otherwise: were I to break, or allow others to break, an ordinance of man, where there is no necessity, I should contradict my own principle as much as if I did not allow it to be broken where there is. As to the latter change, that ‘I deny my brethren the liberty of acting according to their own conscious, and therefore show a spirit of persecution,’ I again allow for the fact, but deny the consequence. I mean, I allow the fact thus far: some of our preachers who are not ordained think it quite right to administer the Lord’s supper, and believe it would do much good. I think it quite wrong, and belive it would do much hurt. Hereupon I say; ‘I have no right over your conscience , nor over mine; therefore both you and I must follow our own conscience. You believe it is a duty to administer; do so, and therein follow your own conscience. I verily believe it is a sin, which consequentially I dare not tolerate; and herein I follow mine.’ Yet this is no persecution, were I to separate from our Society (which I have not done yet) those who practice what I believe is contrary to the Word and destructive of the work of God. Last week I had a long letter from William Darney, [See letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] who likewise wonders we should be of so persecuting a spirit as to deny him the liberty of thinking and speaking in our Societies according to his own conscience. How will you answer him, and excuse Ted and Charles Perronet from the charge of persecuting their brother They then said (as did all), ‘Let him preach Calvinism elsewhere (we have no fight to hinder him); but not among us, because we are persuaded it would do much hurt.’ Take the answer back: if it was good in one case, so was it in the other likewise. If John Jones, [To assist Wesley in administering the Lord’s Supper, John Jones in 1764 was ordained by Erasmus, Bishop of Arcadia in Crete, and afterwards by the Bishop of London. See Wesley’s Veterans vi. 32; and letter of March 1, 1764.] my brothel or any other preacher has preached sharply on this head, I certainly am a stranger to it, and therefore not answerable for it. I persecute no man on this account, or any other; and yet I cannot consent that any of our lay preachers should either preach predestination or administer the sacraments to those who are under my care. But is it immoral It is immoral to think, speak, or act contrary to the love which ‘thinketh no evil.’ Now, of this both Charles and you are palpably guilty in thinking the body of the Methodists (either preachers or people) are fallen from the simplicity and uprightness of the gospel. Whatever seven or eight of the preachers may be who have warmly debated this point with you, whatever two or three hundred of the people may be who have been hurt by the disputants on either side, the main body of the Methodists never were more simple or upright than at this day. Therefore your thinking so ill of both preachers and people is a manifest breach of the law of love. And whoever is or is not fallen from the spirit of the gospel, it is certain you are for one. But after all this pother, what is the persecution concerning which you make so loud an outcry Why, some of our lay preachers did what we thought was both ill in itself and likely to do much harm among the people. Of this, complaint was made to me. And what did I do Did I expel those preachers out of our community Not so. Did I forbid them to preach any more Not so neither. Did I degrade them from itinerant to local preachers Net so much as this. I told them I thought the thing was wrong and would do hurt, and therefore advised them to do it no more. Certainly this is a new species of persecution! I cannot but think you might as well call it murder. ‘Oh, but you would have done more if they had persisted.’ That is, I would have persecuted. Whatever I would have done if things had been which were not, I have not done it yet. I have used no arbitrary, no coercive power -- nay, no power at all in this matter but that of love. I have given no man an ill word or an ill look on the account. I have not withdrawn my confidence or my conversation from any. I have dealt with every man as, if the tables were turned, I should desire he would deal with me. ‘But I would not dispute with you.’ Not for a time; not till your spirits were a little evaporated. But you argue too fast when you infer from hence that I myself cannot confute your favorite notion. You are not sure of that. But, come what will, you are resolved to try. Well, then, move fair and softly. You and Charles Perronet aver that you have a right to administer the Lord’s Supper, and that therefore you ought to administer it among the Methodists or to separate from them. If the assertion were proved, I should deny the consequence. But first, I desire proof of the assertion. Let him or you give the proof, only without any flourish or rhetorical amplifications (which exceedingly abound in all C. P.’s letters to my brother on this subject), and I will give you an answer, though we are not on even ground; for you have no business, and I have no leisure. And if you continue instant in prayer, particulady for a lowly and teachable spirit, I do not despair of your finding both that life and love which you have not lately enjoyed. -- I am Your affectionate brother I shall add a few remarks on C. P.’s letters, though the substance of them is contained in yours. ‘Some of the fundamentals of your constitution are wrong’ Our fundamentals are laid down in the Plain Account. Which of these are wrong, and yet ‘borne by you for eight years’ ‘Oh inconsistency! Oh excuseless tyranny!’ &c. Flourish. Set that down for nothing. ‘These very men who themselves break the laws of the State deny us liberty of conscience.’ In plain terms, These very men who preach the gospel contrary to law do not approve of our administering the sacraments. They do not. They greatly disapprove of it; and that without any inconsistency at all, because the case is not parallel. The one is absolutely necessary to the salvation of thousands; the other not. ‘Your brother has to the last refused me liberty of conscience.’ Under what penalty This heavy charge amounts in reality to this: I still think you have no fight to administer the Lord’s Supper; in consequence of which I advise you not to do it. Can I do less or have I done more ‘I wish I could say that anything of wicked lewdness would have met with the same opposition’! Is not this pretty, Brother Norton Do you subscribe to this I think you know us better. Do we not so much as advise our preachers and people to abstain from wicked lewdness ‘Can it be denied that known wantonness, that deceit and knavery have been among us, and that little notice has been taken of it ‘I totally deny it. Much notice has been taken, by me in particular, of what evil has been done by any preacher. I have constantly examined all the parties, and have in every instance so far animadverted on the delinquent as justice joined with mercy required. ‘My crime is that I would worship Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me. Let God and man be witness that we part for this and nothing else.’ Namely, because I am of a different judgment, and cannot approve of what I judge to be wrong. So says W. Darney, ‘My crime is that I would preach Christ as His word, His Spirit, and my own conscience teach me.’ But he has fir more ground for complaint than you: for we ourselves separated him from us; whereas you call God and man to witness that you separate yourself for this and nothing else – that I cannot approve what I judge to be wrong. But this is not all your crime. You have also drank into the spirit of James Wheatley; and you have adopted his very language: you are become, like him, an accuser of your brethren. O Charles, it was time you should separate from them; for your heart was gone from them before! ‘Whatever motives of another kind might be blended with those that really belonged to your conscience, in your rejecting what I laid before you’ (not consenting that I should administer), ‘God knows.’ I know of none. I have no other motive of acting than the glory of God and the good of souls. Here again you are become not only an accuser but a false accuser and an unjust judge of your brother. ‘You grant more to others. To my certain knowledge both of you have been told for more than two years that James Morris [James Morris left Wesley in 1756. See Myles’s Chronological History; and for his share in the conversion of Toplady this year, Journal, v. 327-8n; Wright’s Life of Toplady, p. 18.] administered.’ You may as well say, ‘To my certain knowledge black is white.’ I was never told it to this, unless by C. Perronet. But whether he does or no, it is nothing to me. He never was in close connexion with us; he is now in no connexion at all. We have totally renounced him. So here is another instance of accusing, yea falsely accusing, your brethren. ‘A man may be circumcised, count his beads, or adore a cross, and still be a member of your society.’ That is, may be Papist or a Jew. I know no such instance in England or Ireland. We have many members in Ireland that were Papists, but not one that continues so. ‘Other reasons than those that could possibly relate to conscience have borne too much share in the late affair.’ I say as before, I am not conscious of it. And who art thou that judgest another’s servant ‘You have allowed that we are called to this by the Holy Ghost and God was with us in what we did.’ I allow! No more than I allow you to be archangel. I allow neither the one nor the other. I believe you felt joy or power, so called; but I do not know that it was from God, and I said, ‘Supposing you were called of God to this’ (which is exceeding far from granting it), ‘still you ought to waive that privilege out of tenderness to your brethren.’ I do not grant either that God calls you to do this or that He ever blessed you in it. That Methodism (so called) -- that is, vital religion, loving faith, in the hearts of those who are vulgarly termed Methodists -- should seem to you, sitting snug at London or Bristol, to be ‘very much in its decline,’ is no wonder. But I, who see things in every place with my own eyes, know it is very much in its increase. Many are daily added to them that believe; many more are continually awakened: so that the Societies from east to west, from north to south, in both kingdoms, increase in grace as well as number. ‘I wish the argument’ (which is no argument at all, as being grounded on a palpable mistake) ‘Be not too home to bear a dispute among honest men.’ Very well! Another clear proof of the love that thinketh no evil. ‘If you had consented.’ This is the very point. I could not consent (which implies some degree of approbation) to what I judged to be totally wrong. Yet nether did I persecute. I inflicted no penalty of any kind on those whom I judged to have done wrong; because I believed they acted from conscience though erroneous: I only mildly advised them to desist. ‘I never will be again united with any who will not let others choose their own religion.’ Then you will never unite with any but knaves; for no honest men who preside over any community will let the members of it do what they judge to be wrong and hurtful to that community without endeavoring to prevent it, at least, by mild, loving friendly advice. ‘I go away, not of choice, but of necessity.’ So you must think till God opens your eyes. ‘Your kindness at our first acquaintance, the Providence that brought us together, and the keeping up that acquaintance after so many snares of the enemy to destroy it, make it sacred as well as dear to me.’ And yet for such a reason as this, -- because I advise you to abstain from doing what I think you have no fight to do, what I judge to be both evil in itself and productive of ill consequences, --for this reason you burst all the bonds asunder and cast away the cords from you. The Lord God enlighten the eyes of your understanding and soften and enlarge your heart! To Samuel Walker KINGSWOOD, September 3. 1756. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I have one point in view – to promote, so far as I am able, vital practical religion; and by the grace of God to beget, preserve, and increase the life of God in the souls of men. On this single principle I have hitherto proceeded, and taken no step but in subserviency to it. With this view, when I found it to be absolutely necessary for the continuance of the work which God had begun in many souls (which their regular pastors generally used all possible means to destroy), I permitted several of their brethren, whom I believe God called thereto and qualified for the work, to comfort, exhort and instruct those who were athirst for God or who walked in the light of his countenance. But, as the persons so qualified were few and those who waned their assistance very many, it followed it followed that most these were obliged to travel continually from place to place; and this occasion several regulations from time to time, which were chiefly made in our conferences. So great a blessing has from the beginning attended the labors of the itinerants, that we have been more and more convinced every year of the more than lawfulness of this proceeding, And the inconvenience, most of which we foresaw from the very first, have been both fewer and smaller than were expected. Rarely two in one year out of the whole number of preachers have either separated themselves or been rejected by us. A great majority have all along behaved as becometh the gospel of Christ, and I am clearly persuaded still desire nothing more than to spend and be spent for their brethren. But the question is, ‘How may these be settled on such a footing as one would wish they might be after my death ‘It is a weighty point, and has taken up many of my thoughts for several years [The thoughts did not take practical shape till 1784, when the Deed of Declaration was executed. See letter of July 23, 1784.]; but I know nothing yet. The steps I am now to take are plain. I see broad light shining upon them. But the other part of the prospect I cannot see: clouds and darkness rest upon it. Your general advice on this head to follow my own conscience, without any regard to consequences, or prudence, so called is unquestionably fight; and it is a rule which I have closely followed for many years, and hope to follow to my life’s end. The first of your particular advices is, ‘to keep in full view the interests of Christ’s Church in general and of practical religion; not considering the Church of England or the cause of Methodism but as subordinate thereto.’ This advice I have punctually observed from the beginning, as well as at our late Conference. You advise, secondly, ‘to keep in view also the unlawfulness of a separation from the Church of England.’ To this likewise I agree. It cannot be lawful to separate from it, unless it be unlawful to continue in it. You advise, thirdly, ‘fully to declare myself on this head, and to suffer no dispute concerning it.’ The very same thing I wrote to my brother from Ireland; and we have declared ourselves without reserve. Nor was there any at the Conference otherwise minded. Those who would have aimed at dispute had left us before. Fourthly, all our preachers as well as ourselves purpose to continue in the Church of England. Nor did they ever before so freely and explicitly declare themselves on this subject. Your last advice is, ‘That as many of our preachers as are fit for it be ordained, and that the others be fixed to certain Societies, not as preachers, but as readers or inspectors.’ You oblige me by speaking your sentiments so plainly: with the same plainness I will answer. So far as I know myself, I have no more concern for the reputation of Methodism or my own than for the reputation of Prester John. I have the same point in view as when I set out -- the promoting as I am able vital, practical religion; and in all our discipline I still aim at the continuance of the work which God has already begun in so many souls. With this view, and this only, I permitted those whom I believed God had called thereto to comfort, exhort, and instruct their brethren. And if this end can be better answered some other way, I shall subscribe to it without dray. But is that which you propose a better way This should be coolly and calmly considered. If I mistake not, there are now in the county of Cornwall about four-and-thirty of these little Societies, part of whom now experience the love of God, part are more or less earnestly seeking it. Four preachers-- Peter Jaco, Thomas Johnson, W. Crabb, and William Alwood [Peter Jaco was a Cornishman who became one of Wesley’s preachers in 1754; his portrait and autobiography are given in the first volume of the Arminian Mag. 1778, p. 541 (See Wesley’s Veterans, ii. 7-17). Thomas Johnson was born at Wakefield in 1720, became an itinerant in 1752, and died in 1797; he was acceptable and useful wherever he went (Atmore’s Memorial, pp 220-3). William Crabb was amiable and devoted; but he suffered much from weakness, and died about 1764 (ibid. p. 94). William Alwood was seized by the press-gang at Stockton in 1759 (Journal, iv. 328-9): see W.H.S. iii. 182, and letter of March 6, 1759, to him.] -- design for the ensuing year, partly to call other sinners to repentance, but crafty to feed and guide those few feeble sheep, to forward them (as of the ability which God giveth) in vital, practical religion. Now, suppose we can effect that Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson be ordained and settled in the curacies of Buryan and St. Just, and suppose William Crabb and William Alwood fix at Launceston and Plymouth Dock as readers and exhorters, will this answer the end which I have in view so well as traveling through the county It will not answer it so well even with regard to those Societies with whom Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson have settled. Be their talents ever so great, they will ere long grow dead themselves, and so will most of those that hear them. I know, were I myself to preach one whole year in one place, I should preach both myself and most of my congregation asleep. Nor can I believe it was ever the will of our Lord that any congregation should have one teacher only. We have found by long and constant experience that a frequent change of teachers is best. This preacher has one talent, that another. No one whom I ever yet knew has all the talents which are needful for beginning continuing and perfecting the work of grace in an whole congregation. But suppose this would better answer the end with regard to those two Societies, would it answer in those where W. Alwood and W. Crabb were settled as inspectors or readers First, who shall feed them with the milk of the Word The ministers of their parishes Alas, they cannot! they themselves neither know, nor live, nor teach the gospel. These readers Can, then, either they or I or you always find something to read to our congregation which will be as exactly adapted to their wants and as much blessed to them as our preaching And here is another difficulty still: what authority have I to forbid their doing what I believe God has called them to do I apprehend, indeed, that there ought, if possible, to be both an outward and inward call to this work; yet, if one of the two be supposed wanting I had rather want the outward than the inward call. I rejoice that I am called to preach the gospel both by God and man. Yet I acknowledge I had rather have the divine without the human than the human without the divine call. But, waiving this, and supporting these four Societies to be better provided for than they were before, what becomes of the other thirty Will they prosper as well when they are left as sheep without a shepherd The experiment has been tried again and again, and always with the same event: even the strong in faith grew weak and faint; many of the weak made shipwreck of the faith; the awakened fell asleep; sinners, changed for a while, returned as a dog to the vomit. And so, by our lack of service, many of the souls perished for whom Christ died. Now, had we willingly withdrawn our service from them by voluntarily settling in one place, what account of this could we have given to the great Shepherd of all our souls I cannot therefore see how any of those four preachers or any others in like circumstances can ever, while they have health and strength, ordained or unordained, fix in one place, without a grievous wound to their own conscience and damage to the general work of God. Yet I trust I am open to conviction; and your farther thoughts on this or any subject will be always acceptable to, reverend and dear sir, Your very affectionate brother and fellow laborer. To the Monthly Reviewers LONDON, September 9, 1756. GENTLEMEN, -- For a considerable time I have had a desire to trouble you with a few fines; but have been prevented, partly by a variety of other business, partly by the small probability of your impartially considering what was said. I will, however make the trial. If you can read candidly, well; if not, it is but a little labor lost. The question I would propose is this: Is it prudent, is it just, is it humane, to jumble whole bodies of people together and condemn them by the lump Is it not a maxim now almost universally received that there are good and bad in every society Why, then, do you continually jumble together and condemn by the lump the whole body of people called Methodists Is it prudent (just to touch even on so low a consideration) to be constantly insulting and provoking those who do you no wrong and had far rather be your friends than your enemies Is it consistent with humanity to strike again one who gives no provocation and makes no resistance Is it common justice to treat with such contempt as you have done in the last month’s Review those who are by no means contemptible writers Be persuaded, gentlemen, to give yourselves the pains of reading either Mr. Herbert’s ‘Providence,’ [Wesley was familiar with Herbert, six of whose poems he had turned into hymns for his Hymn-Book published in Charlestown: O sacred Providence, who from end to end, Strongly and sweetly movest! shall I write, And not of Thee, through whom my fingers bend, To hold my quill Shall they not do Thee right (The Temple)] or the verses which Norris entitles ‘The Meditation’ [John Norris (1657-1711), Rector of Bemerton, English Platonist and poet, an idealist of the purest type, sustained by the loftiest inspiration. Professor Sorley says (Cambridge History of English Literature, viii. 348) that ‘he was the only English writer of note who adopted the views of Malebranche. He had thought out -- one may even say he had lived -- the theory for himself.’ Mr. Osmond thinks ‘The Meditation,’ ‘though perhaps a better piece of work technically, is more morbid and low-toned than “The Prophet”’ (Mystical Poets of the English Church, p. 228). See letter of March 14.]; and you will find them scarce inferior either in sense or language to most compositions of the present age. To speak more freely still: where is the justice of coupling the hymns of Methodists and Moravians together Lay prejudice aside, and read with candor but the very first hymn in our first Hymn-Book [Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1739. These lines are from the opening poem, ‘Eupolis Hymn to the Creator,’ by Samuel Wesley, Rector of Epworth.]; and then say whether your prose is not as nearly allied to John Bunyan’s as our verse to Count Zinzendorf’s. As probably you have never seen the books which you condemn, I will transcribe a few lines:- Thee, when morning greets the skies With rosy cheeks and humid eyes; Thee when sweet declining day Sinks in purple waves away; Thee will I sing, O Parent Jove, And teach the world to praise and love. Yonder azure vault on high, Yonder blue, low, liquid sky, Earth, on its firm basis placed, And with circling waves embraced, All Creating Power confer, All their mighty Maker bless. Thou shak’st all nature with Thy nod; Sea, earth, and air confess the God: Yet does Thy powerful hand sustain Both earth and heaven, both firm and main. The feathered souls that swim the air, And bathe in liquid ether there; The lark, precentor of their choir, Leading them higher still and higher, Listen and learn; the angelic notes Repeating in their warbling throats: And, ere to soft repose they go, Teach them to their lords below. On the green turf, their mossy nest, The evening anthem swells their breast. Thus, like Thy golden chain from high, Thy praise unites the earth and sky. O ye nurses of soft dreams, Reedy brooks, and winding streams; Or murmuring o’er the pebbles sheen, Or sliding through the meadows green, Or where through matted sedge you creep, Traveling to your parent deep; Sound His praise by whom you rose, That Sea which neither ebs nor flows. O ye immortal woods and groves, Which the enamored student loves; Beneath whose venerable shade, For thought and friendly converse made, Famed Hecadem, old hero, lies, Whose shrine is shaded from the skies And, through the gloom of silent night, Projects from far its trembling light; You, whose roots descend as low As high in air your branches grow, Your leafy arms to heaven extend, Bend your heads, in homage bend; Cedars and pines that wave above, And the oak beloved of Jove! Now, gentlemen, can you say, between God and your own souls, that these verses deserve the treatment you have given them I think you cannot. You are men of more understanding. You know they are not contemptible. If any of you will strike a real blot, if you will point out even in public (though that is not the most obliging way) anything justly reprovable in our writings, probably we shall acknowledge and correct what is amiss -- at least, we shall not blame you. But every impartial man must blame that method of proceeding which neither consists with justice nor humanity. Perhaps you may say you have been provoked. By whom ‘By Mr. Romaine.’ I answer, I am not Mr. Romaine [William Romaine (1714-95) was appointed lecturer at St. Dunstan’s-in-the-West in 1749, assistant morning preacher at St. George’, Hanover Square, 1750-6, Curate of St Olave’s, Southwark, 1756-9; Rector of St. Anne’s Blackfriars, 1766-95. He was a frequent visitor at Benjamin Ingham’s and one of the leading Calvinistic clergy of his time.]; neither am I accountable for his behavior. And what equity is this One man has offended you: therefore you fall upon another. Will it excuse you to say, ‘But he is called by the same name’ especially when neither is this his own name, but a term of derision. Gentlemen, do to others as you would have them do to you: then you will no more injure one who never offended you (unless this offend you, that he does ready believe Jesus Christ to be God over all, blessed for ever); then you will not return hatred for goodwill, even to so insignificant a person as JOHN WESLEY. To Mrs. Hall LONDON, September 15, 1756. DEAR SISTER, -- In what path it is best for us to tread God knows better than man. And we are well assured He orders all things for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Probably He withheld you from prosperity to save you from pride; certainly to rescue you from your own will, and from that legion of foolish and hurtful desires which so naturally attend abundance. Be good and do good to the utmost of your present power, and then happy are you. I have ordered Betty Duchesne [Wesley buried Elizabeth Duchesne on Dec. 22, 1776. In the Journal, vi. 135, he describes her as ‘a person eminently upright of heart, yet for many years a child of labor and sorrow. For near forty years she was zealous of good works, and at length shortened her days by laboring for the poor beyond her strength.’ Charles Wesley break-fasted with her on Feb. 15, 1759: see his Journal, ii. 259; and letter of Oct. 27, 1758.] to get the things you spoke of, which probably by this time she has done. Therefore you need not delay your return to London. I purposed to have come through Salisbury, but I was so ill [‘For a few days,’ says Wesley (Journal, iv. 186, ‘I was laid up with a flux; but on Sunday, Sept. 5, I crept out again, and preached at Kingswood in the morning and Stokes Croft in the afternoon. Monday, 6, I set out in the machine, and on Tuesday evening came to London.’] that it was judged not safe for me to ride. O make the best of a few days. -- I am Your affectionate friend and Brother. To James Clark LONDON, September 18, 1756. REVEREND SIR, -- Yesterday I received your favor of July 9. As you therein speak freely and openly, I will endeavor to do the same, at which I am persuaded you will not be displeased. 1. Of the words imputed to Mr. Langston I said nothing because he denied the charge, and I had not the opportunity of having the accuser and the accused face to face. 2. That there are enthusiasts among the Methodists I doubt not, and among most other people under heaven; but that they are made such by our doctrine and discipline still remains to be proved. If they are in such spite of our doctrine and discipline, their madness will not be laid to our charge. I know nothing of the anonymous pamphlet on Inspiration. [In his second letter Clark refers to ‘a pamphlet wrote by an anonymous author of your Society, wherein he made a collection all the texts of The New Testament where there is any mention of the Spirit or its influences.] How does it appear to be wrote by one of my disciples Be it good bad or indifferent, I am not concerned or any way accountable for it. 3. I believe several who are not episcopally ordained are nevertheless called of God to preach the gospel. Yet I have no exception to the Twenty-third Article, though I judge there are exempt cases. That the seven deacons were outwardly ordained even to that low office cannot be denied; but when Paul and Barnabas were separated from the work to which they were called, this was not ordaining them. St. Paul was ordained long before, and that was not by man or men. It was inducting him into the providence for which our Lord had appointed him from the beginning. For this end the prophets and teachers fasted and prayed and laid their hand upon them – a rite which was used, not in ordination only, but in blessing many other occasions. 4. Concerning diocesan Episcopacy, there are several questions which I should be glad to have answered: as (1) Where is it prescribed in Scripture (2) How does it appear that the Apostles settled it in all the Churches which they planted (3) How does it appear they settled it in any so as to make it of perpetual obligation It is allowed that Christ and His Apostles settled the Church under some form of government. But (i) Did they put all Churches under the same precise form If they did, (ii) Can you prove this to be the precise form and the very same which now obtains in England 5. How Phavorinus [Favorinus, so called from Favera, his birthplace, was a Benedictine, who in 1512 became librarian to the future Leo X. He was made Bishop of Nuceria in 1514, and died in 1537. He compiled a Greek Lexicon.] or many more may define heresy or schism I am not concerned to know. I well know heresy is vulgarly defined ‘a false opinion touching some necessary article of faith, and schism a causeless separation from a true Church.’ But I keep to my Bible, as our Church in her Sixth Article teaches me; therefore I cannot take schism for a separation from a Church, because I cannot find it so taken in Scripture. The first time I meet the term there is 1 Corinthians i. 10: I meet with it again, chap. xi. 18. But it is plain in both places by schism is meant not any separation from the Church but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one Church, notwithstanding then strife and contention; there was no separation of one part from the other with regard to external communion. It is in the same sense the word is used chap. xii. 25. And these are the only places in the New Testament where the term occurs. Therefore the indulging any unkind temper towards our fellow Christians is the true scriptural schism. Indeed, both heresy and schism (which are works of the flesh, and consequently damnable if not repented) are here mentioned by the Apostle in very near the same sense; unless by schisms be meant rather those inward animosity which occasioned heresies -- that is, outward divisions and parties. So that while one said, ‘I am Paul; another, I am of Apollos,’ this implied both heresy and schism: so wonderfully have latter ages distorted the words ‘heresies’ and ‘schisms’ from their scriptural meaning! Heresy is not in all the Bible taken for an error in fundamentals, nor in anything ere; nor schism for any separation from the communion of others. Therefore heresy and schism in the modern sense of the words are sins that the Scriptures know nothing of. 6. But though I aver this, am I quite indifferent to any man’s principles in religion Far from it; as I have declared again and again, in the very sermon under present consideration, in the Character of a Methodist, in the Plain Account, and twenty tracts besides, I have written severally against Deists, Papists, Mystics, &c. An odd way to ingratiate myself with them, to strike at the apple of their eye! [The version followed here and in the other letter to Clark is that which appears in Montanus Redivivus. Compare sect. 6 with that in Works, xiii. 214-15.] Nevertheless in all things indifferent (but not at the expense of truth) I rejoice to please all men for their good to edification, if happily I may gain the more proselytes to genuine scriptural Christianity, if I may prevail on the more to love God and their neighbor and to walk as Christ walked. So far as I find them obstructive of these, I oppose opinions with my might; though even then rather by guarding those that are free than by disputing with those that are deeply infected: I need not dispute with many of them to know there is no probability of success or of convincing them. A thousand times I have found my father’s word true: ‘You may have peace with the Dissenters, if you do not so humor them as to dispute with them; if you do, they will outface and outlung you, and at the end you will be just where you were in the beginning.’ I have now, sir, humored you so as to dispute a little with you. But with what probability of success Suppose you have a single eye in this debate; suppose you aim, not at victory, but at the truth; yet what man of threescore (unless perchance one in an age) was ever convinced Is not an cid man’s motto, Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris [‘I will not be persuaded, even though you should convince me.’] When we are past middle age, do we not find a kind of stiffness and inflexibility stealing upon the mind as well as on the body And does not this bar the gate against all conviction even before the eye of the soul grows dim, and so less and less capable of diving things which we are not already well acquainted with! 7. Yet on one point I must add a few words, because it is of the last importance. I said orthodoxy, or right opinion, [See letter of Nov. 26, 1762, to Dr. Warburton.] was never more than a slender part of religion, and sometimes no part at all; and this I explained thus: ‘In a child of God it is but a slender part, in a child of the devil it is no part at all of religion.’ The religion of a child of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Now, if orthodoxy be any part of this (which in itself might admit of a question), it is certainly a very slender part; though it is a considerable help of love, peace, and joy. Religion, in other words, is the love of God and man, producing all holiness of conversation. Now, are right opinions any more than a slender part (if they be so much) of this Once more: religion is the mind that was in Christ and walking as Christ walked. Now, how slender a part of this are opinions, how right soever! By a child of the devil I mean one that neither loves, fears, or serves God, and has no true religion at all. But it is certain such a man may be still orthodox may entertain right opinions; and yet it is equally certain thee are no parts of religion in him that has no religion at all. Permit me, sir, to speak exceeding plainly. Are you not an orthodox man Perhaps there is none more so in the diocese. Yet possibly you may have no religion at all. If it be true that you frequently drink to execs, you may have orthodoxy, but you can have no religion. If, when you are in a passion, you call your brother ‘Thou fool,’ you have no religion at all. If you then even curse and swear by taking God’s name in vain, you can have no other religion but orthodoxy; a religion of which the devil and his angels have as much as you. [Clark replied that he could prove the reports to be false.] O sir, what an idle thing it is for you to dispute about lay preaches! Is not a lay preacher preferable to a drunken preacher, to a cursing, swearing preacher ‘To the ungody saith God, Why takest thou My covenant in thy mouth, whereas thou hatest to be reformed, and castest My words behind thee ‘In tender compassionI speak this. May God apply it to your heart! And then you will not receive this as an affront but as the truest instance of brotherly love from, reverend sir, Yours, &c. To the Monthly Reviewers LONDON, October 5, 1756. Really, gentlemen, you do me too much honor. I could scarce expect so favorable a regard from those who are professed admirers of Mr. Aaron Hill’s verse and Mr. Caleb Flemings prose. Nevertheless I cannot but observe a few small mistakes in the eight lines with which you favor me. You say, ‘We suppose the specimen of Mr. Wesley’s Hymns’ (the false spelling is of little consequence) ‘was sent us for this purpose’ – namely to publish. Truly it was not: it never entered my thought; as, I apprehend, may appear from: the whole tenor of the letter wherein those lines were inserted. ‘And if the Moravians please to select a like sample of what has been done by them, they may expect from us the same justice.’ [See letters of Oct. 24, 1755, and Sept. 9, 1756.] Another little mistake: those lines are not selected, but are found in the very first hymn (as I observed in my last) that occurs in the first verses which my brother and I have ever published. ‘We have received a letter complaining of our having jumbled the poetry of the Methodists and Moravians in an indiscriminate censure.’ Not so. The Chief thing complained of was, (1) Your ‘jumbling whole bodies of people together and of condemning them by the lump without any regard either to prudence, justice or humanity.’ (2).Your ‘treating with such contempt those who by no means contemptible writers – Mr. Norris and Mr. Herbert.’ The last and least thing was your ‘coupling the hymns of Moravians and Methodists together.’ It was here I added, ‘As probably you have a never few seen the books which you condemn, I will transcribe a few lines’; but neither did I give the least intimation of ‘appealing hereby to the public in proof of our superiority over the Moravians.’ This is another mistake. At first I was a little inclined to fear a want of integrity had occasioned this misrepresentation; but, upon reflection, I would put a milder construction upon it, and only impute it to want of understanding. Even bodies of men do not see all things; and are then especially liable to err, when they imagine themselves hugely superior to their opponents, and so pronounce ex cathedra. Another instance of this is just now before me. A week or two ago one put a tract into my hands in which I could discern nothing of the Christian gentleman, or scholar, but much of low, dull, ill-natured scurrility and blasphemy. How was I surprised when I read in your three hundred and fifteenth page, ‘We have read this little piece with great pleasure’! when I found you so smitten with the author’s ‘spirit, sense, and freedom,’ his ‘smart animadversions’ and ‘becoming severity’! O gentlemen! do not you speak too plain Do not you discover too much at once especially when you so keenly ridicule Mr. Pike’s supposition [See reference to Samuel Pike’s Philosopha Sacra in Journal, iv. 146-7. 190. Pike (1717 - 1773) adopted the views of Sandeman; he became an Independent minister.] that the Son and Spirit are truly divine May I ask, If the Son of God is not truly divine, is He divine at all Is He a little God, or no God at all If no God at all, how came He to say, ‘I and the Father are one’ Did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expression which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were by aft that heard Jesus speak And did He ever attempt to undeceive them Be pleased, then, to let me know, if He was not God, how do you clear Him from being the vilest of men -- I am, gentlemen, Your well-wisher, though not admirer. To James Hervey October 15, 1756. DEAR SIR, -- A considerable time since, I sent you a few hasty thoughts which occurred to me on reading the Dialogues between Theton and Aspasio. I have not been favored with any answer. Yet upon another and a more careful perusal of them, I could not but set down some obvious reflections, which I would rather have communicated before these Dialogues were published. In the First Dialogue there are several just and strong observations, which may be of use to every serious reader. In the Second, is not the description often too labored, the language too stiff and affected Yet the reflections on the creation, in the thirty-first and following pages, make abundant amends for this. (I cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland.) Is justification more or less than God’s pardoning and accepting a sinner through the merits of Christ That God herein ‘reckons the righteousness and obedience which Christ performed as our own’ (page 39) I allow; if by that ambiguous expression you mean only, as you here explain it yourself, ‘They are as effectual for obtaining our salvation as if they were our own personal qualifications’ (page 41). ‘We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled, as repenting criminals at Christ’s feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on His merits, and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immortality’ (page 43). Then, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of the immortal souls which He has purchased with His blood, do not dispute for that particular phrase ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ.’ It is not scriptural; it is not necessary. Men who scruple to use, men who never heard, the expression, may yet ‘be humbled, as repenting criminals at His feet, and rely as devoted pensioners on His merits.’ But it has done immense hurt. I have had abundant proof that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of ‘furthering men’s progress in vital holiness,’ has made them satisfied without any holiness at all--yea, and encouraged them to work all uncleanness with greediness. ‘To ascribe pardon to Christ’s passive, eternal life to His active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious. His universal obedience from His birth to His death is the one foundation of my hope.’ (Page 45.) This is unquestionably right. But if it be, there is no manner of need to make the imputation of His active righteousness a separate and labored head of discourse. Oh that you had been content with this plain scriptural account, and spared some of the dialogues and letters that follow! The Third and Fourth Dialogues contain an admirable illustration and confirmation of the great doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction. Yet even here I observe a few passages which are liable to some exception: - ‘Satisfaction was made to the divine law’ (page 54). I do not remember any such expression in Scripture. This way of speaking of the law, as a person injured and to be satisfied, seems hardly defensible. ‘The death of Christ procured the pardon and acceptance of believers even before He came in the flesh’ (page 74). Yea, and ever since. In this we all agree. And why should we contend for anything more ‘All the benefits of the new covenant are the purchase of His blood’ (page 120). Surely they are. And after this has been fully proved, where is the need, where is the use, of contending so strenuously for the imputation of His righteousness as is done in the Fifth and Sixth Dialogues ‘If He was our substitute as to penal sufferings, why not as to justifying obedience’ (page 135). The former is expressly asserted in Scripture; the latter is not expressly asserted there. ‘As sin and misery have abounded through the first Adam, mercy and grace have much more abounded through the Second: so that none can have any reason to complain’ (page 145). No, not if the second Adam died for all: otherwise all for whom He did not die have great reason to complain; for they inevitably fall by the first Adam, without any help from the Second. ‘The whole world of believers’ (page 148) is an expression which never occurs in Scripture, nor has it any countenance there: the world in the inspired writings being constantly taken either in the universal or in a bad sense; either for the whole of mankind or for that part of them who know not God. ‘“In the Lord shah all the house of Israel be justified”’ (page 149). It ought unquestionably to be rendered ‘By or through the Lord’: this argument therefore proves nothing. ‘Ye are complete in Him.’ The words literally rendered are ‘Ye are filled with Him’; and the whole passage (as any unprejudiced reader may observe) relates to sanctification, not justification. ‘They are accepted for Christ’s sake; this is justification through imputed righteousness’ (page 150). That remains to be proved. Many allow the former who cannot allow the latter. ‘The righteousness which justifies us is already wrought out’ (page 151). A crude, unscriptural expression! ‘It was set on foot, carried on, completed.’ Oh vain philosophy! The plain truth is, Christ lived and ‘tasted death for every man’; and through the merits of His life and death every believer is justified. ‘Whoever perverts so glorious a doctrine shows he never believed’ (page 152). Not so. They who ‘turn back as a dog to the vomit’ had once ‘escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ.’ ‘The goodness of God leadeth to repentance’ (page 153). This is unquestionably true; but the nice, metaphysical doctrine of Imputed Righteousness leads not to repentance but to licentiousness. ‘The believer cannot but add to his faith works of righteousness’ (page 154). During his first love this is often true; but it is not true afterwards, as we know and feel by melancholy experience. ‘We no longer obey in order to lay the foundation of our final acceptance’ (page 155). No; that foundation is already laid in the merits of Christ. Yet we obey in order to our final acceptance through His merits; and in this sense by obeying we ‘lay a good foundation that we may attain eternal life.’ ‘“We establish the law”; we provide for its honor by the perfect obedience of Christ’ (page 156). Can you possibly think St. Paul meant this that such a thought ever entered into his mind The plain meaning is, We establish both the true sense and the effectual practice of it; we provide for its being both understood and practiced in its full extent. ‘On those who reject the atonement, just severity’ (page 157). Was it ever possible for them not to reject it If not, how is .it just to cast them into a lake of fire for not doing what it was impossible they should do Would it be just (make it your own case) to cast you into hell for not touching heaven with your hand ‘Justification is complete the first moment we believe, and is incapable of augmentation’ (page 159). Not so: there may be as many degrees in the favor as in the image of God. ‘St. Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed.’ Not a righteousness, never once; but simply, righteousness. ‘What can this be but the righteousness of Christ’ (Page 190.) He tells you himself – ‘To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, faith is imputed for righteousness’ (Rom iv. 5). ‘Why is Christ styled Jehovah our Righteousness’ Because we are both justified and sanctified through Him. ‘My death, the cause of their forgiveness; My righteousness, the ground of their acceptance’ (page 190). How does this agree with page 45 – ‘To ascribe pardon to Christ’s passive, eternal life to His active, righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious.’ ‘He commends such kinds of beneficence only as were exercised to a disciple as such’ (page 195). Is not this a slip of the pen Will not our Lord then commend, and reward eternally, all kinds of beneficence, provided they flowed from a principle of loving faith -- yea, that which was exercised to a Samaritan, a Jew, a Turk, or an heathen Even these I would not term ‘transient bubbles,’ though they do not procure our justification. ‘How must our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees Not only in being sincere, but in possessing a complete righteousness, even that of Christ.’ (Page 197.) Did our Lord mean this Nothing less. He specifies in the following parts of His sermon the very instances wherein the righteousness of a Christian exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees. ‘He brings this specious hypocrite to the test’ (page 198). How does it appear that he was an hypocrite Our Lord gives not the least intimation of it. Surely He ’ loved him,’ not for his hypocrisy, but his sincerity! Yet he loved the world, and therefore could not keep any of the commandments in their spiritual meaning. And the keeping of these is undoubtedly the way to, though not the cause of, eternal life. ‘“By works his faith was made perfect”; appeared to be true’ (page 200). No; the natural sense of the words is, ‘By’ the grace superadded while he wrought those ‘works his faith was’ literally ‘made perfect.’ ‘“He that doeth righteousness is righteous”; manifests the truth of his conversion’ (ibid.). Nay; the plain meaning is, He alone is truly righteous whose faith worketh by love. ‘St. James speaks of the justification of our faith’ (page 201). Not unless you mean by that odd expression our faith being made perfect; for so the Apostle explains his own meaning. Perhaps the word ‘justified’ is once used by St. Paul for manifested; but that does not prove it is to be so understood here. ‘“Whoso doeth these things shall never fall” into total apostasy’ (page 202). How pleasing is this to flesh and blood! But David says no such thing. His meaning is, ‘whoso doeth these things’ to the end ‘shall never fall’ into hell. The Seventh Dialogue is full of important truths. Yet some expressions in it I cannot commend. ‘“One thing thou lackest” -- the imputed righteousness of Christ’ (page 216). You cannot think this is the meaning of the text. Certainly the ‘one thing’ our Lord meant was the love of God. This was the thing he lacked. ‘Is the obedience of Christ insufficient to accomplish our justification’ (Page 222.) Rather I would ask, Is the death of Christ insufficient to purchase it ‘The saints in glory ascribe the whole of their salvation to the blood of the Lamb’ (page 226). So do I; and yet I believe ‘He obtained for all a possibility of salvation.’ ‘The terms of acceptance for fallen man were a full satisfaction to the divine justice and a complete conformity to the divine law’ (page 227). This you take for granted; but I cannot allow it. The terms of acceptance for fallen man are repentance and faith. ‘Repent ye, and believe the gospel.’ ‘There are but two methods whereby any can be justified -- either by a perfect obedience to the law, or because Christ hath kept the law in our stead’ (ibid.). You should say, ‘Or by faith in Christ.’ I then answer, This is true; and fallen man is justified, not by perfect obedience, but by faith. What Christ has done is the foundation of our justification, not the term or condition of it. In the Eighth Dialogue likewise there are many great truths, and yet some things liable to exception. David ‘God Himself dignifies with the most exalted of all characters’ (page 253). Far, very far from it. We have more exalted characters than David’s, both in the Old Testament and the New. Such are those of Samuel, Daniel, yea, and Job, in the former; of St. Paul and St. John in the latter. ‘But God styles him “a man after His own heart.”’ This is the text which has caused many to mistake, for want of considering (1) that this is said of David in a particular respect, not with regard to his whole character; (2) the time at which it was spoken. When was David ‘a man after God’s own heart’ When God found him ‘following the ewes great with young,’ when He ‘took him from the sheepfolds’ (Ps. lxxviii. 70-1). It was in the second or third year of Saul’s reign that Samuel said to him, ‘The Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart, and hath commanded him to be captain over His people’ (1 Sam. xiii. 14). But was he ‘a man after God’s own heart’ all his life or in all particulars So far from it, that we have few more exceptionable characters among all the men of God recorded in Scripture. ‘There is not a just man upon earth that sinneth not.’ Solomon might truly say so before Christ came. And St. John might, after He ca, me, say as truly, ‘Whosoever is born of God sinneth not’ (page 261). But ‘in many things we offend all.’ That St. James does not speak this of himself or of real Christians will clearly appear to all who impartially consider the context. The Ninth Dialogue proves excellently well that we cannot be justified by our works. But have you thoroughly considered the words which occur in the 270th page — ‘O children of Adam, you are no longer obliged to love God with all your strength, nor your neighbor as yourselves. Once, indeed, I insisted on absolute purity of heart; now I can dispense with some degrees of evil desire. Since Christ has fulfilled the law for you, you need not fulfill it. I will connive at, yea accommodate my demands to, your weakness.’ I agree with you that ‘this doctrine makes the Holy One of God a minister of sin.’ And is it not your own Is not this the very doctrine which you espouse throughout your book I cannot but except to several passages also in the Tenth Dialogue. I ask, first, ‘Does the righteousness of God ever mean,’ as you affirm, ‘the merits of Christ’ (Page 291.) I believe not once in all the Scripture. It often means, and particularly in the Epistle to the Romans, God’s method of justifying sinners. When, therefore, you say, ‘The righteousness of God means such a righteousness as may justly challenge His acceptance’ (page 292), I cannot allow it at all; and this capital mistake must needs lead you into many others. But I follow you step by step. ‘In order to entitle us to a reward, there must be an imputation of righteousness’ (ibid.). There must be an interest in Christ, and then ’every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.’ ‘A rebel may be forgiven without being restored to the dignity of a son’ (page 293). A rebel against an earthly king may, but not a rebel against God. In the very same moment that God forgives we are the sons of God. Therefore this is an idle dispute. For pardon and acceptance, though they may be distinguished, cannot be divided. The words of Job which you cite are wide of the question. Those of Solomon prove no more than this (and who denies it), that justification implies both pardon and acceptance. ‘Grace reigneth through righteousness unto eternal life’ (page 295) -- that is, the free love of God brings us through justification and sanctification to glory. ‘That they may receive forgiveness, and a lot among the sanctified’ (ibid.) -- that is, that they may receive pardon, holiness, heaven. ‘Is not the satisfaction made by the death of Christ sufficient to obtain both our full pardon and final happiness’ (Ibid.) Unquestionably it is, and neither of the texts you cite proves the contrary. ‘If it was requisite for Christ to be baptized, much more to fulfill the moral law’ (page 296). I cannot prove that either one or the other was requisite in order to His purchasing redemption for us. ’By Christ’s sufferings alone the law was not satisfied’ (page 297). Yes, it was; for it required only the alternative, Obey or die. It required no man to obey and die too. If any man had perfectly obeyed, He would not have died. ‘Where the Scripture ascribes the whole of our salvation to the death of Christ a part of His humiliation is put for the whole’ (ibid.). I cannot allow this without some proof. ‘He was obedient unto death’ is no proof at all, as it does not necessarily imply any more than that He died in obedience to the Father. In some texts there is a necessity of taking a part for the whole; but in these there is no such necessity. ‘Christ undertook to do everything necessary for our redemption’ (page 300) -- namely, in a covenant made with the Father. It is sure He did everything necessary; but how does it appear that He undertook this before the foundation of the world, and that by a positive covenant between Him and the Father You think this appears from four texts: (1) From that, ‘Thou gavest them to Me.’ Nay; when any believe, ‘the Father gives them to Christ.’ But this proves no such previous contract. (2) ‘God hath laid upon Him the iniquities of us all.’ Neither does this prove any such thing. (3) That expression, ‘The counsel of peace shall be between them,’ does not necessarily imply any more than that both the Father and the Son would concur in the redemption of man. (4) ‘According to the counsel of His will’ -that is, in the way or method He had chosen. Therefore neither any of these texts, nor all of them, prove what they were brought to prove. They do by no means prove that there ever was any such covenant made between the Father and the Son. ‘The conditions of the covenant are recorded: “Lo, I come to do Thy will”’ (page 301). Nay; here is no mention of any covenant, nor anything from which it can be inferred. ‘The recompense stipulated in this glorious treaty.’ But I see not one word of the treaty itself; nor can I possibly allow the existence of it without far other proof than this. ‘Another copy of this grand treaty is recorded, Isa. xlix., from the 1st to the 6th verse’ (ibid.). I have read them, but cannot find a word about it in all those verses. They contain neither more nor less than a prediction of the salvation of the Gentiles. ‘By the covenant of works man was bound to obey in his own person’ (page 302). And so he is under the covenant of grace; though not in order to his justification. ‘The obedience of our Surety is accepted instead of our own.’ This is neither a safe nor a scriptural way of speaking. I would simply say, ‘We are accepted through the Beloved. We have redemption through His blood.’ ‘The second covenant was not made with Adam or any of his posterity, but with Christ, in those words, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head”’ (page 303). For any authority you have from these words, you might as well have said it was made with the Holy Ghost. These words were not spoken to Christ but of Him, and give not the least intimation of any such covenant as you plead for. They manifestly contain, if not a covenant made with, a promise made to Adam and all his posterity. ‘Christ, we see, undertook to execute the conditions’ (ibid.). We see no such thing in this text. We see here only a promise of a Savior made by God to man. ‘It is true I cannot fulfill the conditions’ (ibid.). It is not true. The conditions of the new covenant are, ‘Repent and believe’; and these you can fulfill through Christ strengthening you. ‘It is equally true this is not required at my hands.’ It is equally true -- that is, absolutely false; and most dangerously false. If we allow this, Antinomianism comes in with a full tide. ‘Christ has performed all that was conditionary for me.’ Has He repented and believed for you You endeavor to evade this by saying, ‘He performed all that was conditionary in the covenant of works.’ This is nothing to the purpose; for we are not talking of that, but of the covenant of grace. Now, He did not perform all that was conditionary in this covenant unless He repented and believed. ‘But He did unspeakably more.’ It may be so; but He did not do this. ‘But if Christ’s perfect obedience be ours, we have no more need of pardon than Christ Himself’ (page 308). The consequence is good. You have started an objection which you cannot answer. You say indeed, ‘Yes, we do need pardon; for in many things we offend all.’ What then If His obedience be ours, we still perfectly obey in Him. ‘Both the branches of the law, the preceptive and the penal, in the case of guilt contracted must be satisfied’ (page 309). Not so. ‘Christ by His death alone’ (so our Church teaches) ‘fully satisfied for the sins of the whole world.’ The same great truth is manifestly taught in the Thirty-first Article. Is it therefore fair, is it honest, for any one to plead the Articles of our Church in defense of Absolute Predestination, seeing the Seventeenth Article barely defines the term without either affirming or denying the thing, whereas the Thirty-first totally overthrows and razes it from the foundation ‘Believers who are notorious transgressors in themselves have a sinless obedience in Christ’ (ibid.). Oh syren song! Pleasing sound to James Wheatley, Thomas Williams, James Relly! I know not one sentence in the Eleventh Dialogue which is liable to exception; but that grand doctrine of Christianity, Original Sin, is therein proved by irrefragable arguments. The Twelfth likewise is unexceptionable, and contains such an illustration of the wisdom of God in the structure of the human body as I believe cannot be paralleled in either ancient or modem writers. The former part of the Thirteenth Dialogue is admirable: to the latter I have some objection. ‘Elijah failed in his resignation, and even Moses spake un-advisedly with his lips’ (vol. ii. p. 44). It is true; but if you could likewise fix some blot upon venerable Samuel and beloved Daniel, it would prove nothing. For no scripture teaches that the holiness of Christians is to be measured by that of any Jew. ‘Do not the best of men frequently feel disorder in their affections Do not they often complain, “When I would do good, evil is present with me”’ (Page 46.) I believe not. You and I are only able to answer for ourselves. ‘Do not they say, “We groan, being burthened with the workings of inbred corruption”’ You know this is not the meaning of the text. The whole context shows the cause of that groaning was their longing’ to be with Christ.’ ‘The cure’ of sin ‘will be perfected in heaven’ (page 47). Nay; surely in paradise, if no sooner. ‘This is a noble prerogative of the beatific vision.’ No; it will then come too late. If sin remains in us till the day of judgment, it will remain for ever. ‘Our present blessedness does not consist in being free from sin.’ I really think it does: but whether it does or no, if we are not free from sin, we are not Christian believers; for to all these the Apostle declares, ‘Being made free from sin, ye are become the servants of righteousness’ (Rom. vi. 18). ‘If we were perfect in piety’ (St. John’s word is ‘perfect in love’), ‘Christ’s priestly office would be superseded.’ No; we should still need His Spirit, and consequently His intercession, for the continuance of that love from moment to moment. Beside, we should still be encompassed with infirmities and liable to mistakes, from which words or actions might follow, even though the heart was all love, which were not exactly right. Therefore in all these respects we should still have need of Christ’s priestly office; and therefore, as long as he remains in the body, the greatest saint may say, ‘Every moment, Lord, I need The merit of Thy death.’ The text cited from Exodus asserts nothing less than that iniquity ‘cleaves to all our holy things till death.’ ‘Sin remains, that the righteousness of faith may have its due honor’ (page 48). And will the righteousness of faith have its due honor no longer than sin remains in us Then it must remain not only on earth and in paradise but in heaven also. ‘And the sanctification of the Spirit its proper esteem.’ Would it not have more esteem if it were a perfect work ‘It’ (sin) ‘ will make us lowly in our own eyes’ (ibid.). What! will pride make us lowly Surely the utter destruction of pride would do this more effectually. ‘It will make us compassionate.’ Would not an entire renewal in the image of God make us much more so ‘It will teach us to admire the riches of grace.’ Yea; but a fuller experience of it, by a thorough sanctification of spirit, soul, and body, will make us admire it more. ‘It will reconcile us to death.’ Indeed it will not; nor will anything do this like perfect love. ‘It will endear the blood and intercession of Christ’ (page 49). Nay; these can never be so dear to any as to those who experience their full virtue, who are ‘filled with the fullness’ of God. Nor can any ‘feel their continual need’ of Christ or ‘rely on Him’ in the manner which these do. ‘The claims of the law are all answered’ (Dialogue 14, p. 57). If so, Count Zinzendorf is absolutely in the right: neither God nor man can claim my obedience to it. Is not this Antinomianism without a mask ‘Your sins are expiated through the death of Christ, and a righteousness given you by which you have free access to God’ (page 59). This is not scriptural language. I would simply say, ‘By Him we have access to the Father.’ There are many other expressions in this Dialogue to which I have the same objection -- namely (1) that they are unscriptural; (2) that they directly lead to Antinomianism. The First Letter contains some very useful heads of self-examination. In the Second I read, ‘There is a righteousness which supplies all that the creature needs. To prove this momentous point is the design of the following sheets.’ (Page 91.) I have seen such terrible effects of this unscriptural way of speaking, even on those ‘who had once clean escaped from the pollutions of the world,’ that I cannot but earnestly wish you would speak no otherwise than do the oracles of God. Certainly this mode of expression is not momentous. It is always dangerous, often fatal. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin had reigned unto death, so might grace,’ the free love of God, ‘reign through righteousness,’ through our justification and sanctification, ‘unto eternal life’ (Rom. v. 20-1). This is the plain, natural meaning of the words. It does not appear that one word is spoken here about imputed righteousness; neither in the passages cited in the next page from the Common Prayer and the Articles. In the Homily likewise that phrase is not found at all, and the main stress is laid on Christ’s shedding His blood. Nor is the phrase (concerning the thing there is no question) found in any part of the Homilies. (Letter 3, P. 93.) ‘If the Fathers are not explicit with regard to the imputation of active righteousness, they abound in passages which evince the substitution of Christ in our stead -- passages which disclaim all dependence on any duties of our own and fix our hopes wholly on the merits of our Savor. When this is the case, I am very little solicitous about any particular forms of expression’ (page 101.) O lay aside, then, those questionable, dangerous forms, and keep closely to the scriptural! ‘The authority of our Church and of those eminent divines’ (Letter 4, p. 105) does not touch those ‘particular forms of expression’; neither do any of the texts which you afterwards cite. As to the doctrine we are agreed. ‘The righteousness of God signifies the righteousness which God-Man wrought out’ (ibid.). No; it signifies God’s method of justifying sinners. ‘The victims figured the expiation by Christ’s death; the clothing with skins, the imputation of His righteousness’ (page 107). That does not appear. Did not the one rather figure our justification, the other our sanctification Almost every text quoted in this and the following letter in. support of that particular form of expression is distorted above measure from the plain, obvious meaning which is pointed out by the context. I shall instance in a few, and just set down their true meaning without any farther remarks. (Page 109.) To ‘show unto man His uprightness,’ to convince him of God’s justice in so punishing him. ‘He shall receive the blessing,’ pardon, ‘from the Lord, and righteousness,’ holiness, ‘from the God of his salvation’; the God who saveth him both from the guilt and from the power of sin (page 110). I will ‘make mention of Thy righteousness only.’ Of Thy mercy; so the word frequently means in the Old Testament. So it unquestionably means in that text, ‘In’ or by ‘Thy righteousness shall they be exalted’ (page 11). ‘Sion shall be redeemed with judgment,’ after severe punishment, ‘and her converts with righteousness,’ with the tender mercy of God following that punishment (page 112). ‘In,’ or through, ‘the Lord I have righteousness and strength,’ justification and sanctification; ‘He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,’ saved me from the guilt and power of sin: both of which are again expressed by, ‘He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness’ (page 113). ‘My righteousness,’ My mercy, ‘shall not be abolished’ (page 114). ‘To make reconciliation for iniquity,’ to atone for all our sins, ‘and to bring in everlasting righteousness,’ spotless holiness into our souls. And this righteousness is not human, but divine. It is the gift and the work of God. (Page 116.) ‘The Lord our Righteousness,’ the author both of our justification and sanctification (page 117). ‘What righteousness shall give us peace at the last day, inherent or imputed’ (Page 127.) Both. Christ died for us and lives in us, ‘that we may have boldness in the day of judgment.’ ‘That have obtained like precious faith through the righteousness,’ the mercy, ‘of our Lord.’ ‘Seek ye the kingdom Of God and His righteousness,’ the holiness which springs from God reigning in you. (Letter 5, p, 131.) ‘Therein is revealed the righteousness of God,’ God’s method of justifying sinners (page 132). ‘We establish the law, as we expect no salvation without a perfect conformity to it -- namely, by Christ’ (page 135). Is not this a mere quibble and a quibble which, after all the labored evasions of Witsius [Hermann Witsius (1636-1705), Professor at Utrecht and then at Leyden. His principal work, De Oeconomia Foederurn Dei cum Hominibus, 1677, sought unsuccessfully to mediate between the Orthodox and the Federalists.] and a thousand more, does totally ‘make void the law’ But not so does St. Paul teach. According to him, ‘without holiness,’ personal holiness, ‘no man shall see the Lord’; none who is not himself conformed to the law of God here ‘shall see the Lord’ in glory. This is the grand, palpable objection to that whole scheme. It directly ‘makes void the law.’ It makes thousands content to live and die ‘transgressors of the law,’ because Christ fulfilled it ‘for them.’ Therefore, though I believe He hath lived and died for me, yet I would speak very tenderly and sparingly of the former (and never separately from the latter), even as sparingly as do the Scriptures, for fear of this dreadful consequence. ‘“The gift of righteousness” must signify a righteousness not their own’ (page 138). Yes; it signifies the righteousness or holiness which God gives to and works in them. ‘“The obedience of one” is Christ’s actual performance of the whole law’ (page 139). So here His passion is fairly left out! Whereas His ‘becoming obedient unto death’ -- that is, dying for man --is certainly the chief part, if not the whole, which is meant by that expression. ‘“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled” in us -- that is, by our representative in our nature’ (ibid.). Amazing! But this, you say, ‘agrees with the tenor of the Apostle’s arguing. For he is demonstrating we cannot be justified by our own conformity to the law.’ No; not here. He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it. Therefore that unnatural sense of his words does not at all ‘agree with the tenor of his arguing.’ I totally deny the criticism on das and daa, and cannot conceive on what authority it is founded. Oh how deep an aversion to inward holiness does this scheme naturally create! (Page 140.) ‘The righteousness they attained could not be any personal righteousness’ (page 142). Certainly it was: it was implanted as well as imputed. ‘For “instruction in righteousness,” in the righteousness of Christ’ (page 145). Was there ever such a comment before The plain meaning is, ‘for training up in holiness’ of heart and of life. ‘He shall convince the world of righteousness.’; that I am not a sinner, but innocent and holy (page 146). “That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” Not intrinsically, but imputatively.’ (Page 148.) Both the one and the other. God through Him first accounts and then makes us righteous. Accordingly ‘“the righteousness which is of God by faith” is both imputed and inherent’ (page 152). ‘My faith fixes on both the meritorious life and atoning death of Christ’ (page 153). Here we clearly agree. Hold, then, to this, and never talk of the former without the latter. If you do, you cannot say, ‘Here we are exposed to no hazard.’ Yes, you are to an exceeding great one, even the hazard of living and dying without holiness. And then we are lost for ever. The Sixth Letter contains an admirable account of the earth and atmosphere, and comprises abundance of sense in a narrow compass, expressed in beautiful language. Gems have ‘a seat on the virtuous fair one’s breast’ (page 177). I cannot reconcile this with St. Paul. He says, ‘Not with pearls’; by a parity of reason, not with diamonds. But in all things I perceive you are too favorable, both to ‘the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eye.’ You are a gentle casuist as to every self-indulgence which a plentiful fortune can furnish. ‘Our Savior’s obedience’ (page 182). Oh say, with the good old Puritans, ‘Our Savior’s death or merits’ I We swarm with Antinomians on every side. Why are you at such pains to increase their number ‘My mouth shall show forth Thy righteousness and Thy salvation’; Thy mercy, which brings my salvation (page 194). The Eighth Letter is an excellent description of the supreme greatness of Christ. I do not observe one sentence in it which I cannot cheerfully subscribe to. The Ninth Letter, containing a description of the sea, with various inferences deduced therefrom, is likewise a masterpiece for justness of sentiment as well as beauty of language. But I doubt whether ‘mere shrimps’ (page 241) be not too low an expression; and whether you might not as well have said nothing of ‘cod, the standing repast of Lent,’ or concerning ‘the exquisite relish of turbot or the deliciousness of sturgeon.’ Are not such observations beneath the dignity of a minister of Christ I have the same doubt concerning what is said of ‘delicately flavored tea, finely scented coffee, the friendly bowl, the pyramid of Italian figs, and the pastacia nut of Aleppo’ (page 264). Beside that, the mentioning these in such a manner is a strong encouragement of luxury and sensuality. And does the world need this The English in particular! Si non insaniunt satis sua sponte, insriga. [Terence’s Andria, IV. ii. 9: ‘If they do not rave enough of their own accord, stir them up.’] ‘Those treasures which spring from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ (Letter 10, p. 271). Not a word of His atoning blood! Why do so many men love to speak of His righteousness rather than His atonement I fear because it affords a fairer excuse for their own unrighteousness. To cut off this, is it not better to mention both together -- at least, never to name the former without the latter ‘Faith is a persuasion that Christ has shed His blood for me and fulfilled all righteousness in my stead’ (page 285). I can by no means subscribe to this definition. There are hundreds, yea thousands of true believers who never once thought one way or the other of Christ’s fulfilling all righteousness in their stead. I personally know many who to this very hour have no idea of it, and yet have each of them a divine evidence and conviction, ‘Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me.’ This is St. Paul’s account of faith; and it is sufficient. He that thus believes is justified. ‘It is a sure means of purifying the heart, and never fails to work by love’ (page 287). It surely purifies the heart -- if we abide in it; but not if we ‘draw back to perdition.’ It never fails to work by love while it continues; but if itself fail, farewell both love and good works. ‘Faith is the hand which receives all that is laid up in Christ.’ Consequently, if we make ‘shipwreck of the faith,’ how much soever is laid up in Christ, from that hour we receive nothing. ‘Faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ is a fundamental principle in the gospel’ (Letter 11, p. 288). If so, what becomes of all those who think nothing about imputed righteousness How many who are full of faith and love, if this be true, must perish everlastingly! ‘Thy hands must urge the way of the deadly weapon through the shivering flesh till it be plunged in the throbbing heart’ (page 297). Are not these descriptions far too strong May they not occasion unprofitable reasonings in many readers Ne pueros coram populo Medea trucidet. [Horace’s Ars Poetlea, l. 185: ‘Medea must not slay her children in the presence of the people.’] ‘How can he justify it to the world’ (Page 298.) Not at all. Can this, then, justify his faith to the world ‘You take the certain way to obtain comfort – the righteousness of Jesus Christ’ (page 304). What, without the atonement Strange fondness for an unscriptural, dangerous mode of expression! ‘So the merits of Christ are derived to all the faithful’ (page 306). Rather the fruits of the Spirit, which are likewise plainly typified by the oil in Zechariah’s vision. ‘Has the law any demand It must go to Him for satisfaction.’ (Page 310.) Suppose, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’; then I am not obliged to love my neighbor: Christ has satisfied the demand of the law for me. Is not this the very quintessence of Antinomianism ‘The righteousness wrought out by Jesus Christ is wrought out for all His people, to be the cause of their justification and the purchase of their salvation. The righteousness is the cause and the purchase.’ (Page 311.) So the death of Christ is not so much as named! ‘For all His people.’ But what becomes of all other people They must inevitably perish for ever. The die was cast or ever they were in being. The doctrine to pass them by has Consigned their unborn souls to hell, And damned them from their mother’s womb! [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley (Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love), iii. 33.] I could sooner be a Turk, a Deist, yea an Atheist, than I could believe this. It is less absurd to deny the very being of God than to make Him an almighty tyrant. ‘The whole world and all its seasons are rich with our Creator’s goodness. His tender mercies are over all His works.’ (Page 318.) Are they over the bulk of mankind Where is His goodness to the non-elect How are His tender mercies over them ‘His temporal blessings are given to them.’ But are they to them blessings at all Are they not all curses Does not God know they are that they will only increase their damnation Does not He design they should And this you call goodness; this is tender mercy! ‘May we not discern pregnant proofs of goodness in each individual object’ (Page 321.) No; on your scheme, not a spark of it, in this world or the next, to the far greater part of the work of His own hands. ‘Is God a generous benefactor to the meanest animals, to the lowest reptiles And will He deny my friend what is necessary to his present comfort and his final acceptance’ (Page 334.) Yea, will He deny it to any soul that He has made Would you deny it to any, if it were in your power But if you loved whom God abhorred, The servant were above his Lord. [Ibid. iii. 29.] ‘The “wedding garment” here means holiness’ (page 337). ‘This is His tender complaint, “They will not come unto Me !”’ (page 340). Nay, that is not the case; they cannot. He Himself has decreed not to give them that grace without which their coming is impossible. ‘The grand end which God proposes in all His favorable dispensations to fallen man is to demonstrate the sovereignty of His grace.’ Not so: to impart happiness to His creatures is His grand end herein. Barely to demonstrate His sovereignty is a principle of action fit for the great Turk, not the Most High God. ‘God hath pleasure in the prosperity of His servants. He is a boundless ocean of good.’ (Page 341.) Nay, that ocean is far from boundless, if it wholly passes by nine-tenths of mankind. ‘You cannot suppose God would enter into a fresh covenant with a rebel’ (page 342). I both suppose and know He did. ‘God made the new covenant with Christ, and charged Him with the performance of the conditions.’ I deny both these assertions, which are the central point wherein Calvinism and Antinomianism meet. ‘“I have made a covenant with My chosen” ‘--namely, with ‘David My servant.’ So God Himself explains it. ‘He will wash you in the blood which atones and invest you with the righteousness which justifies’ (page 362). Why should you thus continually put asunder what God has joined ‘God Himself at the last day pronounces them righteous because they are interested in the obedience of the Redeemer’ (page 440). Rather because they are washed in His blood and renewed by His Spirit. Upon the whole, I cannot but wish that the plan of these Dialogues had been executed in a different manner. Most of the grand truths of Christianity are herein both explained and proved with great strength and clearness. Why was anything intermixed which could prevent any serious Christian’s recommending them to all mankind anything which must necessarily render them exceptionable to so many thousands of the children of God In practical writings I studiously abstain from the very shadow of controversy; nay, even in controversial I do not knowingly write one line to which any but my opponent would object. For opinions, shall I destroy the work of God Then am I a bigot indeed. Much more, if I would not drop any mode of expression rather than offend either Jew or Gentile or the Church of God.--I am, with great sincerity, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Captain Richard Williams LONDON November 16. 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You do me too much honor. Yet I do not think you flatter; for you speak out of the sincerity of your heart. But love is apt to make us a little blind, so that we cannot see clearly. However, I am obliged to you for your good intention. I wish you may be more and more zealous for God; and am, dear Richard. Your affectionate brother. To Capt. R. Williams, [See letter of Nov. 9, 1783.] Camborne, Cornwall. To Samuel Furly LONDON November 20, 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Just at the time when you resolved to quit your trifling companion, God gave you a serious one [See letters of April 16, 1756 and March 7, 1758.]: a plain token that He will withhold from you no good thing, if you will yet turn to Him. Do you now find your mind disengaged and free Can you say, Delco dehinc omnes ex animo mulieres [‘Henceforth I blot out all women from my mind.’] If so, stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free Be not entangled again in that yoke of bondage. Beware of the very first approach, and watch and pray that you enter not into temptation. I hope Mr. Drake [See letters of Sept. 25, 1755, and Dec. 4, 1756.] is determined to contract no acquaintance with any man that knows not God. Let him have sense and learning and every other recommendation, still it will not quit cost; it is necessary to be courteous to all. But that does not imply intimacy. He knows, and we know, the value of time. See that you improve every part of The least of these a serious care demands; For though they’re little, they are golden sands. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly LONDON, November 26, 1756. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You would do weft to meet earlier in the evening -- at seven, if not sooner; and to begin your meeting with close examination of each other’s progress for the day past. I am afraid an hour and half is too little. At Oxford we always met at six. You should likewise have your eyes all round, to see if you can’t add another to your number. Probably some parts of the Serious Call or Christian Perfection might be a means of awakening her again. But whether it would or not is very uncertain; for when a person has once quenched the Spirit, we cannot be assured God will restore it again. However one would spare no pains in a case of such importance, and there are such instances of God’s longsuffering that we cannot despair of any. I have lately been reading Mr. Hutchinson’s Works. And the more I read the less I tike them. I am fully convinced of one thing in particular, which I least of all expected: he did not understand Hebrew; not critically -- no, not tolerably. I verily believe T. Walsh [See Wesley’s Veterans, v. 68.] understands it far better at this day than he did to the day of his death. Let us understand the love of God, and it is enough. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly LONDON, SNOWSFIELDS, December 4, 1756. DEAR SIR, -- I did not mention any particular book, because I did not recollect any that was particularly proper. But either Mr. Allen’s Alarm in the Christian Library [Vol. xxiv. Joseph Allein’s An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners.] or Vindiciae Pietatis may do well. I saw nothing amiss in your meeting with Mr. Drake [See letters of Nov. 20, 1756, and July 12, 1757.] but that the time was too short. [See previous letter.] You should read the closest and most searching books you can, and apply them honestly to each other’s heart. As to yourself, principlis obsta: the first look or thought! Play not with the fire -- no, not a moment. Then it cannot hurt you. Mr. Drake must determine for himself as to conversing with those gentlemen. If he feels any hurt from it, he must abstain; if not, he may converse with them sparingly -- that is, if there be but a faint, distant prospect of doing them any good. I have no receipts or proposal; so they may be sent in my next. I have answered about an hundred and forty pages of John Taylor [See letter of June 18.]; but it has cost me above an hundred and twenty. Sammy, never trifle more! -- I am Yours affectionately. To Dorothy Furly LONDON, December 22, 1756. It is a happy thing if we can learn obedience by the things which we suffer. Weakness of body and heaviness of mind will, I trust, have this good effect upon you. The particular lesson which you have now to learn is to be faithful in comparatively little things, particularly in conversation. God hath given you a tongue: why That you may praise Him therewith; that all your conversation may be, for the time to come, ‘meet to minister grace to the hearers.’ Such conversation and private prayer exceedingly assist each other. By resolutely persisting, according to your little strength, in all works of piety and mercy, you are waiting on God in the old scriptural way. And therein He will come and save you. Do not think He is afar off. He is nigh that justifieth, that sanctifieth. Beware you do not thrust Him away from you. Rather say, My heart would now receive Thee, Lord: Come in, my Lord, come in Write as often and as freely and fully as you please to Your affectionate brother and servant. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] ‘P. V.’ on February 25 wrote: ‘I had the pleasure of yours, which gave me great satisfaction, as I think your concessions are abundantly sufficient to put a stop to any farther dispute between us concerning this Article.’ He says that in the first Appeal Wesley calls faith ‘the eye of the soul,’ ‘making it its perceptive faculty,’ but that in his letter of February 5 he says, ‘Seeing God is the very essence of faith,’ which he thinks is ‘asserting it to be the actual perception of an object.’ He also says he had hitherto concealed his name on account of the reference in Wesley’s Journal (June l7, 1739; see also letter of June 28, 1755), ‘which, the moment I had read, I knew myself to be the person intended thereby.’ Wesley had said: ‘In the afternoon I saw poor R----d T----n who had left our Society and the Church. We did not dispute, but pray; and in a short space the scales fell off from his eye. He gladly returned to the Church, and was in the evening readmitted into our Society.’ [2] Wesley was anxious for news. Hessians and Hanoverians were brought over to guard England. He found on March 31, when he reached Ireland, that no fear was entertained of a French invasion; but on April 5 rumors came that the French were ‘hastening their preparation, being determined to land in Ireland.’ See Journal, iv 156; Robertson’s England under the Hanoverians, p. 132; and letters of March 1 and 4. [3] This was Wesley’s first visit to the Palatines who had settled in Ireland in the time of Queen Anne, and were through Barbara Heck and Philip Embury to play such an important part in the introduction of Methodism to New York See Journal iv. 168-9; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 96. Hampson describes the quarto edition of Wesley’s Notes upon the New Testament as ‘the most elegantly printed book he ever published, and embellished with one of the best of his early prints.’ This was John Downes’ engraving of the Williams portrait painted in 1742. See Journal vi. 46; and letters of June 20, 1755, and June 23, 1760. Robert Windsor, one of the first members at the Foundry in 1740 was in office there during its whole history, and for twelve years at the New Chapel. Wesley preached his funeral sermon on February 7, 1790, and says for many years he was ‘a burning and a shining light. He was born a few months after me, was a prudent, serious, diligent man, full of mercy and good fruits without partiality and without hypocrisy.’ See Journal, viii. 40; Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 507. Admiral Byng sailed on April 7 for the Mediterranean with an inadequate fleet, and on May 19 fought an indecisive action off Minorca, which he left to its fate in order to defend Gibraltar. The garrison of Minors surrendered on June 28 Byng was court-marshaled and shot on March 14, 1757. [4] In his Montanus Redivivus; or, Montanism Revived in the Principles and Discipline of the Methodists (commonly called Swadlers), 1760 the Rev. James Clark says that on the third Sunday after Easter 1756 he preached in the Parish Church of Holymount on 1 John iv. 1. In the absence of the Rector he was in charge of the parish, and thought ~ necessary to preach against Enthusiasm. He describes Methodists as ‘a set of enthusiastic Pharisees in practice, but perfect Latitudinarians in principle.’ John Langston, against whom the sermon was largely aimed, was present with other Methodists, and wrote to him; but he received no answer; Wesley heard of the sermon, and sent Clark (by William Ruttledge) his own discourse on Catholick Spirit. This led to Clark’s letter. The passage in Wesley’s letter about Langston and Bermingham was given in Montanus Redivivus. Bermingham left the Methodists, and made many charges against Langston in one of the meetings at Castlebar. James Clark acknowledges the generous contribution which the Bishop of Clonfert had made for his publication. See Works, v. 492-504; Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 287; and letter of September 18. [5] Olivers was now stationed in London, which evidently had a wide area to care for. At the Conference in August he was sent to Ireland. See letter of March 24, 1757. [6] Wesley had published An Address to the Clergy in February. His correspondent has evidently urged that Wesley expected too much from them. William Law wrote: ‘Wesley’s Babylonish A Address to the Clergy is empty babble, fitter for an old grammarian, who has grown blear-eyed in mending dictionaries, than for one who has tasted the powers of the world to come and has found the truth as it is in Jesus.’ It is an address which will make every true minister ashamed of his own want of knowledge and devotion to studies that would enrich his work. See letters of January 7 and February 18. [7] This letter shows the difficulties which were associated with the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Wesley’s pungent criticism of Charles Perronet’s letters is retesting. He tells Samuel Furly on July 30 1762, ‘If you will dispute the point with Nicholas Norton, he is your match. He has both leisure and love for the work.’ Charles Wesley asks his brother on February 4, 1755, ‘Is not Nicholas Norton under the influence of Charles Perronet’ whom John Wesley describes as ‘raving “because his friends have given up all”’ See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 73; and letters of June 20, 1755, and July 12, 1757. Miss Norton, of Leeds was one of Charles Wesley’s friends, in whose house he stayed. She left the Methodists, and evidently cast in her lot with John Edwards, one of Wesley’s preachers, who formed an Independent congregation in Leeds of which he became pastor. [8] On August 16 Samuel Walker wrote from Truro: ‘I am informed you are about to hold another Conference upon the matter of your lay preachers; and also that you desire me to renew my correspondence with you on that head at this time, when I hope something decisive will be done, and the constitution of Methodism put on a footing that shall render it more serviceable to the Church of Christ and the Church of England.’ He urges that this is the time for action. Wesley has authority with the Methodists, and the state of his health is such that ‘the necessity of doing something at this conference is manifest.’ He urges that Methodism should be brought closer to the Church of England, and wishes that as many of the preachers as are fit for it should be ordained and that others ‘might be fixed to certain societies, and that in my judgment as inspectors and readers rather than preachers.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1779, pp. 641-8. [9] Bermingham told James Clark that he believed John Langston ‘as much inspired as ever the great Apostle St. Paul was,’ and Mr. Clark had also been told that Langston himself said he was ‘as righteous [10] Hervey’s Theton and Aspasio was published in February 1755 in three octavo volumes. Wesley had seen the first three Dialogues in manuscript, and had suggested some alterations. When he read the volumes, he sent further thoughts upon them to Hervey, but received no answer. He wrote again in October 1756. The letter was published by Wesley in a 2s. pamphlet, A Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion. Hervey told a friend on June 23, 1758, that he took very little notice of the letter and let it lie by him several months. He wrote some letters in reply, which he gave to William Cudworth with a view to publication; but on his death-bed he told his brother he did not wish them to be issued. What William Hervey calls a surreptitious edition of them got into print, and he then published them in a volume in 1765. The replies to Wesley’s strictures cover 297 pages. The Rev. J. C. Nattrass found on studying Hervey’s MS. that the passages which deeply wounded Wesley were Hervey’s, and not interpolations by Cudworth, as Wesley thought. See Journal, iv. 103n, and for Wesley’s interview with Cudworth, iv. 303; W.H.S. xii. 35-6; see also letters of March 20, 1739, and November 29, 1758. [11] John Hutchinson (1674-1737) published Moses’s Principia in 1724. He taught that the Old Testament contains a complete system of natural history, theology, and religion; and had many follower, among whom were Bishop Horne, William Romaine, and others. In A New Account of the Confusion of Tongues (vol. iv. 3rd ed. 1749) Hutchinson describes Hebrew as ‘the most natural, distinct, and determinate of all tongues.’ An Abstract from the Works of John Hutchinson Esq., was published in Edinburgh in 1753; and on November 22, 1756, the Journal notes that Wesley read this with the preachers. See Journal, iv. 191, 280 (‘Glasgow is a mistake for ‘Edinburgh’); and letter in 1785 to Dean D----. [12] Miss Furly was the sister of the Rev. Samuel Furly. She married John Downes in 1764. See letter of July 16, 1763. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 46: 44. 1757 ======================================================================== 1757 GROWING RESPONSIBILITIES JANUARY 8, 1757, TO JANUARY 10, 1758 To Matthew Errington LONDON January 8, 1757. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have done well in sending me a particular account. The bill came safe, and h accepted. But Michael’s [Michael Fenwick.] senseless delay has distressed me much. He ought to have been here the 28th of November, and to have then brought with him all the money he could procure. For the time to come, if he should take another journey, I must punctually fix beforehand how many days he is to stay in every place. I hope you all continue a family of love, and that the Stewards and you are in harmony with each other. I should be glad to see poor Becky, especially if I found her all alive to God. We have a sickly family here -- my wife, Jenny, Sally Clay [See letter of March 30 1757.] ill of paralytic, T. Walsh [See letter of April 5, 1758.] and Jemmy Morgan [James Morgan became one of Wesley’s helpers in 1755 at the age of nineteen. He prepared the Life and Death of Mr. Thomas Walsh in 1762. Delicate health made him retire from the itinerancy. He died in Dublin in 1774. See Journal v. 210n; and letter of Sept. 2, 1758.] of consumptive disorders. But all is best -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly LONDON, February 11, 1757. The times and seasons of continuing comfort and all other spk~ual blessings the Father hath reserved in His own power. And them may be many wise reasons unknown to us (who are of yesterday and know nothing) why He does not answer every prayer as soon as we offer it. Indeed, one very common reason is sin lieth at the door -- perhaps sin of omission, the not following the light, not using the power we have. I know not that this is your cue. Possibly God may see good to take this way to break the stubbornness of your will and destroy your pride of understanding. Certainly you am in the hands of Him that loves you, and that will speedily deliver, if you persevere in waiting for Him and in rejecting all comfort but that which flows from the Spirit of adoption, crying in your heart, Abba Father! To Rev. S. Furly, Kippax. To Thomas Olivers LEWISHAM, March 24, 1757. DEAR TOMMY, --We should neither be forward nor backward in believing those who think they have attained the second blessing. Of those in Courtmatrix and Ballingarrane I can form no judgment yet. Barely to feel no sin, or to feel constant peace, joy, and love, will not prove the point. We have known some who remained in that state for several years, and yet have afterwards lost almost all they had received. In the two sermons on this subject, the Minutes of the Conference, the preface to the second and third volumes of Hymns, and some of our controversial writings, you have a full account of Christian Perfection. [The Circumcision of the Heart, preached before Oxford University on Jan. 1, 1733, and Christian Perfection, 1741; Hymns and Sacred Poems 1741, 1742; and Minutes, 1744.] (1) It undoubtedly implies salvation from all sin, inward and outward, into all holiness. (2) Without it none can be admitted into heaven, nor be completely happy upon earth. But we must speak very tenderly on this head, for it is far better to lead men than to drive. Study to recommend it rather as amiable and desirable than as necessary. (3) A gradual growth in grace precedes, but the gift itself is always given instantaneously. I never knew or heard of any exception; and I believe there never was one. (4) One fruit given at the same instant (at least usually) is a direct, positive testimony of the Spirit that the work is done, that they cannot fall away, that they cannot sin. In consequence of this they have no slavish fear, but uninterrupted sight, love, and joy, with continual growth in wisdom, holiness, and happiness, till they are filled with all the fullness of God. Beware of pride and stubbornness. Consult Brother Hopper in all things. Be obstinate only in pressing on to perfection. My love to Fanny and Sally Moore. They forget me as soon as I cross the water. Peace be with your spirit. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To his Wife LIVERPOOL, April 24, 1757. [April 24 was a Sunday, and Wesley heard ‘two very useful sermons at St. Thomas’s Church.’ See Journal, iv. 203.] I see plainly, my dear Molly, you are resolved to make me love you better and better. Be as careful as ever you will (only not so as to make yourself sick) and as diligent as ever you can. This is one of the talents which God has given you. O use it to the uttermost! Put forth all your strength in things temporal as well as in things spiritual. Whatsoever your hand findeth to do, do it with your might. What a blessed rule is that of Kempis. ‘Do what is in thee, and God will supply what is lacking’! Only, my love, watch over your own spirit! Take heed that it be not sharpened. Fret not thyself because of the ungodly, but in quietness and patience possess your own soul. I believe my letter to the Stewards will stir them up. What if you gave it to T. Butts [See letter of March 27, 1751.] and desired him and John Matthews [John Matthews died of consumption on Dec. 28, 1764. During twenty years Wesley did not remember his saying or doing anything he would wish to have been unsaid or undone. See Journal v. 93, 103; and letter of April 24, 1761.] to second it If they speak to William Atkinson [See letter of March 9, 1765.] in good earnest, it will certainly do good, one way or the other. [Mrs. Wesley had evidently made some suggestion for business arrangements.] Now I have burnt your letter. My health continues to a miracle. Ten days hence I shall probably see John Haime [See letter of March 1744, and June 21, 1748.]; and Joseph Jones [Joseph Jones was for some time one of Wesley’s preachers. He married, and settled in Somersetshire as a farmer. See Atmore’s Memorial pp. 225-6; Journal, iv. 328; and for Bilbrook, Staffordshire, iii. 519 iv. 14.] if he finds his way back from Bilbrook. It grows late: but I could not persuade myself to lose one post; though I cannot tell you how much I am, dear Molly, Your affectionate Husband, Lover and Friend. My dear Sister Hacker was to have a cag [A barrel or wooden vessel containing four or five gallons.] of the elder wine. Has she had it To Dorothy Furly BIRSTALL, May 18, 1757. The great point is to pick out in Bristol (as in all places such acquaintance as have a deep fear of God, a continual consciousness of His presence, and a strong thirst after His whole image. [See letter of June 18.] Such I take most of the leaders of bands to be; and such are many of the poor in the Society, but extremely few of the rich or honorable Methodists are of that number. My dear sister, I have been in pain for you on their account. When I talked with You last, you could relish the simplicity of the gospel, you were athirst for all mankind that was in Christ and wanted to walk just as He walked. O let none persuade you, either by example or advice, to make any, the least, deviation from that good way. Make no abatement; do not soften the plain, rough gospel; do not Measure back your steps to earth again. Be not, either inwardly or outwardly, conformed to this world; but be a Christian altogether. Health you shall have if health be best. And He that gives it will give a blessing with it -- an increase of spiritual as well as of bodily strength, but it is strength to labor not to sit still. And this strength will either increase or decrease in the same proportion with your sense of His love. You may lose this sense either (1) by committing sin; or (2) by omitting duty; or (3) by giving way to pride, anger or any other inward sin; or (4) by not watching unto prayer, by yielding to indolence or spiritual sloth. But it is no more necessary that we should ever lose it than it is necessary we should omit duty or commit sin. Mr. Law, therefore, speaking on this head, betrays deep ignorance both of the Scripture and the inward work of God. You are more liable to receive hurt from his late writings than from any others which I know. I shall write to Sammy [Her brother at Cambridge.] in the morning: it would not have been amiss if you had spoken freely to me concerning him. Why should not you, now you have in some measure broke that natural shyness, speak all that is in your heart to, dear Miss Furly, Your truly affectionate friend and brother. To Ebezezer Blackwell WHITEHAVEN, May 28, 1757. DEAR SIR, -- Does the rule still hold, ‘Out of sight out of mind’ I am afraid it does with poor Miss Freeman, [See letter of April 26, 1760.] as she does not give me one fine in answer to the long letter I wrote from Liverpool. I was in hopes we might have interchanged several letters in less than six weeks’ time. As for you, I presume you are full of business; and yet not so full of temporal business as to exclude the thoughts of higher concerns -- business that will endure when earth and the works of it are burned up. Were anything temporal even to damp or lessen (though not destroy) our care and zeal for things eternal, what could countervail the loss What could make us amends for the damage thereby sustained Sometimes, indeed, we may go through abundance of business, and yet have God in all our thought. But is this the case always Are not even lawful, nay necessary, things at other times a grievous hindrance, especially when we undertake them without any suspicion of danger, and consequently without any prayer against that danger In this respect, as in many others, I have lately had peculiar reason to be thankful. In every place people flock about me for direction in secular as well as spiritual affairs; and I dare not throw even this burthen off my shoulders, though I have employment enough without it. But it is a burthen, and no burthen; it is no encumbrance, no weight upon my mind. If we see God in all things and do all for Him, then all things are easy. I think it is fourteen or fifteen days since my wife wrote to me. I am afraid she is not well, or is angry at my brother and consequently with me. If any letters for me come enclosed to Mr. Belchier, [See letter of April 9, 1755.] I will be obliged to you if you will not send them to her, but direct them to me at Newcastle, where I hope to be in a few days. Wishing all grace and peace to you and yours, I am, dear sir, Your most affectionate servant. I breakfasted at Keswick last Tuesday. To Mrs. Crosby NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 14, 1757. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I was concerned at not hearing from you for so long a time, whereas I would not willingly pass a fortnight without it. Whenever you have leisure write, whether any one else does or not. I shah be here near three weeks, and then at York. It comforts me to hear that your love does not decrease: I want it to increase daily. Is there not height and depth in Him with whom you have to do, for your love to rise infinitely higher and to sink infinitely deeper into Him than ever it has done yet Are you fully employed for Him, and yet so as to have some time daily for reading and other private exercises If you should grow cold, it would afflict me much. Rather let me always rejoice over you. As for me, I seem only to be just beginning to aim feebly at God; though I have found more liberty in the respects you mention lately than of a long season. Dear Sally, never forget to pray for Your affectionate brother. To Dorthy Furly NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 14, 1757. You have reason to praise God for what He has done and to expect all that He has promised. Indeed, if it were required that you should work this in yourself, your impotence might be a bar to your expectations; and so might your unworthiness, if God required any merit of yours in order to His working in you. But what impotence in you can be a bar to the almighty power of God And what unworthiness can hinder the free love of God His love in and through Christ Jesus So that all the promises lie fair before you. The land flowing with milk and honey, the Canaan of His perfect love, is open. Believe, and enter in! It is an observation of one of the ancients that it is far easier not to desire praise than not to be pleased with it. A bare conviction that it is, generally speaking, deadly poison may prevent our desiring it; but nothing less than humble love filling the heart will prevent our being pleased with it, for the sense of honor is as natural to man as the sense of tasting or feeling. But when that which is spiritual is fully come, this which is corruptly natural shall be done away. Whatever enemies you have, it is enough that you have a Friend who is mightier than them all. O let Him reign in your heart alone! Do not spare to speak with all freedom to, dear Miss Furly, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Dorothy Furly NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 18, 1757. I am the more jealous over you, because I know you are liable to be much influenced by fair words, especially when they are spoken by persons of sense and in an agreeable manner. And flesh and blood are powerful advocates for conformity to the world, particularly in little things. But, blessed be God, we have an unction from the Holy One ready to teach us of all things. O let us attend to this inward teaching, which indeed is always consonant with the word. Then the word, applied by the Spirit, shall be a light in all our ways and a lamp in all our paths. Fight on and conquer I Change of place, as you observe, is but a little thing. But God has in some measure changed your heart, wherein you have great reason to rejoice. And, having received the first fruits of the Spirit, righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, patiently and earnestly war for the great change, whereby every root of bitterness may be torn up. You may profitably converse with even those honorable Christians, if you watch and pray that they do not infect you (1) with Mystical notions, which stand in full opposition to plain old Bible divinity; or (2) with their odd, senseless jargon of a catholic spirit, whereby they have themselves suffered great loss. The spirit of the world I think you are aware of already, and indeed there is danger in every approach to it. I have heard from both Mrs. Gaussen [Charles Wesley writes from the Foundry to his wife on Sept. 21, 1755, ‘Why do you leave Mrs. Gaussen out of your “kind remembrance” You have no friend loves you better.’ See letter of Sept. 25.] and Miss Bosanquet. There is a poor, queer old woman in Bristol (if she is not gone to paradise) with whom it might do you good to talk. John Jones [See letter of April 16 1748.] knows her. Her name is Elizabeth Edgecomb. Peace be with your spirit. -- I am, dear Miss Furly, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Mrs. Crosby NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, July 1, 1757. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Certainly you judge right. Do not entangle yourself with the things of this world; neither give occasion to any to speak reproachfully. Therefore accept of no deed or writing whatsoever which should tie her down to do anything for you one day longer than she would do without it. [Probably Miss Bosanquet, whom she had met in May. See letter of June 14.] What she will do day by day without hurting herself or any one else is liable to no exception. O stand fast in glorious liberty; and be subject to no creature, only so far as love constrains. By this sweetest and strongest tie you are now subject to, dear Sally, Your affectionate friend and brother. I shall look for a letter at York. To Min. Crosby, At Mr. Kent’s Bricklayer, In the Tenter Ground, Near Upper Moorfields, London. To Dorothy Furly York, July [11], 1757. DEAR MISS FURLY, -- I cannot write to you now so fury as I would; but I must send a few fines. Mere temptation certainly does not weaken without yielding to temptation. Yet an heaviness and soreness may remain upon the spirit till there is a fresh discovery of the love of God. A jealous fear of offending God is good. But what have you to do with any other fear Let love cast it all out, and at the same time make you tenfold mere afraid of doing anything small or great which you cannot offer up as an holy sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. All who are without this fear (and much more all who call it legal, who revile the precious gift of God, and think it an hindrance to ‘the growing up in Christ’) are Antinomians in the inmost soul. Come not into their secret, my dear Miss Furly; but pray for more and more of that ‘legal spirit,’ and you will more and more rejoice Your affectionate servant. To Samuel Furly YORK, July 12, 1757. DEAR SAMMY, -- In all my experience I never knew one so much altered for the worse as C. P. [Charles Perronet. See letters of Sept. 3, 1756 (to Nicholas Norton), and Dec. 14, 1757.] in so short a time. I am afraid that enemy is in real, actual possession of his understanding; though God, I hope, has still hold of his heart. Certainly the conversing with him at present would not be profitable to you. Nothing could be more seasonable than the notes you give me concerning M. B. [Miss Bosanquet and Mrs. Crosby.] I was just going to answer a letter from one who can say anything to her without offence. So that proper advice may now be conveyed to her with great probability of success. I hope you will write to Mr. Drake [See letter of Dec. 4, 1756.] without delay. He is in danger; for every possible snare is laid for him. His aunt here, Mrs. Dickson, [Dickens.] has been of great service to him. He was hurried hence by his mother (a woman bitter of spirit) to keep him out of my way. You may direct your next to me at Mr. Hutton’s, [‘William Hutton mercer and grocer, a man in good repute in the town,’ with whom Wesley stayed when at Epworth. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 348; and letter of July 28 1775, to Mrs. Woodhouse.] in Epworth, Lincolnshire, by Thorne bag. Dear Sammy, fight on! Adieu. Miss Tancred, a gay, giddy girl, a mere coquette, is put in the way of Mr. Drake. Warn him earnestly to keep clear of her. To Dorothy Furly TREMENEARE, September 6, 1757. Why you should be afraid on account of anything you said to me I do not know. Certainly, if you had said whatever was in your heart, it might have been a means of lessening your burthen and not of increasing it. I believe you have often a desire, and almost a resolution, of saying a great deal to me; but when you come to write or speak, your heart fails. Why should it Why should you repress yourself I should not despise but love you for your openness. It is the fruit and the proof of an honest heart. I know you are weak; I know a little of your particular weaknesses. But so much the more am I concerned for you as a tender, sickly flower. Away, then, with this reserve; it answers no end but to trouble and embarrass you. Tell me freely and plainly any difficulty you meet with, any enemy against whom you want help. Use me as a friend, as I hope you will use Sarah Crosby, and you will find it a blessing to your soul. It will again bring the promise of holiness near; which, indeed, always seems to be far off when we give way to any known sin, when we any way grieve the Spirit of God. There may be some rare cases wherein God has determined not to bestow His perfect love till a little before death; but this I believe is uncommon: He does not usually put off the fulfilling of His promises. Seek, and you shall find; seek earnestly, and you shall find speedily. Lift up the hands that hang down; deny yourself; take up your cross, whether that of meeting your class or any other. Fight on, and victory is at hand! -- I am, dear Miss Fury, Your affectionate servant. To Samuel Walker PENRYN, September 19, 1757. REVEEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- Nothing can be more kind than the mentioning to me whatever you think is amiss in my conduct; and the more freedom you use in doing this, the more I am indebted to you. I am thoroughly convinced that you ‘wish me well,’ and that it is this, together with a ‘concern for the common interests of religion,’ which obliges you to speak with more plainness than otherwise you would. The same motives induce me to lay aside aH reserve and tell you the naked sentiments of my heart. Two years since, eleven or twelve persons of Falmouth were members of our Society. Last year I was informed that a young man them had begun to teach them new opinions, and that soon after offence and prejudice crept in and increased till they were all torn asunder. What they have done since I know not; for they have no connection with us. I do ‘exert myself’ so far as to separate from us those that separate from the Church. But in a thousand other instances I feel the want of more resolution and firmness of spirit. Yet sometimes that may appear irresolution which is not so. I exercise as little authority as possible, because I am afraid of people’s depending upon me too much and paying me more reverence than they ought. But I proceed to the substance of your letter. You say, -- 1. ‘If you still hold the essence of justifying faith to lie in assurance, why did you encourage John Hingeston to believe his state good’ Assurance is a word I do not use because it is not scriptural. But I hold a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me is essential to if not the very essence of justifying faith. John Hingeston told me he had more than this, even a clear conviction that his sins were forgiven; although he said that conviction was not so clear now as it had been in time past. 2. ‘If you beloved Mr. Vowler [Wesley heard Mr. Vowler preach two thundering sermons at St. Agnes on Sept. 4, 1757, and spent an afternoon with him. ‘He both preaches and lives the gospel.’ He died of fever on July 30, 1758. See Journal, iv. 234, 529.] to be a gracious person and a gospel minister, why, did you not in justice to your people leave them to him’ John Hingeston assured me that Mr. Vowler also had a dear conviction of his being reconciled to God. If so, I could not deny his being a gracious person; and I heard him preach the true though not the whole gospel. But had it been the whole, there are several reasons still why I did not give up the people to him. (1) No one mentioned or intimated any such thing, nor did it once enter into my thought. But if it had, (2) I do not know that every one who preaches the truth has wisdom and experience to guide and govern a flock. I do not know that Mr. Vowler in particular has. He may or he may not. (3) I do not know whether he could or would give that flock all the advantages for holiness which they now enjoy; and to leave them to him before I was assured of this would be neither justice nor mercy. (4) Unless they also were assured of the, they could not in conscience give up themselves to him; and I have nether right nor power to dispose of them contrary to their conscience. ‘But they are his already by legal establishment.’ If they receive the sacrament from him thrice a year and attend his ministrations on the Lord’s Day, I see no more which the law requires. But (to go a little deeper into this matter of legal establishment) does Mr. Conon [Mr. Conon was the schoolmaster at Truro. Walker calls him ‘my friend and father.’ See Sidney’s Life of Walker, p. 200.] or you think that the King and Parliament have a right to prescribe to me what pastor I shall use If they prescribe one whom I know God never sent, am I obliged to receive him If he be sent of God, can I receive him with a clear conscience till I know he is And even when I do, if I believe my former pastor is more profitable to my soul, can I leave him without sin Or has any man lying a right to require this of me I ‘extend this to every gospel minister in England.’ Before I could with a clear conscience leave a Methodist Society even to such an one, all these considerations must come in. And with regard to the people: far from thinking that ‘the withdrawing our preachers’ from such a Society without their consent would ‘prevent a separation from the Church’ I think it would be the direct way to cause it. While we are with them, our advice has weight and keeps them to the Church; but were we totally to withdraw, it would be of little or no weight. Nay, perhaps resentment of our unkindness (as it would probably appear to them) would prompt them to act in flat opposition to it. ‘And will it not he the same at your death’ I believe not: for I believe there will be no resentment in this case; and the last advice of a dying friend is not likely to be so soon forgotten. 3. But ‘was there not inconsistency in your visiting Mr. Vowler as a gospel minister when you do not give up your people to him’ No: my receiving him as a gospel minister did not imply any obligation so to do. 4. ‘If that was not the design of your visit, you should not have visited him at all.’ Does that follow I visited him because he desired it as a brother and fellow laborer. 5. ‘Does not this conduct on the whole savor of a party spirit and show a desire to please Methodists as Methodists ‘I am not conscious of any such spirit, or of any desire but that of pleasing all men for their good to edification. I have as great a desire thus to please you as any Methodist under heaven. You add one thing more, which is of deep importance and deserves a particular consideration. ‘You spoke to Mr. Vowler of our being as one man. Nothing is so desirable: but really before it can be effected, something must be done on your part more than paying us visits; which, as far as I can see, can serve no other purpose in present circumstances than to bring us under needless difficulties.’ I did, indeed speak to Mr. Vower ‘of our being as one man’; and not to him only, but to several others for it lay much upon my heart. Accordingly I proposed that question to all who met at our late Conference, [Which met in London on Aug. 4.] ‘What can be done in order to a closer union with the clergy who preach the truth ‘We all agreed that nothing could be more desirable. I in particular have long desired it; not from any view to my own ease or honor or temporal convenience in any kind, but because I was deeply convinced it might be a blessing to my own soul and a means of promoting the general work of God. But you say, ‘Really, before it can be effected, something must be done on your part.’ Tell me what, and I will do it without delay, however contrary it may be to my ease or intonation, provided only that it consist with my keeping a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. It would not consist with this to give up the flock under my care to any other minister till I and they were convinced they would have the same advantages for holiness under him which they now enjoy. But ‘paying us visits can serve no other purpose than to bring us under needles difficulties.’ I will speak very freely on this head. Can our conversing together serve no other purpose You seem, then, not to have the least conception of your own wanting any such thing! But whether you do or not, I feel I do. I am not in memet torus totus teres atque rotundus. [Horace’s Satires, II vii. 86: ‘In myself completely smooth and rounded.’] I want more light, more strength, for my personal walking with God; and I know not but He may give it me through you. And (whether you do or no) I want more light and strength for guiding the flock committed to my charge. May not the Lord send this also by whom He will send and by you as probably as any other It is not improbable He may by you give me clearer light either as to doctrine or discipline. And even hereby how much comfort and profit might redound to thousands of those for whom Christ hath died! which, I apprehend would fully compensate any difficulties that might arise from such conversation. But what difficulties are those All that are the necessary consequence of your sharing our reproach. And what reproach is it which we bear Is it the reproach of Christ or not It arose first, while my brother and I were at Oxford, from our endeavoring to be real Christians. It was abundantly increased when we began to preach repentance and remission of sins and insist that we are justified by faith. For this cause were we excluded from preaching in the churches. (I say for this: as yet there was no field-preaching.) And this exclusion occasioned our preaching elsewhere, with the other irregularities that followed. Therefore all the reproach consequent thereon is no other than the reproach of Christ. And what are we the worse for this It is not pleasing to flesh and blood; but is it any hindrance to the work of God Did He work more by us when we were honorable men By no means. God never used us to any purpose till we were a proverb of reproach. Nor have we now a jot more of dishonor and evil report than we know is necessary, both for us and for the people to balance that honor and good report which otherwise could not be borne. You need not, therefore, be so much afraid of or so careful to avoid this. It is a precious balm; it will not break your head, nether lessen your usefulness. And, indeed, you cannot avoid it any other wise than by departing from the work. You do not avoid it by standing aloof from us; which you call Christian, I worldly, prudence. I speak as a fool: bear with me. I am dearly satisfied that you have far more faith, more love, and more of the mind which was in Christ than I have. But have you more gifts for the work of God or more fruit of your labor Has God owned you more I would He had a thousand-fold! I pray God that He may. Have you at present more experience of the wisdom of the world or the devices of Satan or of the manner and method wherein it pleases God to counterwork them in this period of His providence Are you sure God would add nothing to you by me beside what He might add to me by you Perhaps when the time is slipped out of your hands, when I am no more seen, you may wish you had not rejected the assistance of even Your affectionate brother. To a Friend TRURO, September 20, 1757. DEAR SIR, -- The longer I am absent from London, and the more I attend the service of the Church in other places, the more I am convinced of the unspeakable advantage which the people called Methodists enjoy: I mean even with regard to pubic worship, particularly on the Lord’s Day. The church where they assemble is not gay or splendid, which might be an hindrance on the one hand; nor sordid or dirty, which might give distaste on the other; but plain as well as clean. The persons who assemble there are not a gay, giddy crowd, who come crafty to see and be seen; nor a company of goodly, formal, outside Christians, whose religion lies in a dull round of duties; but a people most of whom do, and the rest earnestly seek to, worship God in spirit and in truth. Accordingly they do not spend their time there in bowing and courtesying, or in staring about them, but in looking upward and looking inward, in hearkening to the voice of God, and pouring out their hearts before Him. It is also no small advantage that the person who reads prayers, though not always the same, yet is always one who may be supposed to speak from his heart, one whose life is no reproach to his profession, and one who performs that solemn part of divine service, not in a careless, hurrying, slovenly manner, but seriously and slowly, as becomes him who is transacting so high an affair between God and man. Nor are their solemn addresses to God interrupted either by the formal drawl of a parish clerk, the screaming of boys who bawl out what they neither feel nor understand, or the unseasonable and unmeaning impertinence of a voluntary on the organ. When it is seasonable to sing praise to God, they do it with the spirit and with the understanding also; not in the miserable, scandalous doggerel of Hopkins and Sternhold, but in psalms and hymns which are both sense and poetry, such as would sooner provoke a critic to turn Christian than a Christian to turn critic. What they sing is therefore a proper continuation of the spiritual and reasonable service; bring selected for that end, not by a poor humdrum wretch who can scarce read what he drones out with such an air of importance, but by one who knows what he is about and how to connect the preceding with the following part of the service. Nor does he take just ‘two staves,’ but more or less, as may best raise the soul to God; especially when sung in well-composed and well-adapted tuner not by an handful of wild, unawakened striplings, but by an whole serious congregation; and these not lolling at ease, or in the indecent posture of sitting drawling out one word after another, but all standing before God, and praising Him lustily and with a good courage. Nor is it a little advantage as to the next part of the service to hear a preacher whom you know to live as he speaks, speaking the genuine gospel of present salvation through faith, wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost, declaring present, free, full justification, and enforcing every branch of inward and outward holiness. And this you hear done in the most clear plain, simple, unaffected language, yet with an earnestness becoming the importance of the subject and with the demonstration of the Spirit. With regard to the last and most awful part of divine service, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, although we cannot say that either the unworthiness of the minister or the unholiness of some of the communicants deprives the rest of a blessing from God, yet do they greatly lessen the comfort of receiving But these discouragements are removed from you: you have proof that he who administers fears God; and you have no reason to believe that any of your fellow communicants walk unworthy of their profession. Add to this that the whole service is performed in a decent and solemn manner, is enlivened by hymns suitable to the occasion, and concluded with prayer that comes not out of feigned lips. Surely, then, of all the people in Great Britain, the Methodist would be the most inexcusable, should they let any opportunity slip of attending that worship which has so many advantages, should they prefer any before it, or not continually improve by the advantages they enjoy! What can be pleaded for them, if they do not worship God in spirit and in truth, if they are still outward worshippers only, approaching God with their lips while their hearts are far from Him -- yea, if, having known Him, they do not daily grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ -- I am Yours affectionately. To Dorothy Furly ST. AUSTELL CORNWALL, September 25, 1757. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It is a rule with me to take noting ill that is well meant; therefore you have no need ever to be afraid of my putting an ill construction on anything you say, for I know you mean only to save your soul. In most genteel religious people there is so strange a mixture that I have seldom much confidence in them. I love the poor; in many of them I find pure, genuine grace, unmixed with paint, folly, and affection. But I think Mrs. Gaussen is upright of heart; and perhaps you may find one or two gentlewomen like her. [See letters of June 18, 1757 and March 26, 1770.] It is plain God sees it best for you frequently to walk in a thorny path. By this means He aims at destroying your pride of heart and breaking your stubborn will. You have had large experience that there is no substantial or lasting happiness but in Him. O be true to yourself and to your own experience! Do not seek it where it cannot be found. Hew out to yourself no more broken cisterns, but let all the springs of your happiness be in Him. You cannot be too careful to keep out of the way of anything that has been the occasion of sin. And it is very possible to show civility and moderate respect to any person without coming in the way of danger. All private conversation may be avoided and ought to be, at all hazards. Do not run yourself into temptation; and God will deliver you from evil. Nature and the devil will always oppose private prayer; But it is worth while to break through. That it is a cross will not hinder its being a blessing -- nay, often the more reluctance the greater blessing. I think it was not you who advised poor Sam to be a mere regular clergyman [Her brother. See letter of April 8, 1758.] unconnected with the Methodists. Certainly this is the best way to preferment; but it is not the best way to heaven or to do good upon each. When it is too late, the awakened clergy will probably see this. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly KINGSWOOD, October 14, 1757. DEAR SAMMY, -- In the sermon on Justification by Faith (in the first volume of Sermons) my sentiments are expressed at large. There is certainly no such assertion in Scripture as ‘The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.’ Yet we will not deny it if men only mean thereby that ‘we are accepted through His merits’ or ‘for the sake of what He has done and suffered for us.’ If they mean anything more, we cannot but deny it. Mr. Hervey is a deeply-rooted Antinomian -- that is, a Calvinist consistent with himself (which Mr. Whitefield is not, nor Robert Bolton [Robert Bolton (1572-1631), Fellow of Braenose College, and Rector of Broughton, Northants. Wesley included his Life in the Christian Library (iv. 231-330), and also Directions for Comfortable Walking with God, which he read and explained to the morning congregation at the Foundery. See Journal iv. 94; and letter of Dec. 20, 1760.] nor any Calvinist who is not a Latitudinarian). But in truth ornatus est pro suis instratibus, [‘He is adorned by Ms own caparisons.’] by the Scotch writer [John Glass or Robert Sandeman. See next letter.] of the Letters of the Author of ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ a man of admirable sense and learning, but a Calvinist and Antinomian to the bone; as you may judge from his vehement anger at Mr. Emkin, [Dr. John Erskine. See letter of April 24, 1755.] Cudworth, [See letter of Nov, 29 1758.] and Hervey for their legality! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Dorthy Furly BRISTOL, October 21, 1757. MY DEAR SISTER, -- God will do His own work in His own manner, and exceeding variously in different persons. It matters not whether it be wrought in a more pleasing or painful manner, so it is wrought, so nature is subdued, pride and self-will dethroned, and the will of God done in us and by us. Therefore trouble not yourself about the experience of others: God knows you, and let Him do with you as He sees best. I judge your late distress to be partly the effect of disease, but chiefly preternatural. In the Third Journal there is a case nearly parallel; only the symptoms were more severe. For in a moment Lucretia Smith [Journal, ii. 410; and letter of April 26, 1739.] felt such a cloud spread over her that she could not believe there was a God or an after-state. You did right to pray, as you could pray; and this is the best method which can be taken in heaviness or darkness of any kind. Then, if sin be the cause, it will be discovered. But take care that you do not refuse any help; even rough speakers may be of service. Only spread what they say before the Lord, and He will turn it to good. -- I am Your affectionate broker. To John Glass () BRISTOL, November 1, 1757. SIR, -- It is not very material who you are. If Mr. Glass is still alive, I suppose you are he. If not, you are at least one of his humble admirers, and probably not very old; so your youth may in some measure plead your excuse for such a peculiar pertness, insolence, and self-sufficiency, with such an utter contempt of all mankind, as no other writer of the present age has shown. As you use no ceremony toward any man, so neither shall I use any toward you, but bluntly propose a few objections to your late performance, which stare a man in the face as soon as he looks in it. I object, first, that you are a gross, willful slanderer. For (1) you say of Mr. Hervey: ‘He shuts up our access to the divine righteousness by holding forth a preliminary human one as necessary to our enjoying the benefit of it’ (page 4). Again: ‘You set men to work to do something, in order to make their peace with God’ (page 9). This is an absolute slander founded on that poor pretense that he supposes those who repent and believe, and none but those, to ‘enjoy the benefit of Christ’s righteousness.’ And has he not the warrant of Christ Himself for so doing, -- ‘Repent ye, and believe the gospel’ If this is ‘teaching man to acquire a righteousness of his own,’ the charge falls on our Lord Himself. You say (2): ‘As to that strange something which you call faith, after all you have told us about it, we are at as great a loss to tell distinctly what it is as when you began’ (ibid.). This is another slander. You are at no loss (as will presently appear) to tell what Mr. Hervey means by faith. Whether it be right or wrong, his account of it is as clear and distinct as any that ever was given. You say (3): ‘The popular preachers’ (so you term Archbishop Tillotson, Dr. Lucas, Crisp, Doddridge, Watts, Gill; Mr. Guthrie, Boron, Erskine, Willison [John Willison (1680-1750), minister of South Church, Dundee, 1716.]; Mr. Flavel, Marshall; Mr. Griffith Jones, Hervey, Romaine, Whitefield, Wesley) ‘never tell us what they mean by faith but by some labored circumlocutions’ (page 282). This is a third palpable slander, as your own words prove: ’They say, Faith is a real persuasion that Christ hath died for me’ (page 5). Are you not here told what they mean by faith, and that without any circumlocution at all You confute your own slander still farther by adding three more: (4) ‘They make a pious resolve the ground of our acceptance with God’ (page 360). No, never. Not one of the writers you have named ever did or does so now. (5) ‘The faith they talk of is only a timid resolve, joined with a fond conjecture.’ Or (6) ‘It is a fond, presumptuous wish, greatly embarrassed with doubts and difficulties.’ (Page 404.) Slander all over. We make the righteousness and blood of Christ the only ground of our acceptance with God. And the faith we talk of is neither more nor less than a divine conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. You say (7): ‘All who preach this doctrine are of the world, and speak of the world; therefore the world heareth them’ (page 14). ’Therefore they will always be attended by the body of the people’ (page 37). A sad mistake this in point of fact. For whether they are of the world or no, it is certain the world, the generality of men, good or bad, doth not and never did hear them. At this day those who hear them are an exceeding small number in comparison of those who do not. And if the body of the people in any place do attend some of them, how do they attend Just as they would a mad dog, with sticks and stones and whatever comes to hand. And this you yourself account for extremely well. Sed oportet Palaemonem esse memorem. [‘But Palaemon ought to posses a good memory.’ Palaemon was the most famous grammarian in Rome and master of Quintillian.] ‘What a figure would a small number of ministers make in the Church either of England or Scotland who should agree to maintain the plain, obvious sense of their own public standards of doctrine, and insist upon an adherence to that sense as a term of holding communion with them in the sacred institutions! Their situation in the national Church would be very uncomfortable as well as extremely ridiculous. For many enemies would soon be awakened against them, to distress and misrepresent them in various respects.’ (Page 465.) Thus much as a specimen of your veracity. I object, secondly, that you know not what faith is. You talk about it, and labor and sweat, and at last come to a most lame and impotent conclusion. You say: ‘That Christ died for me is a point not easily settled, a point which the Scripture nowhere ascertains’ (the very thought, and nearly the words, of Cardinal Bellarmine, in his dispute with our forefathers): ‘so far from it, that it affirms the final. perdition of many who have great confidence of their interest in Christ’ (this only proves that many fancy they have what they have not, which I suppose nobody will deny); ‘yea, and declares that “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction”’ (page 14). It is so; but this is nothing to the point -- the nature of true faith. ‘Nature, these men say, begins the work’ (I know none of them who say so); ‘and then grace helps out the efforts of nature, and persuades a man, though he be not mentioned in Scripture either by name or surname, that Christ died for him’ (page 33). ‘So the Spirit whispers something to the heart of a sinner beside what He publicly speaks in the Scriptures. But will any lover of the Scriptures allow the possibility of this -- that the Spirit should ever speak a syllable to any man beside what He publicly speaks there’ (Page 35.) You will presently allow something wonderfully like it. And you suppose yourself to be a ‘lover of the Scriptures.’ ‘Some of the martyrs were assured of being the friends of Christ’ (page 398). How Which way Nether their name nor surname was mentioned in Scripture! Why, ‘the Holy Ghost assured their hearts and the hearts of the first Christians that their joy was not the joy of the hypocrite, but the beginning of eternal life. Thus their joy was made full and their love perfected by the highest enjoyments it was here capable of. Every believer finds a refreshment to his mind far superior to all the comforts of this life. They stand in God’s presence, and have their joy made full in beholding the light of His countenance’ (page 402). Allow the, and we will never dispute whether the Spirit does or does not ‘whisper anything to their hearts.’ It is enough that they have ‘the Spirit of adoption, crying in their hearts, Abba, Father’; and that this ‘Spirit witnesseth with their spirits that they are the children of God.’ ‘The chief time of this agency of the Spirit is while the preachers are declaiming. And the people are in continual expectation of the season of power in heating them.’ (Page 38.) Yea, and reason good, if, as you affirm, ‘hearing is the only mean whereby God gives faith’ (page 391). But we do not affirm so much. We only maintain that ‘faith’ generally ‘cometh by hearing.’ But you go on: ‘They who partake of Christ’s joy receive the highest evidence that He is the Christ. Thus, then, faith is greatly confirmed by a kind of presence of its object. Their love is joyfully inflamed, and they obtain the assurance of hope, by having in themselves an experimental foretaste of their eternal enjoyment.’ (Page 415.) Why, then, what are we disputing about, seeing you are now so kind as to allow, not only the possibility, but the real existence of all that we contend for ‘Oh, but this is not faith. Faith is quite another thing.’ What is it Let us hear your account of it. ‘The essence of true faith is the eternal God’ (page 288). ‘What is faith It is the blood of Christ.’ (Page 330.) Stark, staring nonsense! Sir, you can talk sense if you please. Why should you palm upon your readers such stuff as this Very little better than this is your third definition: ‘The truth which a man believes is his faith’ (page 301). No it is not; no more than the light which a man sees is his sight. You must therefore guess again. ‘To believe this fact, Christ rose from the dead, is faith’ (page 169). ‘Ask a man, Is the gospel true or not If he holds it to be true, this is faith.’ (Page 296.) But is this saving faith ‘Yes, every one that believes the Gospel history shah be saved’ (page 333). This is flat and plain. And if it is but true, every devil in hell will be saved. For it is absolutely certain every one of these believes this fact -- Christ rose from the dead. It is certain every one of these believes the Gospel history. Therefore this is not saving faith; neither will every one be saved who believes this fact -- Christ rose from the dead. It follows that, whatever others do, you know not what faith is. I object thirdly, (1) That you yourself ‘shut up our access to the divine righteousness’; (2) that you vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. (1) You yourself shut up our access to the divine righteousness by destroying that repentance which Christ has made the way to it. ‘Ask men,’ you say, ‘have they sinned or not If they know they have, this is conviction. And this is preparation enough for mercy.’ Soft casuistry indeed! He that receives this saying is never likely either to ‘repent’ or ‘believe the gospel.’ And if he do not, he can have no access to the righteousness of Christ. Yet you strangely affirm: ‘A careless sinner is in full as hopeful a way as one that is the most deeply convicted’ (page 292). How can this be, if that conviction be from God Where He has begun the work, will He not finish it Have we not reason to hope this But in a careless sinner that work is not begun; perhaps never will be. Again: whereas our Lord gives a general command, ‘Seek, and ye shah find,’ you say, ‘Saving faith was never yet sought or in the remotest manner wished for by an unbeliever’ (page 372); a proposition as contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture as to the experience of every true believer. Every one who now believes knows how he sought and wished for that faith before he experienced it. It is not true even with regard to your faith, a belief of the Bible. For I know Deists at this day who have often wished they could believe the Bible, and owned ‘it was happy for them that could.’ (2) You vehemently contradict yourself, and do the very thing which you charge upon others. ‘If we imagine we possess or desire to attain any requisite to our acceptance with God beside or in connection with the bare work of Christ, Christ shah profit us nothing’ (page 96). Again: ‘What is required of us in order to our acceptance with God Nothing. The least attempt to do anything is damnably criminal.’ Very good. Now for self-consistency: ‘What Christ has done is that which quiets the conscience of man as soon as he knows it. So that he need ask no more than, “Is it true or not” If he finds it true, he it happy. If he does not, he can reap no comfort from it. Our comfort arises from the persuasion of this.’ (Page 12.) Again: ‘Men are justified by a knowledge of the righteousness of Christ’ (page 406). And yet again: ‘The sole requisite to acceptance is divine righteousness brought to view’ (page 291). So you have brought matters to a fine conclusion; confuting an hundred of your own assertions, and doing the very thing for which you have been all along so unmercifully condemning other. You yourself here teach another ‘requisite to our acceptance beside the bare work of Christ’ -- namely, the knowing that work, the finding it true. Therefore by your own word ‘Christ shall profit you nothing.’ In one page you say, ‘Nothing is required in order to our acceptance with God’; in another, ‘Divine righteousness brought to view is requisite to our acceptance.’ ‘Brought to view’! What self-righteousness is this! Which of ‘the popular preachers’ could have done worse ‘Men are justified by a knowledge of the righteousness of Christ.’ ‘Knowledge’! What! our own knowledge! Knowledge in us! Why, this is the very thing which we call faith. So you have fairly given up the whole question, justified your opponents, and condemned yourself as ‘damnably criminal’! I object, fourthly, that you have no charity and that you know not what charity is. That you know not what it is manifestly appears from the wonderful definition you give of it. (1) ‘Charity,’ you say, ‘is fellowship with God in His blessedness’ (page 453). Muddy, confused, ut nihil sgpra! [“So as nothing can exceed it.] We know he that loveth hath fellowship with God. But yet the ideas of one and of the other are widely different. We know ‘God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him.’ But yet loving Him is not the same thing with dwelling in Him. If it were, the whole sentence would be flat tautology. You say (2): Charity is ‘the love of the truth’ (page 456). Not at all; no more than it is the love of the sun. It is the love of God, and of man for God’s sake; no more and no less. You say (3): ‘Christ is known to us only by report.’ That is not granted. ‘And charity is the love of that report’ (page 455). Every intelligent reader will want no farther proof that you know not what chatty is. No wonder, then, that you have it not -- nay, that you are at the utmost distance both from the love of God and of your neighbor. You cannot love God, because you do not love your neighbor. For he that loves God loves his brother also. But such hatred malevolence, rancor, bitterness as you show to all who do not exactly fall in with your opinion was scarce ever seen in a Jew, an heathen or a popish inquisitor. ‘Nay, but you abhor persecution. You would persecute no man.’ I should be very loath to trust you. I doubt, were it in your power, you would make more bonfires in Smithfield than Bonner and Gardiner put together. But if not, if you would not pemecute with fire and faggot, Mirum! Ut neque calce lupus quenquam, neque dente petit bos. [Horace’s Satires, II. i. 55: ‘Wondrous indeed! that bulls ne’er strive to bites, Nor wolves with desperate horns engage in fight.’] What does this prove Only that you murder in another way. You smite with the tongue, with the poison of asps which is under your lips. A few specimens follow: -- The popular preachers worship another God’ (page 338). It can never be allowed that Dr. Doddridge worshipped the same God with Paul’ (page 470). ‘Notice the difference betwixt the God of these preachers and the true God, betwixt their Christ and the Christ preached by the Apostles, betwixt their spirit and the Spirit that influenced the Apostles’ (page 40). ‘I know no sinners more hardened, none greater destroyers of mankind than they’ (page 98). ‘By no small energy of deceit, they darken the revelation of God and change the doctrine of the blessed God into a doctrine of self-dependence.’ Strange that you yourself should do the very same thing! averring that ‘men am justified by a knowledge of the righteousness of Christ,’ not by the bare work which Christ has wrought! You put me in mind of an old usurer who vehemently thanked a minister that had preached a severe sermon against usury; and bring asked, ‘Why do you talk thus’ replied, ‘I wish them were no usurer in London beside myself’! Sir, do not you wish there was no miniser in Great Britain who taught this doctrine beside yourself ‘That any who has learnt his religion from the New Testament should mistake their doctrine for the Christian is astonishing’ (page 40). Theirs or yours for it happens to be one and the same with regard to the present point. ‘By many deceits they change the truth of God into a lie’ (ibid.). If they do, so do you. Indeed, you heavily complain of the imputation. You say: ‘It is both astonishing and provoking that, after all, men will say there is no difference between their scheme and yours.’ And yet, after all, so it is: truth is great, and will prevail. In the leading point, that of justification, both you and they teach, ‘Men are justified by a knowledge of the righteousness of Christ.’ Only they think it is a divine, supernatural, experimental knowledge, wrought in the inmost soul; and you think it is a barn historical knowledge, of the same kind with that which the devils have. One specimen more of your unparalleled charity, which in any but yourself would be astonishing: ‘If any one chooses to go to hell by a devout path, let him study any one of those four famous treatises: Mr. Guthrie’s Trial of a Saving Interest in Christ; Mr. Marshall’s Gospel Mystery of Sanctification [Walter Marshall, Vicar of Humley; elected 1662, became Non-conformist minister at Gosport, and died in 1690. The Gospel Mystery was published in 1692.]; Mr. Boston’s Human Nature in its Fourfold State; or Dr. Doddridge’s Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul. If any profane person who desires to be converted enter into the spirit of those books, he thereby becomes twofold more a child of hell than he was before.’ (Page 436.) Such is the doctrine, such is the spirit, of Palaemon! condemning the whole generation of God’s children; sending all his opponents to hell at once; casting arrows, firebrands, death on every side! But I stop. God be merciful to thee a sinner; and show thee compassion though thou hast none for thy fellow servants! Otherwise it will be more tolerable, I will not say for Seneca or Epictetus, but for Nero or Domitian, in the day of judgment than for thee! To Mrs. Ryan NEWBURY, November 8, 1757. MY DEAR SISTER, -- In the hurry of business I had not time to write down what you desired -- the rules of our family. So I snatch a few minutes to do it now, and the more cheerfully because I know you will observe them. 1. The family rises, part at four, part at half an hour after. 2. They breakfast at seven, dine at twelve, and sup at six. 3. They spend the hour from five to six in the evening (after a little joint prayer) in private. 4. They pray together at nine, and then retire to their chambers; so that all are in bed before ten. 5. They observe all Fridays in the year as days of fasting or abstinence. You in particular I advise, -- Suffer no impertinent visitant, no unprofitable conversation, in the house. It is a city set upon an hill; and all that is in it should be ‘holiness to the Lord.’ On what a pinnacle do you stand! You are placed in the eye of all the world, friends and enemies. You have no experience of these things, no knowledge of the people, no advantages of education, not large natural abilities, and are but a novice, as it were, in the ways of God! It requires all the omnipotent love of God to preserve you in your present station. Stand fast in the Lord and in the power of His might! Show that nothing is too hard for Him. Take to thee the whole armor of God, and do and suffer all things through Christ strengthening thee. If you continue teachable and advisable, I know nothing that shaft be able to hurt you. Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ryan NORWICH, November 21, 1757 MY DEAR SISTER, -- May the peace and love of God spring up in your heart as in time past, and more abundantly! You have refreshed my bowels in the Lord; I feel your words, and praise God on your behalf. I not only excuse but love your simplicity; and whatever freedom you use, it will be welcome. Surely God will never suffer me to be ashamed of my confidence in you. I have been censured for it by some of your nearest friends; but I cannot repent of it. [See previous letter.] Will not you put forth all your strength (which, indeed, is not yours; it is the Spirit of the Father which now worketh in you), -- (1) in managing all things pertaining to the house, so as to adorn the gospel of God our Savor (2) in feeding the sheep He has committed to your immediate care and carrying the weak and sickly in your bosom (3) in assisting, quickening, and directing the family at Kingswood, whom I trust you will always bear upon your heart (4) in reproving, stirring up, or confirming all whom the providence of God shall put into your hands and (lastly) in watching over and helping forward in the ways of God one who has more need of help than all the rest, and who is always willing to receive it from you because you always speak the truth in love Do you find no interruption or abatement at any time of your joy in the Lord Do you continually see God, and that without any cloud or darkness or mist between Do you pray without ceasing, without ever being diverted from it by anything inward or outward Are you never hindered by any person or thing by the power or subtlety of Satan, or by the weakness or disorders of the body pressing down the soul Can you be thankful for everything without exception And do you feel all working together for good Do you do nothing, great or small, merely to please yourself Do you feel no touch of any desire or affection but what springs from the pure love of God Do you speak no words but from a principle of love and under the guidance of His Spirit O how I long to find you unblameable in all things, and holy as He that hath cared you is holy! -- I am yours, &c. To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, November 30, 1757. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Your letter came in a seasonable time, as rain in a time of drought. How fain would we excuse those we love! I would gladly acquit those who severely condemn each other. The wrong to myself is not worth a thought; it gives me not a moment’s uneasiness. But I am pained for others, who, if they do not sin against God, yet give great occasion to the enemy to blaspheme. You may learn an excellent lesson herefrom. Suppose you are saved from sin, it is certain that you are not saved from a possibility of mistake. On this side, therefore, Satan may assault you; you may be deceived either as to persons or things. You may think better or (which is far more strange) you may think worse of them than they deserve. And hence words or actions may spring which, if not sinful in you, are certainly wrong in themselves, and which will and must appear sinful to those who cannot read your heart. What grievous inconvenience would ensue! How would the good that is in you be evil-spoken of! How would the great gift of God be doubted of, if not disbelieved and denied for your cause! Therefore in the name of God I exhort you, keep close every moment to the unction of the Holy One! I Attend to the still, small voice! Beware of hearkening to the voice of a stranger! My eyes ache, my head aches, my heart aches. And yet I know not when to have done. [He had spent this Wednesday and the previous Monday in hearing an ‘intricate cause’ where ‘one side flatly affirmed, the other flatly denied.’ See Journal iv. 245.] O speak nothing, act nothing, think nothing but as you are taught of God! Still may He with your weakness stay, Nor for a moment’s space depart; Evil and danger turn away, And keep your hand, your tongue, your heart. So shall you always comfort, not grieve, Your affectionate brother. To Walter Sellon LONDON, December 1, 1757. MY DEAR BROTHER -- If only one stone were removed out of the way, the thing might be immediately effected. Only prevail upon John Brandon [John Brandon, a dragoon, formed a smll Society in Leicester, which Wesley visited in April 1757. He became an itinerant in 1765.] to spend a month or two in London or any other part of England, and I will immediately send another preacher to Leicester, Ashby, and the adjacent places. But during the present scarcity of laborers we cannot spare a second for that small circuit till you spare us the first. It is surprising that, from one end of the land to the other, so little good is done in a regular way. What have you to do but to follow that way which the providence of God points out And when they drive you from Smithsby, you know where to have both employment and the things needful for the body. I think also it will be highly profitable for your soul to be near those who have more experience in the ways of God. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ryan LEWISHAM, December 14, 1757. MY DEAR SISTER -- I find by Mr. Perronet’s last letter [Charles Perronet. See letters of July 12, 1757, and Nov. 4, 1758.] that he is deeply offended, that his former affection (so he speaks) is degenerated into a cold esteem, and that he no longer rerds me as a dear friend but as an austere master. Has he not a little affected you He does not speak with passion; but his words distill as the dew. The God whom you serve send forth His light and His truth, and direct you in every thought! Do you never find any wandering thoughts in prayer or useless thoughts at other seasons Does the corruptible body never press down the soul and make it muse about useless things Have you so great a command over your imagination as to keep out all unprofitable images -- at least, to banish them the moment they appear, so that they nether trouble nor sully your soul Do you find every reasoning brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ Is there no vanity or folly in your dreams no temptation that almost overcomes you And are you then as sensible of the presence of God and as full of prayer as when you are waking I can hardly avoid trembling for you still: upon what a pinnacle do you stand! Perhaps few persons in England have been in so dangerous a situation as you are now. I know not whether any other was ever so regarded both by my brother and me at the same time. What can I do to help you The Father of mercies help you and with His favorable kindness surround you on every side! May the eternal Spirit help you in every thought, word, and work to serve the living God! -- I am Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Matthew Errington, born at Houghton-le-Spring in 1711 was converted under Wesley’s preaching in London on March 4, 1740. He became a helper at the Foundry. He was now in charge of Wesley’s books at the Orphan House, Newcastle; where he lived from 1749 till his death in February 1788, when he left 20 for the poor of the Society and 20 for the work of God. See Arminian Magazine 1789, p. 22. [2] Thomas Olivers was born at Tregonan in 1725. After a dissipated youth be became a Methodist preacher in October 1753. In 1756 he was appointed to Ireland; and when Christopher Hopper sailed in September with Murlin, Gilbert, and Massiot, Olivers accompanied them. He ‘spent the year in and about Limerick, Waterford, and Cork. In the first of these places God was pleased to own my labors much. Many of the soldiers as well as others were converted to God.’ For twelve years Olivers had charge of Wesley’s printing; but in 1789 the errata led Wesley to choose another person to prepare the Arminian Magazine. Olivers was buried in Wesley’s grave at City Road in March 1799. His great hymn ‘The God of Abraham Praise’ keeps his memory and alive. See Journal vii. 525n; Wesley’s Veterans, i. 139, 230; and the letters of July 10, 1756, and Aug 15, 1789. [3] Miss Freeman was a London friend of the Wesleys. Wesley had known her almost from a child; and on March 25, 1783, he met her at Hilton Park, where she had been of great service to the daughters of Sir. Phillip Gibbes. See Journal, vi. 401; C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 282-3; and letter of April 4, 1785. [4] Sarah Crosby was Mrs Bosanquet’s friend and helper at Cross Hall. They first met at Miss Furly’s house in London, when Miss Bosanquet was much impressed by her testimony as to holiness. After Marry Bosanquet married John Fletcher, Vicar of Madely, in 1781, Mrs Crosby did much evangelistic work. She died in November 1801, after one day’s illness. See Journal, iv. 525n; Methodist Magazine 1806, p. 418; and letter of February 14, 1761. [5] Samuel Walker and some of those who had been at Wesley’s early Conferences wished him to give into their care the Societies he had formed in their parishes. This is Wesley’s reply. For the failure of such a plan at Huddersfield, see letter of June 22, 1763, to Henry Venn. [6] A striking defense of Methodist worship. The words about provoking a critic to turn Christian recall Byrom’s letter to Charles Wesley in March 1738: ‘When you tell me that you write not for the critic but for the Christian, it occurs to my mind that you might as well write for both, or in such a manner that the critic may by your writing be moved to turn Christian rather than the Christian turn critic.’ [7] A work of 500 pages probably by John Glass or Robert Sandeman under the pseudonym of ‘Palaemon,’ had appeared and brought forth this reply which Wesley called ‘A Sufficient Answer to Letters to the Author of ‘Theron and Aspasio.’ John Glass (1695-1773) was a deposed Presbyerian minister; Robert Sandeman (1718-71) his helper and son-in-law. See Tyrman’s Wesley, ii. 293; Green’s Bibliography, No. 183. [8] Miss Bosanquet met Sarah Ryan at Mrs. Clarke’s, Moorfields, before Wesley appointed her housekeeper at Kingswood in 1757 which post she held for four years. Her past life had been such that Mrs. Wesley was indignant and jealous, and Wesley’s friends censured him for his confidence in her. When Mary Bosanquet left home she took lodgings at Mrs. Gold’s in Hoxton Square. There Mrs. Ryan joined her. She was with her through all her work at Leytonstone, and went with her to Yorkshire, where she died, on August 17 1768 in her forty-fourth year. See History of Kingswood School, p 49; Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, pp. 31, 34, 73-4; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 285-9; and letters of June 14 and November 22. [9] Walter Sellon was one of Wesley’s first preachers and a master at Kingswood. He was now ordained and settled at Smithsby, near Ashby-de-la-Zouch. He became Vicar of Ashby, and was one of Wesley’s chief supporters in the controversy with Toplady. See Journal, v. 293n, 361; and letter of Dec. 30, 1766. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 47: 45. 1758 ======================================================================== 1758 To a Gentleman at Bristol BRISTOL, January 6, 1758 SIR, -- You desire my thoughts on a paper lately addresses to the inhabitants of St. Stephen’s parish, [Bristol], and an answer thereto entitled A Seasonable Antidote against Popery. I have at present little leisure, and cannot speak so fully as the importance of the subject requires. I can only just tell you wherein I do or do not agree with what is advanced in the one or the other. I agree with the main of what is asserted in that paper, allowing for some expressions which I could wish had been altered, because some of them are a little obscure, others liable to misinterpretation – indeed, so liable that they could scarce fail to be misunderstood by the unwary and censured by the unfriendly reader. But I cannot agree that ‘obedience is a condition or antecedent to justification,’ unless we mean final justification. This I apprehend to be a considerable mistake; although, indeed, it is not explicitly asserted, but only implied in some part of that address. I entirely agree with the author of the Seasonable Antidote in the important points that follow: ‘That a sinner is justified or accounted righteous before God, only through the righteousness’ (or merits) ‘of Jesus Christ; that the end of His living and dying for us was that our persons first and then our works might be accepted; that faith is the hand which apprehends, the instrument which applies, the merits of Christ for our justification; that justifying faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit; that He evidences our being justified by bearing His testimony with our spirits that we are the children of God, and by enabling us to bring forth first the inward and then the outward fruits of the Spirit; and, lastly, that these fruits do not justify us, do not procure our justification, but prove us to be justified, as the fruits on a tree do not make it alive, but prove it to be alive’ (pages 33-4). These undoubtedly are the genuine principles of the Church of England. And they are confirmed, as by our Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, so by the whole tenor of Scripture. Therefore, till heaven and earth pass away, these truths will not pass away. But I do not agree with the author of that tract in the spirit of the whole performance. It does not seem to breathe either that modesty or seriousness or charity which one would desire. One would not desire to hear any private person, of no great note in the Church or the world, speak as it were ex cathedra, with an air of infallibility, or at least of vast sell-sufficiency, on a point wherein men of eminence, both for piety, learning, and office, have been so greatly divided. Though my judgment is nothing altered, yet I often condemn myself for my past manner of speaking on this head. Again: I do not rejoice at observing anything light or ludicrous in an answer to so serious a paper; and much less in finding any man branded as a Papist because his doctrine in one particular instance resembles (for that is the utmost which can be proved) a doctrine of the Church of Rome. I can in no wise reconcile this to the grand rule of charity--doing to others as we would they should do to us. Indeed, it is said, ‘Dr. T. openly defends the fundamental doctrine of Popery, justification by works’ (page 3); therefore ‘he must be a Papist’ (page 4). But here is a double mistake: for (1) whatever may be implied in some of his expressions, it is most certain Dr. T. does not openly defend justification by works; (2) this itself -- justification by works -- is not the fundamental doctrine of Popery, but the universality of the Romish Church and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And to call any one a Papist who denies these is neither charity nor justice. I do not agree with the author in what follows: Dr. T. ‘loses sight of the truth when he talks of Christ’s having obtained for us a covenant of better hopes, and that faith and repentance are the terms of this covenant. They are not. They are the free gifts of the covenant of grace, not the terms or conditions. To say “Privileges of the covenant are the terms or conditions of it” is downright Popery.’ This is downright calling names, and no better. But it falls on a greater than Dr. T. St. Paul affirms, Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises; yea, and that better covenant He hath obtained for us by His own blood. And if any desire to receive the privileges which are freely given according to the tenor of this covenant, Jesus Christ Himself has marked out the way: ‘Repent, and believe the gospel.’ These, therefore, are the terms of the covenant, unless the author of it was mistaken. These are the conditions of it, unless a man can enter into the kingdom without either repenting or believing. For the word ’condition’ means neither more nor less than something sine qua non, without which something else is not done. Now, this is the exact truth with regard to repenting and believing, without which God does not work in us ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so. ‘But the gospel is a revelation of grace and mercy, not a proposal of a covenant of terms and conditions’ (page 5). It is both. It is a revelation of grace and mercy to all that ‘repent and believe.’ And this the author himself owns in the following page: ‘The free grace of God applies to sinners the benefits of Christ’s atonement and righteousness by working in them repentance and faith’ (page 6). Then they are not applied without repentance and faith--that is, in plain terms, these are the conditions of that application. I read in the next page: ‘In the gospel we have the free promises of eternal life, but not annexed to faith and repentance as works of man’ (true; they are the gift of God), ‘or the terms or conditions of the covenant.’ Yes, certainly; they are no less terms or conditions, although God works them in us. ‘But what is promised us as a free gift cannot be received upon the performance of any terms or conditions.’ Indeed it can. Our Lord said to the man born blind, ‘Go and wash in the pool of Siloam.’ Here was a plain condition to be performed, something without which he would not have received his sight. And yet his sight was a gift altogether as free as if the pool had never been mentioned. ‘But if repentance and faith are the free gifts of God, can they be the terms or conditions of our justification’ (Page 9.) Yes. Why not They are still something without which no man is or can be justified. ‘Can, then, God give that freely which He does not give but upon certain terms and conditions’ (Ibid.) Doubtless He can; as one may freely give you a sum of money on condition you stretch out your hand to receive it. It is therefore no ‘contradiction to say, We are justified freely by grace, and yet upon certain terms or conditions’ (page 10). I cannot therefore agree that ‘we are accepted without any terms previously performed to qualify us for acceptance.’ For we are not accepted, nor are we qualified for or capable of acceptance, without repentance and faith. ‘But a man is not justified by works, but by the faith of Christ. This excludes all qualifications.’ (Page 13.) Surely it does not exclude the qualification of faith! ‘But St. Paul asserts, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.”’ True; ‘to him that worketh not.’ But does God justify him that ‘believeth not’ Otherwise this text proves just the contrary to what it is brought to prove. But ‘our Church excludes repentance and faith from deserving any part of our justification. Why, then, do you insist upon them as qualifications requisite to our justification’ (Page 19.) Because Christ and His Apostles do so. Yet we all agree they do not deserve any part of our justification. They are no part of the meritorious cause; but they are the conditions of it. This and no other is ‘the doctrine of Scripture and of the Church of England’! Both the Scripture and ‘our Church allow, yea insist, on these qualifications or conditions.’ (Page 21.) ‘But if repentance and faith would not be valid and acceptable without the righteousness of Christ, then they cannot be necessary qualifications for our justification’ (page 22). I cannot allow the consequence. They are not acceptable without the righteousness or merits of Christ; and yet He Himself has made them necessary qualifications for our justification through His merits. But the grand objection of this gentleman lies against the doctor’s next paragraph, the sum of which is: ‘The merits of Christ were never intended to supersede the necessity of repentance and obedience’ (I would say, repentance and faith), ‘but to make them acceptable in the sight of God, and to purchase for them’ (I would add, that obey Him) ‘a reward of immortal happiness.’ I am not afraid to undertake the defense of this paragraph, with this small variation, against Mr. Chapman, Mr. Nyberg, [Laurentius Nyberg, of Haverfordwest, a Moravian minister, and correspondent of James Hutton.] Count Zinzendorf, or any other person whatever; provided only that he will set his name to his work, for I do not love fighting in the dark. And I, as well as Dr. T., affirm that ‘to say more than this concerning Christ’s imputed merits,’ to say more than that ‘they have purchased for us grace to repent and believe, acceptance upon our believing, power to obey, and eternal salvation to them that do obey Him,’--to say more than this ‘is blasphemous Antinomianism,’ such as Mr. Calvin would have abhorred; and does ‘open a door to all manner of sin and wickedness.’ ‘I must likewise affirm that to talk of imputed righteousness in the manner many do at this day is making the imaginary transfer of Christ’s righteousness serve as a cover for the unrighteousness of mankind’ (page 26). Does not Mr. Chapman do this at Bristol Does not Mr. Madan at London Let them shudder then, let their blood run cold, who do it; not theirs who tell them that they do so. It is not the latter but the former who ’trample Christ’s righteousness underfoot as a mean and vile thing.’ I firmly believe ‘we are accounted righteous before God, justified only for the merit of Christ.’ But let us have no shifting the terms. ‘Only through Christ’s imputed righteousness’ are not the words of the Article, neither the language of our Church. Much less does our Church anywhere affirm ‘that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the ungodly, who have no qualifications’ (page 28), no repentance, no faith; nor do the Scriptures ever affirm this. The reflection on the general inference I so entirely agree with as to think it worth transcribing: ‘If you have faith and repentance, you want no other signs or evidences of your justification. But if you have not these, to pretend to any other assurances, tokens, feelings, or experiences, is vain and delusive.’ Does he know any one who maintains that a man may be in a state of justification and yet have no faith or repentance But the marks and evidences of true faith which the Scripture has promised must not be discarded as vain or delusive. The Scripture has promised us the assurance of faith, to be wrought in us by the operation of God. It mentions ‘the earnest of the Spirit,’ and speaks of ‘feeling after the Lord’ and finding Him; and so our Church in her Seventeenth Article speaks of ‘feeling in ourselves the working of the Spirit of Christ,’ and in the Homily for Rogation Week of ‘feeling our conscience at peace with God through remission of our sin.’ So that we must not reject all ‘assurances, tokens, feelings, and experiences’ as ‘vain and delusive.’ Nor do I apprehend Dr. T. ever intended to say that we must reject all inward feelings, but only those which are without faith or repentance. And who would not reject these His very words are, ‘If you have not these, to pretend to any other feelings is vain and delusive.’ I say so too. Meantime he is undoubtedly sensible that there is a ‘consolation in love,’ a ‘peace that paseth all understanding ,’ and a ‘joy that is unspeakable and full of glory.’ Nor can we imagine him to deny that these must be felt, inwardly felt, wherever they exist. Upon the whole, I cannot but observe how extremely difficult it is, even for men who have an upright intention and are not wanting either in natural or acquired abilities, to understand one another; and how hard it is to do even justice to those whom we do not throughly understand; much more to treat them with that gentleness, tenderness, and brotherly kindness with which, upon a change of circumstances, we might reasonably desire to be treated ourselves. Oh when shall men know whose disciples we are by our ’ loving one another as He hath loved us’ I The God of love hasten the time! -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Micaiah Towgood BRISTOL, January 10, 1758. SIR,--If you fairly represent Mr. White’s arguments, they are liable to much exception. But whether they are or no, your answers to them are far from unexceptionable. To the manner of the whole I object, you are not serious; you do not write as did those excellent men, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Howe, Dr. Calamy, who seem always to speak, not laughing, but weeping. To the matter I object, that if your argument hold as it is proposed in your very title-page, if ‘a dissent from our Church be the genuine consequence of the allegiance due to Christ,’ then all who do not dissent have renounced that allegiance and are in a state of damnation! I have not leisure to consider all that you advance in proof of this severe sentence. I can only at present examine your main argument, which indeed contains the strength of your cause. ‘My separation from the Church of England,’ you say, ‘is a debt I owe to God, and an act of allegiance due to Christ, the only Lawgiver in the Church’ (page 2). Again: ‘The controversy turns upon one single point -- Has the Church power to decree rites and ceremonies If it has this power, then all the objections of the Dissenters about kneeling at the Lord’s Supper and the like are impertinent; if it has no power at all of this kind -- yea, if Christ, the great Lawgiver and King of the Church, hath expressly commanded that no power of this kind shall ever be claimed or ever be yielded by any of His followers, then the Dissenters will have honor before God for protesting against such usurpation.’ (Page 3.) I join issue on this single point: ‘If Christ hath expressly commanded that no power of this kind shall ever be claimed or ever yielded by any of His followers,’ then are all who yield it, all Churchmen, in a state of damnation, as much as those who ‘deny the Lord that bought them.’ But if Christ hath not expressly commanded this, we may go to church and yet not go to hell. To the point then. The power I speak of is a power of decreeing rites and ceremonies, of appointing such circumstantials (suppose) of public worship as are in themselves purely indifferent, being no way determined in Scripture. And the question is, ‘Hath Christ expressly commanded that this power shall never be claimed nor ever yielded by any of His followers’ This I deny. How do you prove it Why, thus: ‘If the Church of England has this power, so has the Church of Rome’ (page 4). Allowed. But this is not to the purpose. I want ‘the express command of Christ.’ You say, ‘Secondly, the persons who have this power in England are not the clergy but the Parliament’ (pages 8-9). Perhaps so. But this also strikes wide. Where is ‘the express command of Christ’ You ask, ‘Thirdly, how came the civil magistrate by this power’ (Page 11.) ‘Christ commands us to “call no man upon earth father and master” -- that is, to acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion’ (page 12). At length we are come to the express command, which, according to your interpretation, is express enough – ‘that is, Acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion,’ own no power in any to appoint any circumstance of public worship, anything pertaining to decency and order. But this interpretation is not allowed. It is the very point in question. We allow Christ does here expressly command to acknowledge no such authority of any, as the Jews paid their Rabbis, whom they usually styled either fathers or masters, implicitly believing all they affirmed and obeying all they enjoined. But we deny that He expressly commands to acknowledge no authority of governors in things purely indifferent, whether they relate to the worship of God or other matters. You attempt to prove it by the following words: ‘“One is your Master” and Lawgiver, “even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. xxiii. 8-9), all Christians, having no dominion over one another.’ True, no such dominion as their Rabbis claimed; but in all things indifferent, Christian magistrates have dominion. As to your inserting ‘and Lawgiver’ in the preceding clause, you have no authority from the text; for it is not plain that our Lord is here speaking of Himself in that capacity. dsa, the word here rendered ‘Master,’ you well know conveys no such idea. It should rather have been translated ’Teacher.’ And, indeed, the whole text primarily relates to doctrines. But you cite another text: ‘The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you’ (Matt. xx. 25). Very good; that is, Christian pastors shall not exercise such dominion over their flock as heathen princes do over their subjects. Most sure; but, without any violation of this, they may appoint how things shall ‘be done decently and in order.’ ‘But Christ is the sole Lawgiver, Judge, and Sovereign in His Church’ (page 12). He is the sole sovereign Judge and Lawgiver. But it does not follow (what you continually infer) that there are no subordinate judges therein; nor that there are none who have power to make regulations therein in subordination to Him. King George is sovereign judge and lawgiver in these realms. But are there no subordinate judges Nay, are there not many who have power to make rules or laws in their own little communities And how does this ‘invade his authority and throne’ Not at all, unless they contradict the laws of his kingdom. ‘However, He alone has authority to fix the terms of communion for His followers, or Church’ (ibid.). ‘And the terms He has fixed no men on earth have authority to set aside or alter.’ This I allow (although it is another question), none has authority to exclude from the Church of Christ those who comply with the terms which Christ has fixed. But not to admit into the society called the Church of England or not to administer the Lord’s Supper to them is not the same thing with ‘excluding men from the Church of Christ’; unless this society be the whole Church of Christ, which neither you nor I will affirm. This society, therefore, may scruple to receive those as members who do not observe her rules in things indifferent, without pretending ‘to set aside or alter the terms which Christ has fixed’ for admission into the Christian Church; and yet without ‘lording it over God’s heritage or usurping Christ’s throne.’ Nor does all ‘the allegiance we owe Him’ at all hinder our ‘obeying them that have the rule over us’ in things of a purely indifferent nature. Rather our allegiance to Him requires our obedience to them. In being ‘their servants,’ thus far we are ‘Christ’s servants.’ We obey His general command by obeying our governors in particular instances. Hitherto you have produced no express command of Christ to the contrary. Nor do you attempt to show any such, but strike off from the question for the twelve or fourteen pages following. But after these you say, ‘The subjects of Christ are expressly commanded to receive nothing as parts of religion which are only “commandments of men” (Matt. xv. 9)’ (page 26). We grant it; but this is no command at all not to ’obey those who have the rule over us.’ And we must obey them in things indifferent, or not at all. For in things which God hath forbidden, should such be enjoined, we dare not obey. Nor need they enjoin what God hath commanded. Upon the whole, we agree that Christ is the only ‘supreme Judge and Lawgiver in the Church’: I may add, and in the world; for ‘there is no power,’ no secular power, ‘but of God’ -- of God who ‘was manifested in the flesh, who is over all, blessed for ever.’ But we do not at all agree in the inference which you would draw therefrom -- namely, that there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the Church. You may just as well infer that there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the world. Yea, there is, both in the one and the other. And in obeying these subordinate powers we do not, as you aver, renounce the Supreme; no, but we obey them for His sake. We believe it is not only innocent but our bounden duty so to do; in all things of an indifferent nature to submit ourselves ‘to every ordinance of man’; and that ‘for the Lord’s sake,’ because we think He has not forbidden but expressly commanded it. Therefore ‘as a genuine fruit of our allegiance to Christ’ we submit both to the King and governors sent by him, so far as possibly we can, without breaking some plain command of God. And you have not yet brought any plain command to justify that assertion that ‘we may not submit either to the King or to governors sent by him in any circumstance relating to the worship of God.’ Here is a plain declaration: ‘There is no power but of God; the powers that exist are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power’ (without an absolute necessity, which in things indifferent there is not), ‘resisteth the ordinance of God.’ And here is a plain command grounded thereon: ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.’ Now, by what scripture does it appear that we are not to be subject in anything pertaining to the worship of God This is an exception which we cannot possibly allow without clear warrant from Holy Writ. And we apprehend those of the Church of Rome alone can decently plead for such an exception. It does not sound well in the mouth of a Protestant to claim an exemption- from the jurisdiction of the civil powers in all matters of religion and in the minutest circumstance relating to the Church. Another plain command is that mentioned but now: ‘Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.’ And this we shall think ourselves hereby fully authorized to do, in things of a religious as well as a civil nature, till you can produce plain, explicit proof from Scripture that we must submit in the latter but not in the former. We cannot find any such distinction in the Bible; and till we find it there, we cannot receive it, but must believe our allegiance to Christ requires submission to our governors in all things indifferent. This I speak even on supposition that the things in question were enjoined merely by the King and Parliament. If they were, what then Then I would submit to them ‘for the Lord’s sake.’ So that in all your parade, either with regard to King George or Queen Anne, there may be wit but no wisdom, no force, no argument, till you can support this distinction from plain testimony of Scripture. Till this is done, it can never be proved that ‘a dissent from the Church of England (whether it can be justified from other topics or no) is the genuine and just consequence of the allegiance which is due to Christ as the only Lawgiver in the Church.’ As you proposed to ‘bring the controversy to this short and plain issue, to let it turn on this single point,’ I have done so, I have spoken to this alone; although I could have said something on many other points which you have advanced as points of the utmost certainty, although they are far more easily affirmed than proved. But I waive them for the present: hoping this may suffice to show any fair and candid inquirer that it is very possible to be united to Christ and to the Church of England at the same time; that we need not separate from the Church in order to preserve our allegiance to Christ, but may be firm members thereof, and yet ’ have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man.’ -- I am, sir, Your very humble servant. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wesley says: ‘At the request of several of my friends I wrote A letter to a Gentleman of Bristol, in order to guard them from seeking salvation by works on one hand and Antinomianism on the other. From those who lean to either extreme I shall have no thanks; but “wisdom is justified of her children.”’ The paper referred to was by ‘Dr. T.,’ and it called forth an answer, A Seasonable Antidote against Popery. See Journal, iv. 247. [2] At Birstall on April 30 and May 1, 1755, John and Charles Wesley read together Micaiah Towgood’s A Gentleman’s Reasons for his Dissent from the Church of England, in preparation for their Conference which began at Leeds on May 6. Wesley described it ‘an elaborate and lively tract, and contains the strength of the cause; but it did not yield us one proof that it is lawful for us (much less our duty) to separate from it.’ When he finished, he adds: ‘In how different a spirit does this man write from honest Richard Baxter! The one dipping, as it were, his pen in tears, the other in vinegar and gall. Surely one page of that loving, serious Christian weighs more than volumes of this bitter, sarcastic jester.’ Towgood was a Dissenting minister in Exeter, and published his book in 1746. John White, B.D., Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, and Vicar of Ospringe, near Faversham, replied in three letters; and Towgood then wrote A Dissent from the Church of England fully justified .... Being the Dissenting Gentleman’s Three Letters and Postscript Complete. Wesley says on January 9, 1758: ‘I began a letter to Mr. Towgood, author of The Dissenting Gentleman’s Reasons -- I think the most saucy and virulent satire on the Church of England that ever my eyes beheld. How much rather would I write practically than controversially. But even this talent I dare not bury in the earth.’ See Journal, iv. 114, 247. Other: Volume 3 [Note from the editor of the digital edition of Wesley’s Letters: Telford placed several of Wesley’s lengthier letters from this period in a separate location in the last half of vol. 3. I have chosen to relocate them within the file for year in which they were written.] CONTROVERSIAL AND HISTORICAL I. TO DR. LAVINGTON, Bishop of Exeter, author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared. II. To John Baily, Rector of Kilcully, Cork. III. TO DR. LAVINGTON, Bishop of Exeter. IV. TO WILLIAM LAW, ‘occasioned by some of his later writings.’ V. TO JAMES HERVEY, concerning his Theron Aspasio. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 48: 46. VOLUME 4 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 4 Events TRIALS AND BLESSINGS JANUARY 24, 1760, TO DECEMBER 15, 1763 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1760 Feb. 21. French landing at Carrickfergus. May 5. Execution of Earl Ferrers. Oct. 25. Death of George II. Care and trouble in London. 1762. Nov. 26. Answer to Bishop Warburton. 1763. Jan. 7 Wesley meets George Bell. Mar. Earthquake panic in London. Apr. 28. Thomas Maxfield leaves Wesley. This was one of the most trying periods of Wesley’s life. On December 31, 1762, he writes in his Journal: ’I now stood and looked back on the past year, a year of uncommon trials and uncommon blessings.’ Thomas Maxfield, one of his first lay preachers, deserted him in April 1763, under circumstances described in the letter of November 2, 1762. George Bell crowned his fanaticism by a prophecy that the world would be brought to an end on February 28, 1763 . London was convulsed by the earthquake panic of March. Wesley had now to bear the burden of administration alone: his chief lay counselor was Ebenezer Blackwell. He lived in the public eye, as his frequent letters to the press show; and how careful he was to give account of his stewardship appears by what he wrote on February 18, 1760. The letter of January 2, 1761, describing Newgate in London as one of the chief ’seats of woe on this side hell,’ and Newgate in Bristol as even worse, makes one thankful indeed for the reformation he had seen. His letters to his brother reveal that his hand and eye were everywhere. The set of thirty‑seven letters to ’A Member of the Society’ begin on March 4, 1760; and on August 23, 1763, the first of twenty‑seven to Mrs. Bennis of Limerick. On April 25, 1761, Thomas Olivers is put through his catechism. The counsels to young friends are as wise and helpful as ever: and the letters to Lord and Lady Rawdon and Lady Gardiner give us a glimpse of his growing influence in higher circles. Wesley’s chief controversy was with Bishop Warburton, whom he does not flatter in the private letter to Charles on January 5, 1763. The anxieties of the time were increased by his brother standing so much aloof and his friends among the clergy failing to give him their sympathy. He deeply felt this desertion. Yet through evil retort and good he held on his way; with the result that, when the period closed, Methodism had ’found itself,’ and Wesley’s influence and usefulness moved on a rising tide to the end of his life. PEACEFUL AND STEADY PROGRESS JANUARY 14, 1764, TO DECEMBER 30, 1766 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1764. Jan. 12. First visit to Dorking. Apr. 19. Letter to Evangelical Clergy. May Friendship with Lady Maxwell. Hervey Letters published. 1765 Jan. Conference on Ordinations. June Correspondence with Peggy Dale. Nov. 24. Sermon at West Street on The Lord our Righteousness. 1766 Jan. 31. Closer union with Whitefield. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection published. Aug. 3. Great services at Haworth. Oct. 30. Death of Margaret Lewen. These three years were marked by peaceful and steady progress. The anxiety and loss caused by the fanaticism of George Bell and the disloyalty of Thomas Maxfield were left behind, and Wesley put his whole strength into his work as an evangelist. It is the more surprising that he, found time to discuss the treatment of texts and style with his pertinacious young friend Samuel Furly. Still more interesting is his correspondence with John Valton, who was to become one of the finest figures among his itinerants. Charles Wesley was holding somewhat aloof; and his brother writes, ’Then I must do the best I can.’ Wesley’s correspondence with Methodist ladies is the chief feature of this period. No one can read his letters to Mrs. Freeman in Dublin and to Mrs. Bennis of Limerick without feeling what a part they played in the spiritual life of his Societies and how much they depended on his counsel and inspiration. He felt that no labor spent in strengthening their hands was without its influence on the work of God. The letters to Mrs. Woodhouse of Epworth and to Lady Maxwell bear witness to his lively interest in all that concerned them. His correspondence with young Christians like Peggy Dale of Newcastle and Ann Foard of London is beautiful. He grew young in their company, and rejoiced in their early consecration. The aftermath of the Bell controversy is seen in letters to Mrs. Ryan and others, who were disposed to criticize Wesley’s conduct at certain points. How anxious he was to promote Christian union is seen by his letter of April 19, 1764, to about fifty clergymen. It met with scanty response, but it relieved Wesley’s mind and heart. Other letters show how the care of all the circuits and preachers rested on his shoulders, and how he relied on such Assistants as Thomas Rankin and Christopher Hopper. His powerful appeal to a gentleman to join the Society is noteworthy. Lord Dartmouth, the Countess of Huntingdon, and Ebenezer Blackwell are among the honored correspondents of the period. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 49: 47. 1758 ======================================================================== 1758 To George Merryweather LONDON, January 16, 1758. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If the work of God does so increase at Yarm, we must not let the opportunity slip. Therefore let the travelling preacher be there either every Sunday evening, or at least every other Sunday. No person must be allowed to preach or exhort among our people whose life is not holy and unblameable, nor any who asserts anything contrary to the gospel which we have received. And if he does not own his fault and amend it, he cannot be a leader any longer. Peace be with you all.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, January 20, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--How did you feel yourself under your late trial Did you find no stirring of resentment, no remains of your own will, no desire or wish that things should be otherwise [He had been at Kingswood School on Jan. 4.] In one sense you do desire it, because you desire that God should be glorified in all things. But did not the falling short of that desire lessen your happiness Had you still the same degree of communion with God, the same joy in the Holy Ghost I never saw you so much moved as you appeared to be that evening. Your soul was then greatly troubled, and a variety of conflicting passions--love, sorrow, desire, with a kind of despair--were easy to be read in your countenance. And was not your heart unhinged at all Was it not ruffled or discomposed Was your soul all the time calmly stayed on God, waiting upon Him without distraction Perhaps one end of this close trial was to give you a deeper knowledge of yourself and of God, of His power to save, and of the salvation He hath wrought in you. Most of the trials you have lately met with have been of another kind; but it is expedient for you to go through both evil and good report. The conversing with you, either by speaking or writing, is an unspeakable blessing to me. I cannot think of you without thinking of God. Others often lead me to Him; but it is, as it were, going round about: you bring me straight into His presence. [Miss Bosanquet had the same feeling: ’The more I conversed with Mrs. Ryan, the more I discovered of the glory of God breaking forth from within, and felt a strong attraction to consider her the friend of my soul.’ See Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, p. 29.] Therefore, whoever warns me against trusting you, I cannot refrain, as I am clearly convinced He calls me to it.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, January 27, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Last Friday, [Jan. 20, the day the previous letter was written. See letter of Dec. 23.] after many severe words, my wife left me, vowing she would see me no more. As I had wrote to you the same morning, I began to reason with myself, till I almost doubted whether I had done well in writing or whether I ought to write to you at all. After prayer that doubt was taken away. Yet I was almost sorry that I had written that morning. In the evening, while I was preaching at the chapel, she came into the chamber [Of the chapel house at West Street, Seven Dials. See letter of July 12.] where I had left my clothes, searched my pockets, and found the letter there which I had finished but had not sealed. While she read it, God broke her heart; and I afterwards found her in such a temper as I have not seen her in for several years. She has continued in the same ever since. So I think God has given a sufficient answer with regard to our writing to each other. I still feel some fear concerning you. How have you found yourself since we parted Have you suffered no loss by anything Has nothing damped the vigour of your spirit Is honour a blessing, and dishonour too the frowns and smiles of men Are you one and the same in ease or pain, always attentive to the voice of God What kind of humility do you feel What have you to humble you, if you have no sin Are you wise in the manner of spending your time Do you employ it all, not only well, but as well as it is possible What time have you for reading I want you to live like an angel here below, or rather like the Son of God. Woman, walk thou as Christ walked; then you cannot but love and pray for Your affectionate brother. To Dorothy Furley LEWISHAM, February 9, 1758. Undoubtedly you may arise now and receive power from on high. You are hindered chiefly by not understanding the freeness of the gift of God. You are perpetually seeking for something in yourself to move Him to love and bless you. But it is not to be found there; it is in Himself and in the Son of His love. He did then give you a proof of this in that fresh evidence of pardon; and He is ready to give it you again to-day, for He is not weary of well doing. But even after this you may or you may not use the power which attends that peace. And if you ask for more power, it shall be given you; for you have an Advocate with the Father. O cast yourself upon Him; learn more of that lesson,-- Thy salvation to obtain Out of myself I go; Freely Thou must heal my pain, Thy unbought mercy show. [From Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1742, Part I. See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, ii. 76. The hymn is headed Salvation by Grace.] How much of it may you find in this hour! Look up and see redemption near!--I am Your affectionate brother and servant. To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, February 10, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your last letter was seasonable indeed. I was growing faint in my mind. The being continually watched over for evil; the having every word I spoke, every action I did (small and great) watched over with no friendly eye; the hearing a thousand little, tart, unkind reflections in return for the kindest words I could devise,-- Like drops of eating water on the marble, At length have worn my sinking spirits down. Yet I could not say, ’Take Thy plague away from me,’ but only, ’Let me be purified, not consumed.’ [See letter of Jan. 27.] What kind of humility do you feel Is it a sense of sinfulness Is it not a sense of helplessness, of dependence, of emptiness, and, as it were, nothingness How do you look back on your past sins, either of heart or life What tempers or passions do you feel while you are employed in these reflections Do you feel nothing like pride while you are comparing your present with your past state, or while persons are showing their approbation of or esteem for you How is it that you are so frequently charged with pride Are you careful to abstain from the appearance of it O how important are all your steps! The Lord God guide and support you every moment!--I am Your affectionate friend. To Mrs. Ryan MALDON, February 20, 1758, MY DEAR SISTER,--Is your eye altogether single Is your heart entirely pure I know you gave up the whole to God once; but do you stand to the gift Once your will was swallowed up in God’s. But is it now, and will it be so always The whole Spirit and power of God be upon you; stablish, strengthen, settle you; and preserve your spirit, soul, and body, spotless and unblameable unto the coming of Jesus Christ!--I am Yours, &c. To Samuel Furley SUNDON, March 7, 1758. DEAR SAMMY,--You have done well in writing to me the first week of this month. I should be glad if you would continue that regularly. And you have done exceeding well in giving me the full, particular account of that (shall I say unlucky) accident. For really non satis mihi constiterat cum aliquane animi mei molestia an potirer libenter accepi. [Cicero to Caius Memmius, Epistolae ad diversos, xiii. 1: ’It is not clear whether I should receive it with a certain feeling of distress or accept it cheerfully.’] I am grieved, I am troubled for the consequences that may ensue. But I am pleased, I rejoice that the Lord has carried on such a work of conviction in that poor Pharisee. Yea, I cannot but be exceeding glad me non laborem inanem cepisse. [’That I have not begun a useless task’] Neither am I sorry but rather well satisfied that you lent her [See letter of Nov. 20, 1756.] that little ’awakening tract.’ Upon the first hearing of this, indeed, my spirit was troubled; confusion of mind seized me, struck partly with fear, partly with sorrow, and partly with astonishment. But what need we fear or wherefore are we cast down The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. And cannot He make all things turn to His glory How long shall the boasting enemy triumph Not longer (at least) than the breath is in his nostrils; and then shall all his vain thoughts perish. But they have not yet won the day. Who knoweth but the Lord may give peace and love and power and the spirit of a sound mind to her who for a season is sorely vexed with the cruel overwhelming power of Satan At a moment when the ungodly think not of it, the Lord may arise and maintain His own cause and put to silence the vauntings of the proud. So that all that are around may see it and fear, and acknowledge, ’This is the Lord’s doing.’ What He does now we know not yet. It is our part to wait patiently to see what He will do. Quietus esto. Be calm in the midst of this storm. I pity you, indeed, who are in the very midst of it. For my own part I leave the matter without concern in His hands who will not, cannot do wrong; but not without taking much shame unto myself. I did not order my conversation aright all the time I was in the place; I was afraid of giving offence: therefore I assumed too much the appearance of one of them. I did not dare to be altogether singular, to be constantly, steadily serious before them. Now by this circumstance the Lord has rebuked me and taught me wisdom. Here He has permitted no small offence to arise from a quarter I could neither foresee nor prevent. Where now is all my worldly prudence What is become of my fearful caution The Lord hath blasted it. Not, indeed, with the breath of His mouth, but with the rushing torrent of His sudden providence. Mark this, and settle it in shine heart: that the Lord will be feared, honoured, and obeyed even in the midst of lions; or will make us feel the weight of His uplifted hand. I feel this moment my just punishment for my base cowardice. This sin sets heavier upon my conscience at this time than almost all my crimes and all the transgressions of my youth. And one sin lying upon the conscience is a load of misery. There is not now time to give you any particular relation of myself, that affair having spun out my letter too long. In study at present I make but a slow progress. I am not at all content with myself in this point. I have just entered upon Lord Clarendon’s History, which is such an account of the ways, vices, and passions of men as one who did not know the corruption of human nature could scarce be induced to believe of his fellow creatures. I shall conclude this letter with affirming that I would to God such a deep work of conviction was wrought in your heart and mine as God has begun in that poor distressed woman, I wish we also felt the arrows of the Lord fastened in our conscience even as she has done. O when shall we with that piercing sense repent of all our sins and all our backslidings Is not the time now come We are spared to-day. God knoweth whether we shall be to-morrow. But this we know, that whatever knowledge, whatever gifts we have, purity of heart alone will be of true worth in the end. To the earnest pursuit of which I commend your being. Yours, &c. (1) It is the love of God. It hath in it heights, depths, strength stronger than death. (2) Of God in Christ. Sweetness of it. Better than all. Subject to no change. To Jonathan Pritchard Liverpool March 25, 1758. DEAR JONATHAN,--I am persuaded what you say is true. John Nelson may be useful at Chester, and at other places in this circuit [See letter of Jan. 16, 1753]. So I have appointed him to come without delay. If there be a supply for other places, he may spend a week with you; but no place must be neglected. O Jonathan, make the best of life! With love to your wife and all the brethren, I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ryan DUBLIN, April 4, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Oh that I could be of some use to you! I long to help you forward in your way. I want to have your understanding a mere lamp of light, always shining with light from above! I want you to be full of divine knowledge and wisdom, as Jordan in the time of harvest. I want your words to be full of grace, poured out as precious ointment. I want your every work to bear the stamp of God, to be a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour; without any part weak, earthly, or human; all holy, all divine. The great God, your Father and your Love, bring you to this selfsame thing! Begin, soldier of Christ, child of God! Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith thou art called! Remember the faith! Remember the Captain of thy salvation! Fight! conquer! Die,--and live for ever!--I am Yours, &c. To Elizabeth Hardy DUBLIN, April 5, 1758. It is with great reluctance that I at length begin to write [See letter to her in May.]: first, because I abhor disputing, and never enter upon it but when I am, as it were, dragged into it by the hair of the head; and, next, because I have so little hope that any good will arise from the present dispute. I fear your passions are too deeply interested in the question to admit the force of the strongest reason. So that, were it not for the tender regard I have for you, which makes your desire a motive I cannot resist, I should not spend half an hour in so thankless a labour, and one wherein I have so little prospect of success. ’The doctrine of Perfection,’ you say, ’has perplexed me much since some of our preachers have placed it in so dreadful a light: one of them affirming, A believer till perfect is under the curse of God and in a state of damnation; another, If you die before you have attained it, you will surely perish.’ By ’perfection’ I mean ’perfect love,’ or the loving God with all our heart, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in everything to give thanks. I am convinced every believer may attain this; yet I do not say he is in a state of damnation or under the curse of God till he does attain. No, he is in a state of grace and in favour with God as long as he believes. Neither would I say, ’If you die without it, you will perish’; but rather, Till you are saved from unholy tempers, you are not ripe for glory. There will, therefore, more promises be fulfilled in your soul before God takes you to Himself. ’But none can attain perfection unless they first believe it attainable.’ Neither do I affirm this. I know a Calvinist in London who never believed it attainable till the moment she did attain it, and then lay declaring it aloud for many days till her spirit returned to God. ’But you yourself believed twenty years ago that we should not put off the infection of nature but with our bodies.’ I did so. But I believe otherwise now, for many reasons, some of which you afterwards mention. How far Mr. Rouquet [James Rouquet said of perfection in a letter of 1763, ’To me it is the one thing needful’ (Arminian) Mag. 1782, p. 105). See letter of March 30, 1761.] or Mr. Walsh [Through illness Thomas Walsh was detained in Bristol from the latter part of February till April 13, 1758. He then went to Ireland, where he died of consumption on April 8, 1759, at the age of twenty eight. Just before his last illness he said in his sermon on 1 John iv. 18: ’My mind was more clearly enlightened than ever to see that "perfect love" is Christian perfection.’ See letters of Jan. 8, 1757, and July 28, 1775 (to John King).] may have mistaken these I know not: I can only answer for myself. ’The nature and fitness of things’ is so ambiguous an expression that I never make use of it. Yet if you ask me, ’Is it fit or necessary in the nature of things that a soul should be saved from all sin before it enters into glory’ I answer, It is. And so it is written, ’No unclean thing shall enter into it.’ Therefore, whatever degrees of holiness they did or did not attain in the preceding parts of life, neither Jews nor heathens any more than Christians ever did or ever will enter into the New Jerusalem unless they are cleansed from all sin before they enter into eternity. I do by no means exclude the Old Testament from bearing witness to any truths of God. Nothing less. But I say the experience of the Jews is not the standard of Christian experience; and that therefore, were it true ’The Jews did not love God with all their heart and soul,’ it would not follow ’Therefore no Christian can,’ because he may attain what they did not. ’But,’ you say, ’either their words do not contain a promise of such perfection, or God did not fulfil this promise to them to whom He made it.’ I answer, He surely will fulfil it to them to whom He made it--namely, to the Jews after their dispersion into all lands: and to these is the promise made; as will be clear to any who impartially considers the 30th chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein it stands. I doubt whether this perfection can be proved by Luke vi. 40. From 1 John iii. 9 (which belongs to all the children of God) I never attempted to prove it; but I still think it is clearly described in those words, ’As He is, so are we in this world.’ And yet it doth not now appear ’what we shall be’ when this vile body is ’fashioned like unto His glorious body,’ when we shall see Him, not in a glass, but face to face, and be transformed into His likeness. Those expressions (John xiii. 10), ’Ye are clean, clean every whit,’ are allowed to refer to justification only. But that expression, ’If we walk in the light as He is in the light,’ cannot refer to justification only. It does not relate to justification at all, whatever the other clause may do. Therefore those texts are by no means parallel; neither can the latter be limited by the former, although it is sure the privileges described in both belong to every adult believer. But not only abundance of particular texts, but the whole tenor of Scripture declares, Christ came to ’destroy the works of the devil, to save us from our sins’--all the works of the devil, all our sins, without any exception or limitation. Indeed, should we say we have no sin to be saved or cleansed from, we should make Him come in vain. But it is at least as much for His glory to cleanse us from them all before our death as after it. ’But St. James says, "In many things we offend all"; and whatever "we" might mean, if alone, the expression "we all" was never before understood to exclude the person speaking.’ Indeed it was. It is unquestionably to be understood so as to exclude Isaiah, the person speaking, ’We are all as an unclean thing; we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away’ (lxiv. 6). For this was not the case with Isaiah himself. Of himself he says, ’My soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness’ (lxi. 10). Here the Prophet, like the Apostle, uses the word ’we’ instead of ’you,’ to soften the harshness of an unpleasing truth. In this chapter the Apostle is not cautioning them against censuring others, but entering upon a new argument; wherein the second verse has an immediate reference to the first, but none at all to the thirteenth of the preceding chapter. I added, ’"We offend all" cannot be spoken of all Christians; for immediately there follows the mention of one who offends not, as the "we" before-mentioned did.’ You answer, ’His not offending in word will not prove that he does not offend "in many things."’ I think St. James himself proves it in saying, ’He is able to bridle also the whole body’; to direct all his actions as well as words according to the holy, perfect will of God; which those, and those only, are able to do who love God with all their hearts. And yet these very persons can sincerely say, ’Forgive us our trespasses.’ For as long as they are in the body, they are liable to mistake and to speak or act according to that mistaken judgement. Therefore they cannot abide the rigour of justice, but still need mercy and forgiveness. Were you to ask, ’What if I should die this moment’ I should answer, I believe you would be saved, because I am persuaded none that has faith can die before he is made ripe for glory. This is the doctrine which I continually teach which has nothing to do with justification by works. Nor can it discourage any who have faith, neither weaken their peace, nor damp their joy in the Lord. True believers are not distressed hereby, either in life or in death; unless in some rare instance, wherein the temptation of the devil is joined with a melancholy temper. Upon the whole, I observe your great argument turns all along on a mistake of the doctrine. Whatever warm expressions may drop from young men, we do not teach that any believer is under condemnation. So that all the inferences drawn from this supposition fall to the ground at once. Your other letter I hope to consider hereafter; though I have great reason to apprehend your prejudice will still be too strong for my arguments. However, whether you expect it or not, I must wish for your perfection. You of all people have most need of perfect love, because this alone casts out fear.--I am, with great sincerity, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Samuel Furly DUBLIN, April 8, 1758. DEAR SAMMY,--Very probably I may procure your admission into Orders with a title or without. [See letters of Sept. 25, 1757, and May 3, 1758.] It is not strange that any one [See letter of March 7.] should stifle the first convictions; neither ought that to discourage you at all. Speak again. Be instant eukairws akairws, [2 Tim. iv. 2: ’in season, out of season.’] and by-and-by you will see the effect. Ten, perhaps twenty people, being dissatisfied they know not why, cry out, ’Everybody is dissatisfied.’ Far from it. There wanted a little evil report to balance the good report. O Sammy, be all in earnest! Press through things temporal! Expect not happiness from any creature! Here we are, whether for life or for death we know not. But God knows, and that is enough!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Dorothy Furly DUBLIN, April 13, 1758. But if you find such a surprising alteration at Bonner’s Hall, [She was apparently at Bonner’s Hall, near Hackney, formerly a seat of the Bishop of London. Wesley retired there in Oct. 1754. See Journal, iv. 101, 127] what need have you of removing to Bristol Perhaps a lodging there might answer the purpose of health full as well as one at Clifton, and the purpose of religion considerably better. There are few in that neighbourhood from whom I should hope you would receive much profit, except Sarah Ryan. If she abides in her integrity, she is a jewel indeed; one whose equal I have not yet found in England. You ought not to drink much tea, and none without pretty much cream (not milk) and sugar. But I believe, were you to drink nettle-tea for a few mornings, it would do you more good than any other. It seems best for you to have frequent returns of weakness: it may be needful to fix seriousness upon your spirit by a lasting impression that there is but one step between you and eternity. But sickness alone will not do this--no, nor even the near approach of death. Unless the Spirit of God sanctify both, a man may laugh and trifle with his last breath. You will overcome trifling conversation and the fear of man, not by yielding, but by fighting. This is a cross which you cannot be excused from taking up: bear it, and it will bear you. By prayer you will receive power so to do, to be a good soldier of Jesus Christ. But it is more difficult to resist hurtful desire; I am most afraid you should give way to this. Herein you have need of all the power of God. O stand fast! Look up and receive strength! I shall be glad to hear that you are more than conqueror, and that you daily grow in the vital knowledge of Christ. Peace be with your spirit.--I am Your affectionate servant. To Dr. Free TULLAMORE, May 2, 1758. REVEREND SIR,--1. A little tract appearing under your name was yesterday put into my hands. You therein call upon me to speak, if I have any exceptions to make to what is advanced; and promise to reply as fairly and candidly as I can expect, ’provided those exceptions be drawn up, as you have set the example, in a short compass, and in the manner wherein all wise and good people would choose to manage a religious dispute’ (page 22). 2. ’In a short compass,’ sir, they will certainly be drawn up, for my own sake as well as yours; for I know the value of time, and would gladly employ it all in what more immediately relates to eternity. But I do not promise to draw them up in that manner whereof you have set the example. I cannot, I dare not; for I fear God, and do really believe there is a judgement to come. Therefore I dare not ’return evil for evil,’ neither ’railing for railing.’ Nor can I allow that your manner of treating this subject is that ’wherein all wise and good people would choose to manage a religious dispute.’ Far, very far from it. I shall rejoice if a little more fairness and candour should appear in your future writings. But I cannot expect it; for the nigrae succus loliginis, [Horace’s Satires, 1 iv. 100: ’The dark secretion of the cuttlefish.’] ’wormwood and gall,’ seem to have infected your very vitals. 3. The quotation from Bishop Gibson (which takes up five out of nineteen pages) I have answered already, [See letter of June 11, 1747.] and in a manner wherewith I have good reason to believe his lordship was entirely satisfied. With his lordship, therefore, I have no present concern; my business now is with you only: and seeing you are ’now ready,’ as you express it, ’to run a tilt,’ I must make what defence I can. Only you must excuse me from meeting you on the same ground or fighting you with the same weapons: my weapons are only truth and love. May the God of truth and love strengthen my weakness! 4. I waive what relates to Mr. Vowler’s [See letter of Sept. 19, 1757.] personal character, which is too well known to need my defence of it; as likewise the occurrence (real or imaginary, I cannot tell) which gave birth to your performance. All that I concern myself with is your five vehement assertions with regard to the people called Methodists. These I shall consider in their order and prove to be totally false and groundless. 5. The first is this: ’Their whole ministry is an open and avowed opposition to one of the fundamental Articles of our religion’ (page 4). How so Why, ’the Twentieth Article declares we may not so expound one scripture that it be repugnant to another. And yet it is notorious that the Methodists do ever explain the word "faith" as it stands in some of St. Paul’s writings so as to make his doctrine a direct and flat contradiction to that of St. James.’ (Page 5.) This stale objection has been answered an hundred times, so that I really thought we should have heard no more of it. But since it is required, I repeat the answer once more: by faith we mean ’the evidence of things not seen’; by justifying faith, a divine evidence or conviction that ’Christ loved me and gave Himself for me.’ St. Paul affirms that a man is justified by this faith; which St. James never denies, but only asserts that a man cannot be justified by a dead faith: and this St. Paul never affirms. ’But St. James declares, "Faith without works is dead." Therefore it is clearly St. James’s meaning that a faith which is without virtue and morality cannot produce salvation. Yet the Methodists so explain St. Paul as to affirm that faith without virtue or morality will produce salvation.’ (Page 6.) Where In which of their writings This needs some proof: I absolutely deny the fact. So that all which follows is mere flourish and falls to the ground at once, and all that you aver of their ’open and scandalous opposition to the Twentieth Article’ (ibid.) is no better than open and scandalous slander. 6. Your second assertion is this: ’The Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, openly gives our Saviour the lie, loads the Scripture with falsehood and contradiction’ (and pray what could a Mahometan or infidel or the devil himself do more), ’yea, openly blasphemes the name of Christ, by saying that the works of men are of no consideration at all, that God makes no distinction between virtue and vice, that He does not hate vice or love virtue. What blasphemy, then, and impiety are those wretches guilty of who in their diabolical frenzy dare to contradict our Saviour’s authority, and that in such an essential article of religion!’ (Pages 7-9.) Here also the Methodists plead, Not guilty, and require you to produce your evidence, to show in which of their writings they affirm that God ’will not reward every man according to his works, that He makes no distinction between virtue and vice, that He does not hate vice or love virtue.’ These are positions which they never remember to have advanced. If you can, refresh their memory. 7. You assert, thirdly, the Methodists by these positions ’destroy the essential attributes of God and ruin His character as Judge of the world.’ Very true--if they held these positions. But here lies the mistake. They hold no such positions. They never did. They detest and abhor them. In arguing, therefore, on this supposition, you are again ’beating the air.’ 8. You assert, fourthly, the Methodists ’teach and propagate downright Atheism--a capital crime; and Atheists in some countries have been put to death. Hereby they make room for all manner of vice and villany, by which means the bands of society are dissolved. And therefore this attempt must be considered as a sort of treason by magistrates.’ (Pages 10-11.) Again we deny the whole charge, and call for proof; and, blessed be God, so do the magistrates in Great Britain. Bold, vehement asseverations will not pass upon them for legal evidence; nor, indeed, on any reasonable men. They can distinguish between arguing and calling names: the former becomes a gentleman and a Christian; but what is he who can be guilty of the latter 9. You assert, lastly, that any who choose a Methodist clergyman for their lecturer ’put into that office, which should be held by a minister of the Church of England, an enemy, who undermines not only the legal establishment of that Church, but also the foundation of all religion’ (page 13). Once more we must call upon you for the proof--the proof of these two particulars: first, that I, John Wesley, am ’an enemy to the Church, and that I undermine not only the legal establishment of the Church of England, but also the very foundation of all religion’; secondly, that ’Mr. Vowler is an enemy to the Church, and is undermining all religion as well as the Establishment.’ 10. Another word, and I have done: are there ’certain qualifications required of all lecturers before they are by law permitted to speak to the people’ (Page 14.) And is a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles of religion one of these qualifications And is a person who does not ’conform to such subscription’ disqualified to be a lecturer or who ’has ever held or published anything contrary to what the Church of England maintains’ Then certainly you, Dr. John Free, are not ’permitted by law to speak to the people’; neither are you ’qualified to be a lecturer’ in any church in London or England as by law established. For you flatly deny and openly oppose more than one or two of those Articles. You do not in any wise conform to the subscription you made before you was ordained either priest or deacon. You both hold and publish (if you are the author and publisher of the tract before me) what is grossly, palpably ’contrary to what the Church of England maintains’ in her Homilies as well as Articles; those Homilies to which you have also subscribed in subscribing the Thirty-sixth Article. You have subscribed them, sir; but did you ever read them Did you ever read so much as the first three Homilies I beg of you, sir, to read these at least, before you write again about the doctrine of the Church of England. And would it not be prudent to read a few of the writings of the Methodists before you undertake a farther confutation of them At present you know not the men or their communication. You are as wholly unacquainted both with them and their doctrines as if you had lived all your days in the islands of Japan or the deserts of Arabia. You have given a furious assault to you know not whom; and you have done it you know not why. You have not hurt me thereby; but you have hurt yourself--perhaps in your character, certainly in your conscience: for this is not doing to others ’as you would they should do unto you.’ When you grow cool, I trust you will see this clearly; and will no more accuse, in a manner so remote from fairness and candour, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Samuel Furly TULLAMORE, May 3, 1758. DEAR SAMMY,--Two conversations I have had with the Bishop of Londonderry, [William Barnard (1697-1768), Bishop of Derry 1747. See letters of April 8 and July 28.] and processimus pulchre. [’We made good progress.’] I intend to write to him in a few days, and then I shall be able to form a better judgement. He loves the Methodists from his heart, but he is not free from the fear of man. Yet I have much hope that love will conquer fear. Will it not conquer all sin Why do you not go every afternoon to visit the sick Can you find a more profitable employment--I am Your affectionate brother. To Rev. Mr. Furly, At Mr. Greenwood’s. To Elizabeth Hardy [May 1758.] Without doubt it seems to you that yours is a peculiar case. [See letters of April 5, 1758, and Dec. 26, 1761, to her.] You think there is none like you in the world. Indeed there are. It may be ten thousand persons are now in the same state of mind as you. I myself was so a few years ago. I felt the wrath of God abiding on me. I was afraid every hour of dropping into hell. I knew myself to be the chief of sinners. Though I had been very innocent in the account of others, I saw my heart to be all sin and corruption. I was without the knowledge and the love of God, and therefore an abomination in His sight. But I had an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And so have you. He died for your sins; and He is now pleading for you at the right hand of God. O look unto Him and be saved! He loves you freely, without any merit of yours. He has atoned for all your sins. See all your sins on Jesus laid! His blood has paid for all. Fear nothing; only believe. His mercy embraces you; it holds you in on every side. Surely you shall not depart hence till your eyes have seen His salvation.--I am, madam, Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell CASTLEBAR, June 5, 1758. DEAR SIR,--I suppose my wife is now in London, as the letters I received thence in the last frank were open; for she still insists on her right of reading all the letters which are sent to me. And I have no friend or servant where she is who has honesty and courage to prevent it. I find since I left England all my domestics have changed their sentiments, and are convinced she is a poor, quiet creature that is barbarously used. I should not at all wonder if my brother and you were brought over to the same opinion. [See next letter.] Since I came into this kingdom I have wrote several times; but I have not received one line in answer. So I sit still. I have learned by the grace of God in every state to be content. I have in this respect done what I ought and what I could. Now let God do what seemeth Him good. What a peace do we find in all circumstances when we can say, ’Not as I will, but as Thou wilt’! I have now gone through the greatest part of this kingdom --Leinster, Ulster, and the greater half of Connaught. Time only is wanting. If my brother could take care of England and give me but one year for Ireland, I think every corner of this nation would receive the truth as it is in Jesus. They want only to hear it; and they will hear me, high and low, rich and poor. What a mystery of Providence is this! In England they may hear, but will not. In Ireland they fain would hear, but cannot. So in both thousands perish for lack of knowledge. So much the more blessed are your ears, for they hear; if you not only hear the word of God, but keep it. I hope you find public affairs changing for the better. In this corner of the world we know little about them; only we are told that the great little king in Moravia is not swallowed up yet. [Frederick the Great began the campaign of 1758 by invading Moravia and attempting to take Olmutz. It was defended by Marshal Daun, who cut off the supplies of the Prussian Army.] Till near the middle of next month I expect to be at Mr. Beauchamp’s in Limerick. [There he met Thomas Walsh,’alive, and but just alive.’ See Journal, iv. 275.] I hope you have a fruitful season in every respect. My best wishes attend you all.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Ebenezer Blackwell BANDON, July 12, 1758. Really, sir, you had made me almost angry at an innocent person--I mean, innocent of the fault supposed. I wrote to Mr. Downing [See letter of April 6, 1761.] nearly at the time I wrote to you; and seeing no name, I read part of your letter as from him, and thought my wife did very wrong to trouble him’with matters of this kind, which might do him more harm than good.’ Time and patience will remove many other troubles, and show them to have no more foundation than this. While you have so eloquent a person [Mrs. Wesley.] at your elbow, and I am two or three hundred miles off, I have little to say: it may be time enough when I return to London. At present I would only make two or three cursory remarks. (1) That letter was not left on a chair, but taken out of my pocket. [See letter of Jan. 27.] (2) It was not letters, but a letter of mine (and one which did not signify a straw) which Sarah Crosby some time since showed to three or four persons, and of which she will hear these ten years. I write to her when I judge it my duty so to do; but I have not wrote these ten or twelve weeks. (3) If you softened or salved over anything I wrote in the letter from Bedford, [He was in Bedford on March 9, and had to wait a day before he could preach his ’Great Assize’ sermon. See Journal, iv. 254.] you did her an irreparable damage. What I am is not the question there, but what she is; of which I must needs be a better judge than you, for I wear the shoe: as you must needs be a better judge of Mrs. Blackwell’s temper than I. (4) ’She is now full of anger.’ Heigh day! Anger! For what Why, because, when Captain Dancey called upon me in Dublin (on the 7th of April) and asked, ’Sir, have you any commands I am just sailing for Bristol,’ I said, ’Yes; here is a letter. Will you deliver it with your own hands’ He promised he would; and that was our whole conversation. (5) But suppose he delivered this about the 12th of April, why did she not write for a month before What excuse or presence for this (6) I certainly will, as long as I can hold a pen, assert my right of conversing with whom I please. Reconciliation or none, let her look to that. If the unbeliever will depart, let her depart. That right I will exert just when I judge proper, giving an account only to God and my own conscience. Though (as it happens) the last letter I wrote to Sarah Ryan was in the beginning of May. (7) My conscience bears me witness before God that I have been as ’cautious as I ought to have been’; for I have rigorously kept my rule, ’To do everything and omit everything which I could with a safe conscience for peace’ sake.’ But there is no fence against a flail, against one that could tell T. Walsh calmly and deliberately (he begs this may not be mentioned again, nor his name brought into the question), ’His parting words to me were, "I hope I shall see your wicked face no more."’ Can you ever be safe against being deceived by such an one but by not believing a word you hear In a week or two I shall be looking out for a ship. You people in England are bad correspondents. Both Mr. Downing, Mr. Venn, [Henry Venn.] and Mr. Madan [Martin Madan (1726-90), cousin to Cowper the poet, was converted under Wesley’s ministry, became a clergyman, and Chaplain of the Lock Hospital in London 1750-80. His book in favour of polygamy made him notorious. See Journal, iv. II n, vi. 313.] are a letter in my debt; and yet I think they have not more business than I have. How unequally are things distributed here! Some want time, and some want work! But all will be set right hereafter. There is no disorder on that shore. Wishing all happiness to you and all that are with you, I remain, dear sir, Yours most affectionately. To Samuel Furly CORK, July 28, 1758. DEAR SAMMY,--Your conjecture is right. I never received the letter you speak of, nor heard before that you was in Holy Orders. [See letter of May 3.] I hope you are also in great earnest to save your own soul as well as those that hear you. You have need to pray much for steadiness of spirit and seriousness in conversation. If there be added to this the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, your words will not fall to the ground. There will be danger, if you write so much, of writing in a dry and formal manner. We may suffer loss either by writing too little or too much. Observe every step you take, walk circumspectly, and God will be with you.--I am Your affectionate brother. We expect to sail in three or four days. To Dr. Free FONMON CASTLE, August 24, 1758. REVEREND SIR,--In the preface to your sermon, lately printed, you mention your having received my former letter, and add that ’if the proofs you have now brought do not satisfy me as to the validity of your former assertions, if I am not yet convinced that such positions are held by people who pass under the denomination of Methodists, and will signify this by a private letter, I shall have a more particular answer.’ I desire to live peaceably with all men; and should therefore wish for no more than a private answer to a private letter, did the affair lie between you and me. But this is not the case: you have already appealed to the Archbishop, the University, [Dr. Secker.] the nation. Before these judges you have advanced a charge of the highest kind, not only against me, but an whole body of people. Before these, therefore, I must either confess the charge or give in my answer. But you say, ’I charge blasphemy, impiety, &c., upon the profession of Methodism in general. I use no personal reflections upon you nor any invective against you but in the character of a Methodist.’ That is, you first say, ’All Methodists are pickpockets, rebels, blasphemers, Atheists’; and then add, ’I use no reflections upon you but in the character of a Methodist,’ but in the character of a pickpocket, blasphemer, Atheist. None but! What can you do more But this, you say, is the practice of all honest men, and a part of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. Nay, surely there are some honest men who scruple using their opponents in this manner--at least, I do. Suppose you was an Atheist, I would not bring against you a railing accusation. I would still endeavour to ’treat you with gentleness and meekness,’ and thus to ’show the sincerity’ of my faith. I leave to you that exquisite ’bitterness of spirit and extreme virulence of language,’ which, you say, is your duty, and term ’zeal’ (Preface, p. 5). And certainly zeal, fervour, heat, it is. But is this heat from above Is it the offspring of heaven or a smoke from the bottomless pit O sir, whence is that zeal which makes you talk in such a manner to his Grace of Canterbury ’I lay before you the disposition of an enemy who threaten our Church with a general alteration or total subversion; who interrupt us as we walk the streets’ (Whom when where) ’in that very dress which distinguishes us as servants of the State’ (altogether servants of the State) ’in the now sad capacity of ministers of the falling Church of England. Such being the prostrate, miserable condition of the Church, and such the triumphant state of its enemies, none of the English priesthood can expect better security or longer continuance than the rest. They all subsist at mercy. Your Grace and those of your order will fare no better than those of our own.’ Sir, are you in earnest Do you really believe Lambeth is on the point of being blown up You go on: ’In the remote counties of England I have seen an whole troop of these divines on horseback, travelling with each a sister behind him.’ O sir, O sir, What should be great you turn to farce! Have you forgot that the Church and nation are on the brink of ruin But pray when and where did you see this In what year, or in what county I cannot but fear you take this story on trust; for such a sight I will be bold to say was never seen. With an easy familiarity you add: ’My Lord, permit me here to whisper a word’ (is not this whispering in print something new) ’that may be worth remembering. In our memory some of the priesthood have not proved so good subjects as might have been expected, till they have been brought over with preferments that were due to other people.’ Meaning, I presume, to yourself. Surely his Grace will remember this, which is so well worth remembering, and dispose of the next preferment in his gift where it is so justly due. If he does not, if he either forgets this or your other directions, you tell him frankly what will be the consequence: ’We must apply to Parliament’ (page 6), or to His Majesty; and, indeed, how can you avoid it ’For it would be using him,’ you think, ’extremely ill not to give him proper information that there’ are now a set of people offering such indignity to his crown and Government. However, we are not to think your opposing the Methodists was ’owing to self-interest’ alone. Though, what if it was ’Was I to depart from my duty because it happened to be my interest Did these saints ever forbear to preach to the mob in the fields for fear lest they should get the pence of the mob Or do not’ the pence and the preaching ’go hand in hand together’ No, they do not: for many years neither I nor any connected with me have got any ’pence,’ as you phrase it, ’in the fields.’ Indeed, properly speaking, they never did. For the collections which Mr. Whitefield made, it is well known, were not for his own use, either in whole or part. And he has long ago given an account in print of the manner wherein all that was received was expended. But it is not my design to examine at large either your dedication, preface, or sermon. I have only leisure to make a few cursory remarks on your ’definition’ of the Methodists (so called), and on the account you give of their first rise, of their principles and practice; just premising that I speak of those alone who began, as you observe, at Oxford. If a thousand other sets of men ’pass under that denomination,’ yet they are nothing to me. As they have no connexion with me, so I am in no way concerned to answer either for their principles or practice, any more than you are to answer for all who ’pass under the denomination of Church of England men.’ The account you give of their rise is this. The Methodists began at Oxford. ’The name was first given to a few persons who were so uncommonly methodical as to keep a diary of the most trivial actions of their lives--as how many slices of bread-and-butter they ate, how many country dances they danced at their dancing-club, or after a fast how many pounds of mutton they devoured. For upon these occasions they ate like lions, having made themselves uncommonly voracious.’ Of this not one line is true; for (1) It was from an ancient sect of physicians, whom we were supposed to resemble in our regular diet and exercise, that we were originally styled Methodists. [See letter of Nov. 26, 1762, to Bishop Warburton, p. 350.] (2) Not one of us ever kept a diary of ’the most trivial actions’ of our lives. (3) Nor did any of us ever set down what or how much we ate or drank. (4) Our ’dancing-club’ never existed; I never heard of it before. (5) On our ’fast-days’ we used no food but bread; on the day following we fed as on common days. (6) Therefore our voraciousness and eating like lions is also pure, lively invention. You go on: ’It was not long before these gentlemen began to dogmatize in a public manner, feeling a strong inclination to new-model almost every circumstance or thing in the system of our national religion.’ Just as true as the rest. These gentlemen were so far from feeling any inclination at all ’to new-model’ any ’circumstance or thing,’ that, during their whole stay at Oxford, they were High Churchmen in the strongest sense, vehemently contending for every ’circumstance’ of Church order according to the old ’model.’ And in Georgia, too, we were rigorous observers of every Rubric and Canon, as well as (to the best of our knowledge) every tenet of the Church. Your account, therefore, of the rise of the Methodists is a mistake from beginning to end. I proceed to your definition of them: ’By the Methodists was then and is now understood a set of enthusiasts, who, pretending to be members of the Church of England, either offend against the order and discipline of the Church or pervert its doctrines relating to faith and works and the terms of salvation.’ Another grievous mistake. For whatever ’is now, by the Methodists then was’ not ’understood any set of enthusiasts,’ or not enthusiasts, ’offending against the order and discipline of the Church.’ They were tenacious of it to the last degree, in every the least jot and little. Neither were they ’then understood to pervert its doctrines relating to faith and works and the terms of salvation.’ For they thought and talked of all these, just as you do now, till some of them, after their return from Georgia, were ’perverted’ into different sentiments by reading the book of Homilies. Their perversion, therefore (if such it be), is to be dated from this time. Consequently your definition by no means agrees with the persons defined. However, ’as a Shibboleth to distinguish them at present, when they pretend to conceal themselves, throw out this or such-like proposition, " Good works are necessary to salvation."’ You might have spared yourself the labour of proving this; for who is there that denies it Not I; not any in connexion with me. So that this Shibboleth is just good for nothing. And yet we firmly believe that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law; that to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith, without any good work preceding, is counted to him for righteousness. We believe (to express it a little more largely) that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Good works follow after justification, springing out of true, living faith; so that by them living faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. And hence it follows that as the body without the soul is dead, so that faith which is without works is dead also. This, therefore, properly speaking, is not faith, as a dead man is not properly a man. You add: ’The original Methodists affect to call themselves Methodists of the Church of England; by which they plainly inform us there are others of their body who do not profess to belong to it. Whence we may infer that the Methodists who take our name do yet, by acknowledging them as namesakes and brethren, give themselves the lie when they say they are of our communion.’ Our name! Our communion! Apage cum ista tua magnificentia! [’Away with this your grandiloquent verbiage!’ Adapted by Wesley from Terence’s Phormio, v. vii. 37 : I in malam rem hinc cum istac magnificentia Fugitive! which Dr. Patrick has rather broadly translated, ’Go, be hanged, you rascal, with your vain rodomontades!’] How came it, I pray, to be your name any more than Mr. Venn’s But (waiving this) here is another train of mistakes. For (1) We do not call ourselves Methodists at all. (2) That we call ourselves members of the Church of England is certain. Such we ever were, and such we are to this day. (3) Yet we do not by this plainly inform you that there are others of our body who do not belong to it. By what rule of logic do you infer this conclusion from those premises (4) You have another inference full as good: ’Hence one may infer that, by acknowledging them as namesakes and brethren, they give themselves the lie when they say they are of our communion.’ As we do not take the name of Methodists at all, so we do not acknowledge any ’namesakes’ in this. But we acknowledge as ’brethren’ all Dissenters (whether they are called Methodists or not) who labour to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. What lies upon you to prove is this: whoever acknowledges any Dissenters as brethren does hereby give himself the lie when he says he is a member of the Church of England. However, you allow there may be place for repentance: ’For if any of the founders of this sect renounce the opinions they once were charged with, they may be permitted to lay aside the name.’ But what are the opinions which you require us to renounce What are, according to you, the principles of the Methodists You say in general, ’They are contradictory to the gospel, contradictory to the Church of England, full of blasphemy, impiety, and ending in downright Atheism.’ For ’(1) They expound the Scripture in such a manner as to make it contradict itself. (2) With blasphemy, impiety, and diabolical frenzy they contradict our Saviour by denying that He will judge man according to His works. (3) By denying this they destroy the essential attributes of God and ruin His character as Judge of the world.’ In support of the first charge you say: ’It is notorious; and few men of common sense attempt to prove what is notorious till they meet with people of such notorious impudence as to deny it.’ I must really deny it. Why, then you will prove it by Mr. Mason’s [See letter of June 19, 1746.] own words. Hold, sir. Mr. Mason’s words prove nothing. For we are now speaking of original Methodists: but he is not one of them; nor is he in connexion with them, neither with Mr. Whitefield nor me. So that what Mr. Mason speaks, be it right or wrong, is nothing to the present purpose. Therefore, unless you can find some better proof, this whole charge falls to the ground. Well, ’here it is: Roger Balls.’ [Roger Ball, the Antinomian. See Journal, iii. 238, iv. 285; and letter of April 12, 1750.] Pray who is Roger Balls No more a Methodist than he is a Turk. I know not one good thing he ever did or said beside the telling all men, ’I am no Methodist,’ which he generally does in the first sentence he speaks when he can find any one to hear him. He is therefore one of your own allies, and a champion worthy of his cause! If, then, you have no more than this to advance in support of your first charge, you have alleged what you are not able to prove. And the more heavy that allegation is, the more unkind, the more unjust, the more unchristian, the more inhuman it is to bring it without proof. In support of the second charge you say: ’Our Saviour declares our works to be the object of His judgement. But the Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, says our works are of no consideration at all.’ Who says so Mr. Whitefield, or my brother, or I We say the direct contrary. But one of my ’anonymous correspondents says so.’ Who is he How do you know he is a Methodist For aught appears, he may be another of your allies, a brother to Roger Balls. Three or threescore anonymous correspondents cannot yield one grain of proof any more than an hundred anonymous remarkers on Theron and Aspasio. Before these can prove what the Methodists hold, you must prove that these are Methodists--either that they are original Methodists, or in connexion with them. Will you say, ’If these were not Methodists themselves, they would not defend the Methodists’ I deny the consequence. Men may be far from being Methodists, and yet willing to do the Methodists justice. I have known a clergyman of note say to another who had just been preaching a very warm sermon, ’Sir, I do not thank you at all for this. I have no acquaintance with Mr. Whitefield or Mr. Wesley, and I do not agree with them in opinion; but I will have no more railing in my pulpit.’ From the principles of the Methodists you proceed to their practice. ’They hunt,’ say you, ’for extraordinary marks and revelations whereby to know the state of the soul.’ The marks by which I know the state of any soul are the inward fruit of the Spirit--love, joy, peace, and meekness, gentleness, goodness, longsuffering, temperance, patience, shown, not by words only, but by the genuine fruit of outward holiness. Again: ’They magnify their office beyond the truth by high presences to miraculous inspiration.’ To this assertion we have answered over and over, We pretend to no other inspiration than that which not only every true gospel minister but every real Christian enjoys. Again: ’The end of all impostors is some kind of worldly gain, and it is difficult for them to conceal their views entirely. The love of filthy lucre will appear either by the use they make of it or the means of getting it.’ As to the use made of it you are silent. But as to the means of getting it you say, ’Besides inhumanly wringing from the poor, the helpless widows, the weeping orphans’ (the proof! the proof!), ’they creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with divers lusts.’ It is easy to say this and ten times more; but can you prove it And ought you to say it till you can I shall not concern myself with anything in your Appendix but what relates to me in particular. This premised, I observe on No. 1. There are several instances in my Journals of persons that were in agonies of grief or fear and roared for the disquietness of their heart; of some that exceedingly trembled before God, perhaps fell down to the ground; and of others whom God in His adorable providence suffered to be lunatic and sore vexed. The particular instances hereof to which you refer have been largely vindicated already in the two letters to the Rev. Dr. Church as well as that to the late Bishop of London. [See letters of Feb. 2, 1745, June 17, 1746, June 11, 1747.] In the six following numbers I am not concerned. The eighth contains those words from my Second Journal: ’The rest of the day we spent in hearing the wonderful work which God is beginning to work all over the earth.’ Of this likewise I have spoken at large to Dr. Church and Bishop Gibson. The sum is, it is a great work when one notorious sinner is throughly changed in heart and life. It is wonderfully great when God works this entire change in a large number of people; particularly when it is done in a very short time. But so He hath wrought in Kingswood, Cornwall, Newcastle. It is therefore a truly wonderful work which God hath now more than begun to work upon earth. I have now, sir, briefly answered for myself, which, if required, I will do more at large. But I trust it does already appear to every impartial reader that, of the many and heavy allegations you have brought with an unparalleled bitterness of spirit and an acrimony of language almost without precedent, you have not yet proved one. How far you are to be commended for this (unless by Messrs. Balls and the Monthly Reviewers) it is not fit for me to judge. Let all lovers of truth, of humanity, and candour determine. At present I have no more to add than that I beseech the Father of everlasting compassion to show more mercy to you than you have shown to, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Samuel Furly BRISTOL, September 2, 1758. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I know no way to cure men of curiosity but to fill them with the love of God. If a great majority of those who attended the Thursday sermon were Methodists, I know not but it was right to put Mr. Charles in your place. Otherwise it would be wrong; for him that escapes the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Every preacher whom God has sent will have a message to some souls who have not been reached by any other. And the more persons attend his preaching the better; the more room there is for God to work. Mr. Jones’s book I have found, and will send by Jemmy Morgan. [Evidently books borrowed from Mr. Jones and Mr. Holloway. Morgan had come with Wesley from Ireland. See Journal, iii. 335, 459; and letters of Jan. 8, 1757, and April 26, 1760.] Mr. Holloway’s probably I shall find by-and-by. I wish you would carefully read over the Directions for Married Persons. [See Green’s Bibliography, No. 163.] It is an excellent tract. You need to have your heart full of grace, or you will have your hands full of work. Universal watchfulness is absolutely necessary in order to our victory over any evil. Whatever you do, do it with your might.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Francis Okeley SALISBURY, October 4, 1758. DEAR SIR,--The plain reason why I did not answer you before is, I had no heart to write. For I had no expectation of doing any good. And why should I trouble myself or you to no purpose However, I will once more cast my bread upon the waters, and leave the event to God. 1. You say, ’I cannot preach because I have not faith.’ That is not the thing; you do not speak simply. The direct reason why you did not preach at Bristol was because you would not displease the Brethren. They have still hold of your heart; the chain enters into your soul: therefore you could not even seem to act against them. 2. ’I am not convinced, and cannot be so, that what now passes for faith-’ Hold! Do you mean that what now passes for faith among the Methodists is not true Christian faith that we have not a right conception of faith I know the teachers among the Brethren have not. But the conception which we now have of faith is the same which the Apostles had; for we conceive faith to be a divine elegcos of things not seen, particularly of this, that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Did St. Paul conceive it to be either less or more You know he did not. ’But I am not convinced, and cannot be so, that this is experienced by most that profess it’--suppose in the United Society at Bristol. I know you are not convinced of this, and that you cannot be so; but the hindrance lies in your heart, not your understanding: you cannot because you will not; so much of the old prejudice still remains, and says, nor persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris. [’Nor will you convince, though you have persuaded.’] But you ought to be convinced that most of them who there profess it truly experience what they profess. For (unless they are an whole heap of wilful liars, which you ought not to think without proof) they have those fruits which cannot possibly subsist without true Christian faith: they have a peace that passes all understanding and banishes the fear of death; they have the love of God shed abroad in their heart, overcoming the love of the world; and they have abiding power over all sin, even that which did easily beset them. Now, what excuse have you for not being convinced that they have faith, who have fruits which nothing but faith can produce 3. ’But they seem at best to have the letter of the new covenant and the spirit of the old.’ How so What is the spirit of the new covenant Is it not love the love of God and man This spirit they have; it is the great moving spring both of their desires, designs, words, and actions. This also cannot be denied, unless they are the vilest liars upon earth. I speak now more confidently, having last week (together with my brother) examined all one by one. 4. ’But still you have not found what you expected among the Methodists, nor can you see your way clear to join them.’ I think this was the sum of what you wrote to my brother. But what did you expect to have found among them Faith and love and holiness (whether in your own soul or not) you did find among them--at least, you ought to have found them; for there they are, which neither men nor devils can deny. What else did you expect to find Or why cannot you see your way clear to join them I will tell you why. You have at least five strong reasons to the contrary: (1) a wife; (2) a mother; (3) children; (4) cowardice; (5) love of ease. But are these reasons good in the sight of God I will not affirm that. 5. However, the Brethren are good men, and I dare not oppose them. ’If they are not the only people of God (which they cannot be if the Scriptures are true), they are not good men; they are very wicked men. They are as a body deceiving and being deceived; they are liars, proud, boasters, despisers of those that are good, slaves to an ungodly man, and continually labouring to enslave others to him. O take warning at last! Have no commerce with them! Come not near the tents of these wicked men, whose words are smoother than oil, and yet they are very swords! I dare not but oppose them; for in many places they have wellnigh destroyed the work of God. Many souls, once full of faith and love, they have caused to draw back to perdition. Many they have driven into the deep and then trampled over them. Beware it be not so with you. You have greatly resisted the Spirit in this matter! Remember Richard Viney--a pillar of salt; not because he came out of Sodom, but because he looked back!--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To his Wife COLCHESTER, October 27, 1758. MY DEAR LOVE,--I had a pleasant ride to Ingatstone in the coach. I then took horse and came to Maldon by dinnertime. [See Journal, iv. 289.] Between ten and eleven this morning we set out from Maldon, and in three hours found honest Brother Arvin here. If I find no particular reason to alter my design, I purpose going on toward Norwich on Monday. You obliged me on Tuesday afternoon by inviting my sister Hall [The 24th, the day before he left London] to drink tea with you; and likewise by leaving Betty Duchesne 3 with me till she had said what she had to say. My dear, this is the way (as I have often told you) to secure a person’s affections. Let all his ways be unconfined, And clap your padlock on his [’her’ in Prior’s English Padlock.] mind. Believe me, there is no other way: leave every one to his own conscience. For why am I judged, says St. Paul, of another’s conscience Every one must give an account of himself to God. And even if a man acts contrary to good conscience, can you reclaim him by violent methods Vain thought! By force beasts act, and are by force restrained: The human mind by gentle means is gained. Either by gentle means or by none at all. Or if there be an exception, if a rod be for a fool’s back, the wife is not the person who is to use it towards her husband. If it please God to bring me safe to Norwich, I hope to have a letter from you there. Peace be with your spirit.--I am Your affectionate Husband. To Mrs. Wesley, at the Foundery, London. To Thomas COLCHESTER, October 28, 1758. DEAR TOMMY,--I hope you will set out for Wednesbury on Monday. But from thence I would not have . . To Mr. Potter, Vicar of Reymerston NORWICH, November 4, 1758. REVEREND SIR,--1. Till to-day I had not a sight of your sermon on the Pretended Inspiration of the Methodists. Otherwise I should have taken the liberty some days sooner of sending you a few lines. That sermon, indeed, only repeats what has been often said before, and as often answered. But as it is said again, I believe it is my duty to answer it again. Not that I have any acquaintance with Mr. Cayley [Cornelius Cayley (1729-80), born in Hull; clerk in treasury of Prince of Wales; published his autobiography in 1758. He was a friend of James Hervey, and a preacher. He wrote an answer to Potter’s sermon.] or Osborn: I never exchanged a word with either. However, as you lump me and them together, I am constrained to speak for myself, and once more to give a reason of my hope that I am clear from the charge you bring against me. 2. There are several assertions in your sermon which need not be allowed; but they are not worth disputing. At present, therefore, I shall only speak of two things: (1) your account of the new birth; and (2) ’the pretended inspiration’ (as you are pleased to term it) ’of the Methodists.’ 3. Of the new birth you say: ’The terms of being regenerated, of being born again, of being born of God are often used to express the works of gospel righteousness’ (pages 10-11). I cannot allow this. I know not that they are ever used in Scripture to express any outward work at all. They always express an inward work of the Spirit, whereof baptism is the outward sign. You add: ’Their primary, peculiar, and precise meaning signifies’ (a little impropriety of expression) ’our redemption from death and restoration to eternal life through the grace of God’ (page 13). It does not, unless by death you mean sin, and by eternal life holiness. The precise meaning of the term is ’a new birth unto righteousness,’ an inward change from unholy to holy tempers. You go on: ’This grace our Lord here calls " entering into the kingdom of God."’ If so, His assertion is, ’Except a man be born again, he cannot’ be born again. Not so. What He says is, Except a man experience this change, he cannot enter into My kingdom. 4. You proceed: ’Our holy Church doth teach us that . . . by the laver of regeneration in baptism we are received into the number of the children of God.... This is the first part of the new birth.’ What is the first part of the new birth baptism It is the outward sign of that inward and spiritual grace; but no part of it at all. It is impossible it should be. The outward sign is no more a part of the inward grace than the body is a part of the soul. Or do you mean that regeneration is a part of the new birth Nay, this is the whole of it. Or is it the ’laver of regeneration’ which is the first part of it That cannot be; for you suppose this to be the same with baptism. 5. ’The second part, the inward and spiritual grace, is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.’ What! is the new birth the second part of the new birth I apprehend it is the first and second part too; and surely nothing could have prevented your seeing this but the ardour of your spirit and the impetuosity with which you rush along and trample down all before you. Your manner of writing reminds me of an honest Quaker in Cornwall, whose words I would recommend to your consideration. Being consulted by one of the Friends whether he should publish a tract which he had read to many in private, he replied, ’What! art thou not content with laying John Wesley on his back, but thou must tread his guts out too’ [See letter of Sept. 15, 1762, to Samuel Furly.] 6. So much for your account of the new birth. I am, in the second place, to consider the account you give of ’the pretended inspiration’ (so you are pleased to term it) ’of the Methodists.’ ’The Holy Ghost sat on the Apostles with cloven tongues as of fire; . . . and signs and wonders were done by their hands’ (pages 16-18). Wonders indeed! For they healed the sick by a word, a touch, a shadow! They spake the dead alive and living dead. ’But though these extraordinary operations of the Spirit have been long since withdrawn, yet the pretension to them still subsists in the confident claim of the Methodists.’ This you boldly affirm, and I flatly deny. I deny that either I or any in connexion with me (for others, whether called Methodists or anything else, I am no more concerned to answer than you are) do now, or ever did, lay any claim to ’these extraordinary operations of the Spirit.’ 7. But you will prove it. They ’confidently and presumptuously claim a particular and immediate inspiration’ (ibid.). I answer, first: So do you, and in this very sermon, though you call it by another name. By inspiration we mean that inward assistance of the Holy Ghost which ’helps our infirmities, enlightens our understanding, rectifies our will, comforts, purifies, and sanctifies us’ (page 14). Now, all this you claim as well as I; for these are your own words. ’Nay, but you claim a particular inspiration.’ So do you: do not you expect Him to sanctify you in particular ’Yes; but I look for no immediate inspiration.’ You do; you expect He will immediately and directly help your infirmities. Sometimes, it is true, He does this by the mediation or intervention of other men; but at other times, particularly in private prayer, He gives that help directly from Himself. ’But is this all you mean by particular, immediate inspiration’ It is; and so I have declared a thousand times in private, in public, by every method I could devise. It is pity, therefore, that any should still undertake to give an account of my sentiments without either hearing or reading what I say. Is this doing as we would be done to 8. I answer, secondly: There is no analogy between claiming this inspiration of the Spirit, who, you allow, ’assists, and will assist, all true believers to the end of the world’ (page 18), and claiming those extraordinary operations of the Spirit which were vouchsafed to the Apostles. The former both you and I pretend to--yea, and enjoy, or we are not believers. The latter you do not pretend to; nor do I, nor any that are in connexion with me. 9. ’But you do pretend to them. For you pray that " signs and wonders may still be wrought in the name of Jesus."’ True; but what signs and wonders The conversion of sinners; the ’healing the broken in heart; the turning men from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God.’ These, and these only, are the signs and wonders which were mentioned in that prayer. And, did I not see these signs and wonders still wrought, I would sooner hew wood or draw water than preach the gospel. For those are to me very awful words which our Lord speaks of prophets or teachers: ’Ye shall know them’ (whether they are true or false prophets) ’by their fruits. Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.’ What fruit you have brought forth at Reymerston I know not; God knoweth. 10. ’Your followers, however, do pretend to the grace of a miraculous conversion.’ Is there any conversion that is not miraculous Is conversion a natural or supernatural work I suppose all who allow there is any such thing believe it to be supernatural. And what is the difference between a supernatural and a miraculous work I am yet to learn. ’But they say that at such a time and in such a manner the divine illumination shone upon them, Jesus knocked at the door of their hearts, and the Holy Ghost descended upon their souls’--that is, in plain terms, raillery apart, at a particular time, which they cannot easily forget, God did, in so eminent a manner as they never experienced before, ’enlighten their understanding’ (they are your own words), ’comfort and purify their hearts, and give His heavenly Spirit to dwell in them.’ But what has all this to do with those extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit 11. ’Under these pretended impressions their next advance is to a call to preach the word themselves; and forth they issue, as under the immediate inspiration of God’s Spirit, with the language of apostles and zeal of martyrs, to publish the gospel as if they were among our remotest ancestors, strangers to the name of Christ’ (pages 20-1). The plain truth is this: one in five hundred of those whom God so enlightens and comforts, sooner or later believes it to be his duty to call other sinners to repentance. Such an one commonly stifles this conviction till he is so uneasy he can stifle it no longer. He then consults one or more of those whom he believes to be competent judges, and under the direction of these goes on step by step from a narrower to a larger sphere of action. Meantime he endeavours to use only ’the language of the apostles,’ to speak the things of the Spirit in the words of the Spirit. And he longs and prays for ’the zeal of martyrs,’ continually finding the need thereof, seeing our present countrymen are as great strangers to the mind that was in Christ as our ancestors were to His name. 12. ’But the Holy Spirit no longer comes from heaven like a rushing mighty wind. It no longer appears in cloven tongues as of fire.’ I wonder who imagines it does. ’We now discern not between His suggestions and the motions of our own rational nature.’ Many times we do not; but at other times God may give such peace or joy and such love to Himself and all mankind as we are sure are not ’the motions of our own nature.’ ’To say, then, that the Holy Spirit began His work at such a time, and continued it so long in such a manner, is as vain as to account for the blowing of the wind.’ Hold! accounting for is not the thing. To make a parallel it must be, ’is as vain as to say that the wind began to blow at such a time and continued so long in such a manner.’ And where is the vanity of this Why may I not say, either that the wind began to blow at such a time and blew so long in such a manner, or that God began at such a time to comfort my soul, that He continued that consolation so long and in such a manner, by giving me either peace and joy in believing or a lively hope of the glory of God 13. ’Not that we are without a memorable instance of this instantaneous impulse in the sudden conversion of St. Paul’ (page 23). A poor instance this; for it does not appear that his was a sudden conversion. It is true ’a great light suddenly shone round about him’; but this light did not convert him. After he had seen this, ’he was three days without sight and neither did eat nor drink.’ And probably during the whole time God was gradually working in his heart, till he ’arose, and, being baptized, washed away his sins, and was filled with the Holy Ghost.’ 14. But to return. ’Their teachers claim a particular and immediate inspiration in their nauseous effusions’ (page 22). Certainly they claim either a particular and immediate inspiration (as above explained) or none at all. But this is no other inspiration (call it influence if you please, though it is a far stronger term) than every one must have before he can either understand or preach or live the gospel. ’But there is not in Scripture the least promise or encouragement to expect any particular inspiration.’ Yes, surely such an inspiration as this: you have allowed it over and over. And what external evidence of this would you have I will believe you are thus inspired, if you convert sinners to God, and if you yourself are ’holy in all manner of conversation.’ 15. Is there ’no need of this inspiration now, because the prejudices of mankind are in favour of the gospel and the profession of it is under the protection and encouragement of the civil power’ ’The prejudices of mankind are in favour of the gospel’! What! the prejudices of the bulk of mankind To go no farther than England: are the bulk of our nation prejudiced in favour of the genuine gospel, of the holiness which it enjoins, of chastity and temperance, of denying ourselves and taking up our cross daily, of dying to the world and devoting all our heart and all our life to God Are they prejudiced in favour of presenting our souls and bodies a constant, holy sacrifice to God What less than this is gospel holiness And are the prejudices of mankind in favour of this 16. Likewise, how far this real Christianity is ’under the protection and encouragement of the civil power’ I know not. But I know ’all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution’--domestic persecution, if no other; for ’the foes of’ such ’a man shall be they of his own household. There shall be,’ and there are now, ’five in one house, three against two, and two against three’; and that not for being Methodists, for having a nickname (although that may be the presence, for want of a better; for who scruples to throw a man into the ditch and then beat him because his clothes are dirty), but for living godly, for loving and serving God, according to the best light they have. And certainly these need the assistance of God’s Spirit to strengthen and comfort them, that they may suffer all things rather than turn aside in any point from the gospel way. 17. ’But the Scriptures are a complete and a sufficient rule. Therefore to what purpose could any farther inspiration serve All farther inspiration is unnecessary; the supposed need of it is highly injurious to the written Word. And the pretension thereto (which must be either to explain or to supply it) is a wicked presumption, with which Satan hath filled their hearts to lie of the Holy Ghost.’ (Pages 22-8.) High-sounding words! But, blessed be God, they are only brutum fulmen; they make much noise, but do not wound. ’To what purpose could any farther inspiration serve’ Answer yourself: ’To enlighten the understanding and to rectify the will.’ Else, be the Scriptures ever so complete, they will not save your soul. How, then, can you imagine it is unnecessary, and that ’the supposed need of it is injurious to the written Word’ And when you say yourself, ’The Spirit is to teach us all things and to guide us into all truth,’ judge you whether this is ’to explain or to supply the written Word.’ ’Oh, He does this by the written Word.’ True; but also ’by His holy inspiration.’ So the compilers of our Liturgy speak; who therefore, according to you, are guilty of ’wicked presumption, with which Satan filled their hearts to lie of the Holy Ghost.’ 18. These also are the men upon whom you fall in the following warm words: ’The power of enthusiasm over an heated imagination may be very great. But it must be under the ferment of that old, sour leaven, hypocrisy, to rise to that daring height.’ I think not: I think they were neither hypocrites nor enthusiasts, though they teach me to pray for, and consequently to expect (unless I am an hypocrite indeed), ’God’s holy inspiration,’ both in order to ’think the things that be good,’ and also ’perfectly to love Him and worthily to magnify His holy name.’ 19. You go on: ’They boast that their heart is clean and their spirit right within them.’ Sir, did you ever read Morning Prayer on the tenth day of the month You then said, ’Make me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.’ Did you mean what you said If you did not, you was guilty of the grossest hypocrisy. If you did, when did you expect God would answer that prayer When your body was in the grave Too late! Unless we have clean hearts before we die, it had been good we had never been born. 20. ’But they boast they are pure from sin, harmless, and undefiled.’ So in a sound sense is every true believer. ’Nay, they boast that their bodies are a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.’ Sir, is not yours Are not your soul and body such a sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God As the Lord God liveth, before whom we stand, if they are not, you are not a Christian. If you are not an holy, living sacrifice, you are still ’dead in trespasses and sins’; you are an ’alien from the commonwealth of Israel, without’ Christian ’hope, without God in the world’! 21. You add: ’Thus have I exposed their boasted claim to a particular and immediate inspiration’ (page 30). No, sir, you have only exposed yourself; for all that we claim you allow. ’I have shown what a miserable farce is carrying on beneath the mask of a more refined holiness.’ No tittle of this have you shown yet; and before you attempt again to show anything concerning us, let me entreat you, sir, to acquaint yourself better with our real sentiments. Perhaps you may then find that there is not so wide a difference as you imagined between you and, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Mrs. Ryan NORWICH, November 4, 1758. . . . Yesterday I transcribed Charles Perronet’s questions, with a little alteration. A few of them I will put to you, which I know you will answer with all plainness. (The first four questions.) As to myself, I am still cold and faint, though (as I told you) a little revived since I wrote freely. Pray that God may at length lift up the hands that hang down and the feeble knees! REVEREND SIR,--I will answer your questions with plainness and uprightness of heart. God did testify that He had saved me from all sin. By this shall I know it right to write to you, by your being free and trusting me as before. To Sarah Moore LONDON, November 22, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--Praise God for what He hath already done. Let those give thanks whom the Lord hath redeemed and delivered from the hand of the enemy [This refers apparently to the sudden death of a young man at Totley, who had pulled ’the preacher from his stand’ and offered other acts of violence. ’The wicked themselves viewed it as a judgement.’ See Everett’s Methodism in Sheffield, pp. 80, 126.]; but you know a greater deliverance is at hand. What have you to do but to fight your way through the world, the flesh, and the devil It is a good though a painful fight. Unless you yield, you cannot but conquer. It is true you will first conquer by little and little. For More of this life and more we have As the old Adam dies. But there is also an instantaneous conquest: in a moment sin shall be no more. You are gradually dying for a long time. But you will die in a moment. O hasten to that happy time! Pray, strive, hope for it!--I am Your affectionate brother. To James Hervey LONDON, November 29 1758. DEAR SIR,--A week or two ago, in my return from Norwich, [He left Norwich on Nov. 6.] I met with Mr. Pierce of Bury, who informed me of a conversation which he had had a few days before. Mr. Cudworth, he said, then told him that he had prevailed on Mr. Hervey to write against me, who likewise, in what he had written, referred to the book which he (Mr. Cudworth) had lately published. Every one is welcome to write what he pleases concerning me. But would it not be well for you to remember that, before I published anything concerning you, I sent it to you in a private letter; that I waited for an answer for several months, but was not favoured with one line; that when at length I published part of what I had sent you, I did it in the most inoffensive manner possible--in the latter end of a larger work, purely designed to preserve those in connexion with me from being tossed to and fro by various doctrines [A Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 191.] What, therefore, I may fairly expect from my friend is to mete to me with the same measure; to send to me first in a private manner any complaint he has against me; to wait as many months as I did; and if I give you none or no satisfactory answer, then to lay the matter before the world, if you judge it will be to the glory of God. But, whatever you do in this respect, one thing I request of you: give no countenance to that insolent, scurrilous, virulent libel which bears the name of William Cudworth. Indeed, how you can converse with a man of his spirit I cannot comprehend. O leave not your old, well-tried friends! The new is not comparable to them. I speak not this because I am afraid of what any one can say or do to me. But I am really concerned for you: an evil man has gained the ascendant over you, and has persuaded a dying man, who had shunned it all his life, to enter into controversy as he is stepping into eternity! Put off your armour, my brother! You and I have no moments to spare: let us employ them all in promoting peace and goodwill among men. And may the peace of God keep your heart and mind in Christ Jesus! So prays Your affectionate brother and servant. To Augustus Montague Toplady LONDON, December 9, 1758. DEAR SIR,--I verily believe no single person since Mahomet has given such a wound to Christianity as Dr. Taylor. They are his books, chiefly that upon Original Sin, which have poisoned so many of the clergy, and indeed the fountains themselves--the Universities in England, Scotland, Holland, and Germany. If you do not immediately see the fruit of your labour in conversing with this or that person, still there is no reason to think it lost. The wind bloweth when as well as where it listeth. We know, the help that is done, God doth it Himself. And it is fit He should do it in His own time as well as manner. If you continue to walk humbly and simply with God, there is no need the darkness should ever return. God is willing to give the love, the joy, the peace always which He gives once. Only, hear His voice, and follow it with all diligence. Do whatever He calls you to, be it ever so grievous to flesh and blood, and shun whatever you find lessens your communion with Him. Nothing but almighty grace can amend that child. She had a taste of it once; and she may again. It would be well to put her in the way of it as frequently as may be. I have not had my health so well for many years. How many are the mercies of God! We want only thankful hearts. Have you had yet any thoughts as to your future life in what way you might most glorify God--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Mr. Toplady, In Trinity College, Dublin. To Mr. --- LONDON, December 9, 1758. MY DEAR BROTHER,--From time to time I have had more trouble with the Society at Leeds than with all the other Societies in Yorkshire. And now I hear that the leaders insist that such and such persons be put out of the Society! I desire the leaders may know their place, and not stretch themselves beyond their line. Pray let me judge who should be put out of a Methodist Society and who not. I desire Faith and Ann Hardwick may not be put out of the Society, unless some fresh matter appear against them; and if any new matter does appear, let it be laid before me. He shall have judgement without mercy who hath shown no mercy.--I am Your affectionate brother. To his Wife NORWICH, December 23, 1758. DEAR MOLLY,--I was much concerned, the night before I left London, [He left London on Dec. 18. See letters of Jan. 27, 1758, and March 2, 1759.] at your unkind and unjust accusation. You accused me of unkindness, cruelty, and what not. And why so Because I insist on choosing my own company! because I insist upon conversing, by speaking or writing, with those whom I (not you) judge proper! For more than seven years this has been a bone of contention between you and me. And it is so still. For I will not, I cannot, I dare not give it up. ’But then you will rage and fret and call me names.’ I am sorry for it. But I cannot help it. I still do and must insist that I have a right to choose my own company. Then ’you will denounce against me all the curses from Genesis to the Revelation.’ You may so. But you gain no ground hereby; for still I cannot give up my right. Nay, but ’you will say all manner of evil of me.’ Be it so; but still I stand just where I was. Then ’you will show my private letters to all the world.’ If you do, I must assert my right still. All this will not extort it from me; nor anything else which you can do. You may therefore as well allow it now as after we have squabbled about it (if we live so long) seven years longer. For it is my right by all the laws of God and man, and a right which I never can part with. O do not continue to trouble yourself and me and to disturb the children of God by still grasping at a power which must be denied you by him who is nevertheless Your truly affectionate Husband. To Dorothy Furly COLCHESTER, December 28, 1758. MY DEAR SISTER,--I thought it long since I heard from you; but I imputed it to your illness. And I did not desire you should do anything which would put you to pain or increase your bodily weakness. When you seemed confident of receiving the promise in a few days, I did not judge it needful to say anything to the contrary; both because I was persuaded that expectation would be a quickening to your soul, and because I knew you had one near you who was able to advise you in any emergency. See that your desires do not cool, and you shall not be ashamed of this confident expectation. So long as it is tempered with resignation it can do you no disservice. And what else is there worthy of a desire Health you shall have if health be best, even bodily health. But what is that in comparison of an healthful mind And this you are sure to have. I scruple Sarah Ryan’s drinking tar-water because it is so extremely nauseous. Neither will it profit if it occasion costiveness, unless stewed prunes be taken every second or third night instead of it. I rather wish she would resume the medicine I formerly prescribed, only taking care not to catch cold with it. Perhaps in a few days [He got to Bristol on Jan. 2.] you may see Your affectionate brother. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 50: 48. 1759 ======================================================================== 1759 To Samuel Furly LONDON, February 17, 1759. DEAR SAMMY,--James Kershaw [James Kershaw had been one of Wesley’s preachers from 1752 to 1757. He returned to tile ranks, and in 1765 is stationed at Yarm. See letters of March 1, 1762, and Oct. 16, 1765, to Christopher Hopper.] is an independent minister. Probably, if we live till another Conference, he may be in connexion with us. Hitherto he acts as an independent. We have no Society at Renninghall. I take John Pearse [One of the early preachers. See Tyerman’s Wesley ii. 127.] to be an honest man. As soon as he sees the truth he will preach it. Dolly Furly was considerably better in health before I came from Bristol. And she was all athirst for God. I think her soul prospers more and more. I will desire Mr. Gilbert [Nicholas Gilbert became an itinerant in 1744, and died in 1763. See Journal, v. 10 n; and for the Christian Library, letter of Aug. 14, 1748, to Ebenezer Blackwell.] to see whether the four volumes of the Library which you mention can be spared. And if they can, if they are not necessary for the making up of sets, they will be sent with the last Journal and the Pilgrim’s Progress. It is very possible the day of grace may be at end before the day of life is. But I believe this is very rarely the case. I have narrowly observed, and have found but one indisputable instance in thirty years. Nancy [Probably his young wife.] must give me credit for her letter a little longer, for I am at present much straitened for time. March 1 I hope to be at Mr. Berridge’s, whence I must strike off for Colchester; so that you will not see me this spring, unless you come to Everton.--I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Miss LONDON, February 21, 1759. Probably, Miss -- , this may be the last trouble of the kind which you will receive from me. Therefore you may forgive me this, and the rather when you consider my motives to it. You know I can have no temporal view; I can have none but a faint, distant hope (because with God all things are possible) of doing some service to one whom I love. And this may answer the question which you might naturally ask, ’What would you have! What do you want with me!’ I want you, not to be a convert to my opinions, but to be a member of Christ, a child of God, and an heir of His kingdom. Be anything as to outward profession, so you are lowly in heart, so you resist and conquer every motion of pride, and have that mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus. Be what you please besides; only be meek and gentle, and in patience possess your soul: so that one may truly say to you, Calm thou ever art within, All unruffled all serene. Hear what preacher you will; but hear the voice of God, and beware of prejudice and every unkind temper: beware of foolish and hurtful desires, or they will pierce you through with many sorrows. In one word, be anything but a trifler, a trifler with God and your own soul. It was not for this that God gave you A mind superior to the vulgar herd. No, Miss -- , no! but that you might employ all your talents to the glory of Him that gave them. O do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God! Is He not still striving with you! striving to make you not almost but altogether a Christian! Indeed, you must be all or nothing--a saint or a devil, eminent in sin or holiness! The good Lord deliver you from every snare, and guide your feet in the way of peace! How great a pleasure would this give to all your real friends, and in particular to Your affectionate servant for Christ’s sake. To Ebenezer Blackwell EVERTON, March 2, 1759. DEAR SIR,--When it is probable I may alter my judgement or practice, I am very willing to speak upon any head. But when I am clearly and fully fixed, then I do not speak; for it would be lost labour. For this reason I did not speak the other night; because I was fully fixed. My wife picks my lock and steals my papers. Afterwards she says, ’You cannot trust me.’ I answer, ’I cannot, till you restore what you stole and promise to steal no more.’ She replies, ’I will burn them, or lodge them with another, on such terms.’ I answer nothing. Do you ask, Why so! I answer to you: (1) I will not consent my goods shall be burnt, much less accept it as a favour: I require her to restore them. (2) I will not thank her for lodging them with another: I require that they be restored to me. (3) I will not so much as consider the terms: I require the restitution of my own goods without any terms. And I know you would do so were it your case. And so would any man of common sense. ’But she will not restore them.’ Then she must keep them. But let her not blame me because I cannot trust her. Permit me to add one word to you. You think yourself a match for her; but you are not. By her exquisite art she has already made you think ill of two very deserving women. [Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Crosby. See next letter and that of July 12, 1758.] And you have been more than once much puzzled what to think of me! Nor could you help thinking me a little in the wrong. I am almost afraid she likewise entertains you with the faults of many in the Society; the knowing of which (be they real or feigned) does you no good at all. O sir, let us look inward; let us live at home! The more we know of our own faults and the less of other people’s, the more will the work of God prosper in our hearts. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear sir, -- Your affectionate servant From Ebenezer Blackwell DEAR SIR,--I this day received your favour of the 2nd inst. I am sensible of my incapacity either to speak or write in that lively, concise manner you do; but as well as I can I will paragraph by paragraph give a direct answer to your letter. And, first, I desire never to interfere between you and Mrs. Wesley, without there is at least a probability of my being of service to one, or (what I would much rather wish) to both of you; and I declare I have seldom if ever spoken of one to the other without being first desired either by yourself or Mrs. Wesley. Therefore you may be assured I will not in the least hinder your maintaining the authority of the husband in the greatest latitude that either myself or any man of common sense would wish. I likewise say that I do not think myself a match for Mrs. Wesley or any one that studies to deceive me; but I deny that by any exquisite art she has made me think ill of two very deserving women. I suppose you mean Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Crosby. The first I know nothing of, having never seen her in my life, and hardly ever (for I won’t say never) spoken of her to anybody but yourself. The latter I only know from the letter wrote by yourself, which she owned to me was her handwriting, and which I think will plainly prove to every one of common sense that she is not that very deserving woman you think her; and, permit me to add, I am afraid she has too much art for my dear friend. I think my behaviour must fully convince you what my thoughts have been of yourself. When I have spoken to you, it has been without reserve; and if at any time I have expressed myself a little freer than many others would dare to do, do not think the harder of me, for indeed it has constantly been with a view if possible to have established peace between yourself and Mrs. W. And I seldom if ever see Mrs. Wesley from the time you leave London until you return, and would even then be glad to be excused that honour if it was not out of civility to yourself. Therefore she has no opportunity, or if she had I dare not give encouragement to her or any one, to entertain me with the faults of any either in your Society or not. Indeed, sir, I am sensible, if I did, it would very much hurt my soul. And yet, alas! I have been often much hurt, though I dare not blame my dear friend on that account, and yet must declare what you have said, and what I have seen of your brother, has very often much grieved and stumbled my poor soul. I feel I have an evil heart; I know I am not renewed; and I earnestly wish that my own faults were more and more engraver on my mind, that so I may never rest until I am born again and have the image of God stamped on my soul. I earnestly wish you all happiness, and pray that the peace and love of God may continually attend you.--I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate and much obliged servant, EBENEZER BLACKWELL. To William Alwood NORWICH, March 6, 1759. DEAR BILLY,--You spoil my plan. I had appointed, with God’s leave, to be at Wakefield on Wednesday, April 18. But you tell me I must be at York. If I must, who can help it! Then I must set out from Epworth that morning, dine at Selby about noon, and so go on in the afternoon for York. But I hope you will begin the building directly. I suppose Dr. Cockburn has my plan. Lose no time. I have some money in my hands for you. The King’s business requireth haste. You may still direct your letters to London.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Will. Alwood, At Mr. John Hall’s, In Newgate Street, York. To Dorothy Furly NORWICH, March 6, 1759. MY DEAR SISTER,--I shall always be glad to hear from you when you can write without hurting yourself. But I am almost afraid to write, for fear of tempting you to answer whether you can or not. Since you left Kingswood, I hope you use the water at the Hot Wells as often as possible. If anything medicinal profit you, probably it will be this. But perhaps God will not suffer you to be healed by outward medicines. It may be He is determined to have all the glory of His own work. Meantime He designs by this weakness of body to keep your soul low, as a weaned child. There is a wonderful mystery in the manner and circumstances of that mighty working whereby He subdues all things to Himself and leaves nothing in the heart but His pure love alone. I have no doubt but God will give you the answer to that prayer,-- Let me Thy witness live, When sin is all destroyed I And then my spotless soul receive, And take me home to God! --I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Matthew Lowes NORWICH, March 6, 1759. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Lawrence Coughlan, [Lawrence Coughlan was an Irishman who was afterwards ordained by the Bishop of London and sent to Newfoundland as a missionary. He had done fruitful service in Colchester. He died in 1785. See Journal, iv. 297; Atmore’s Memorial, pp.80-3; and letter of March 6, 1763.] who was at first appointed for Whitehaven, is to set out from Colchester on Monday, and to stay at Whitehaven till the Conference in the beginning of August. Till he comes I desire you diligently to inquire whether the bulk of the Society are for or against W. Wilson’s preaching. If they are against it, he had better not preach at Whitehaven (but he may preach anywhere else) till I come. If the bulk of them are for it, let him preach at some times: at others Brother Browning [Wilson and Browning were probably laymen beginning to preach.] may read a sermon. But if he does speak, let him take care to conclude the whole service within the hour. Certainly, rather than any flame should have arisen concerning it, Brother Hodgson and the rest ought to have dropped their opposition. What would not one do (except sin) that brotherly love may continue!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Matthew Lowes, At the Methodist Preaching-house, In Whitehaven. To the Countess of Huntingdon NORWICH, March 10, 1759. TO THE RIGHT HON. THE COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON. The agreeable hour which I spent with your Ladyship the last week recalled to my mind the former times, and gave me much matter of thankfulness to the Giver of every good gift. I have found great satisfaction in conversing with those instruments whom God has lately raised up. But still, there is I know not what in them whom we have known from the beginning, and who have borne the burthen and heat of the day, which we do not find in those who have risen up since, though they are upright of heart. Perhaps, too, those who have but lately come into the harvest are led to think and speak more largely of justification and the other first principles of the doctrine of Christ; and it may be proper for them so to do. Yet we find a thirst after something farther. We want to sink deeper and rise higher in the knowledge of God our Saviour. We want all helps for walking closely with Him whom we have received, that we may the more speedily come to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Mr. Berridge [Wesley stayed at Everton with John Berridge on March 1 and 2.] appears to be one of the most simple as well as most sensible men of all whom it has pleased God to employ in reviving primitive Christianity. I designed to have spent but one night with him; but Mr. Gilbert’s [See letter of Feb. 17.] mistake (who sent him word I would be at Everton on Friday) obliged me to stay there another day, or multitudes of people would have been disappointed. They come now twelve or fourteen miles to hear him; and very few come in vain. His word is with power; he speaks as plain and home as John Nelson, but with all the propriety of Mr. Romaine and tenderness of Mr. Hervey. At Colchester likewise the word of God has free course; only no house will contain the congregation. On Sunday I was obliged to preach on St. John’s Green. The people stood on a smooth sloping ground, sheltered by the walls of an old castle, and behaved as men who felt that God was there. I am persuaded your Ladyship still remembers in your prayers Your willing servant for Christ’s sake. To the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon, In London. To Ebenezer Blackwell NORWICH, March 12, 1759. DEAR SIR,--You have entirely satisfied me as to what I was afraid of. [See letter of March 2, and Blackwell’s answer. His relations with his wife were easier for the moment.] We are at present upon pretty good terms; and I am not without hope that this good understanding will continue for some time longer. I am sure it will, if He who has the hearts of all men in His hand sees it to be expedient for me. You have never yet spoken to me with more freedom than was agreeable to me. Your freedom is the best proof of your friendship. There are not many that will deal freely with me; nor, indeed, are there many from whom I would desire it, lest it should hurt themselves without profiting me. But I do desire it of you; and do not doubt but it will profit me, as it has done in time past. I know not if in all my life I have had so critical a work on my hands as that wherein I am now engaged. I am endeavouring to gather up those who were once gathered together and afterwards scattered by James Wheatley. [On Nov. 3, 1758, Wheatley had offered him the Tabernacle. Wesley preached there on Dec. 21, and took the lease on the 26th. He found on March 7 that ’the Society, once consisting of many hundred members, was mouldered into nothing.’ See Journal, iv. 290-6, 301.] I have reunited about seventy of them, and hope this evening to make up an hundred. But many of them have wonderful spirits, having been always accustomed to teach their teachers; so that how they will bear any kind of discipline I cannot tell. At Colchester the case is far otherwise. About an hundred and sixty simple, upright people are there united together, who are as little children, minding nothing but the salvation of their souls. Only they are greatly distressed for a larger house. What we could have done last Sunday I know not, but that, the day being mild, I took the field and preached on St. John’s Green. I see but one way--to build a commodious house; and I desired them to look out for a piece of ground. It is true they are poor enough; but if it be God’s work, He will provide the means. Wishing an increase in all grace both to Mrs. Blackwell, Mrs. Dewal, and you, I remain, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To Miss Johnson () COLCHESTER March 20, 1759. My wife, Miss --, surprised me last night by informing me you are left mistress of a large fortune. Shall I say, agreeably surprised me! I cannot tell; because I believe there is another world, and I do not know what influence this change may have on your condition. Therefore I am in fear and in hope. You may be hereby far more happy or far more miserable in eternity! O make a stand! Consider the situation you are in; perhaps never before were you in so great danger. You know a little of your natural tempers: now you have means of indulging and thereby inflaming them to the uttermost. And how many will incite you so to do! How few will dare to warn you against it! Now what food will you have for pride! what infinite temptations to think more highly than you ought to think! You do so already. But O where will you stop! The good Lord arrest the storm in mid career! How impetuously now, unless God interpose, must self-will whirl you along! How deeply, unless He help, will you shortly be immersed in practical Atheism! as ten thousand things will concur to drive God out of your thoughts, as much as if He were not in the world. But, above all, how will you escape from being swallowed up in idolatry! love of the world, such as you never knew before! Hitherto you have been greatly superior to every delicacy in food; but even this may assault you now, and perhaps raise in you other desires which you are now a stranger to. At present you are above the follies of dress; but will you be so a twelvemonth hence! May you not easily slide into the pride of life, in this as well as other instances! especially considering how your vanity will be gratified thereby! For who will not admire and applaud your admirable taste! It will only remain for you to marry some agreeable person that has much wit and sense with little or no religion; then it is finished! Either you will be throughly miserable in this world or miserable to eternity. ’But what business is this of yours! Cannot you let me alone! What have I to do with you!’ Believe me, I could very easily let you alone, if I had not a real and tender goodwill toward you, and if I did not know (what perhaps you do not) that you have need even of me. You want friends who understand you well, and who dare tell you the whole, plain truth; and yet not in a surly, imperious manner, for then you could not receive it. I have endeavoured to do this once more. Will not you forgive me! I cannot but think, if you do not thank, you will at least excuse Your affectionate servant. To William Alwood NORWICH, March 29, 1759. DEAR BILLY,--I believe each window may stand eight foot (the bottom of it) from the ground, [The preaching-house at York was being built. See letter of March 6 to Alwood.] and be four foot broad and six or seven high, arched at the top. If you think it would do good, I should have no objection to preaching at Selby about eleven o’clock, as I come from Epworth, on Wednesday, April 18. Oblige Dr. Cockburn as far as possibly you can. We can bear with little tempers, though we do not approve of them. I can say little now to what T. Tobias [One of Alwood’s colleagues. A letter from him to Wesley is given in Atmore’s Memorial, PP. 429-30. He died about the year 1767.] writes of. I should think a patient, mild man might quiet two scolding women. Billy, pray and labour with your might. You may direct your next to me at Epworth.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. I doubt Sister Hall [Ruth Hall (born at Woolley, near Barnsley, in 1732) did much for the spread of Methodism in and around York. See Lyth’s Methodism in York, pp. 69-71; Arminian Mag. 1781, p. 477, 1789, p. 303.] forgets me. To his Wife GRIMSBY, April 9, 1759. MY DEAR MOLLY,--I must write once more. Then, if I hear nothing from you, I have done. About a year ago, while I suspected nothing less, you opened my bureau and took out many of my letters and papers. Mr. Blackwell advised me, before you, if you refused to restore them, to send that instant for a smith, and break open your bureau and take my own. To prevent which you restored them. But it was not long before you robbed me again, and showed my private letters to more than twenty different persons on purpose to make them have an ill opinion of me. For the same end you spoke much evil of me while I was several hundred miles off. Your presence was that I conversed with Sister Ryan and Crosby. [See letters of July 12, 1758, and March 2and Oct. 23, 1759.] I know it was only a presence, and told your friends the humouring you herein would leave matters just where they were. I knew giving a person drink would not cure a dropsy. However, at their instance I made the experiment. I broke off all correspondence with them, whether by speaking or writing. For a while, having gained your point, you was in a good humour. Afterwards it was just as I said. You robbed me again; and your sin (as before) carried its own punishment: for the papers you had stole harrowed up your soul and tore your poor fretful spirit in pieces. Notwithstanding this, you wrote me two loving letters. (I hope, not with a design of reading them to other people; which I shall not suspect if you assure me you have not read or shown them in part or in whole to any one.) So that I was a little surprised when at our meeting in Colchester I found you throughly out of humour. It really seemed as if you was heartily vexed by the papers you had taken, and so were resolved to have it out with me. Accordingly you could not refrain from throwing squibs at me even in company, [He was at Colchester on March 19.] and from speaking with such keenness when we were alone, as I think no wife ought to speak to an husband--such as I apprehend you could not have used decently to any but Noah Vazeille. [Her first husband.] Perhaps you may now take the greater liberty, because, having stripped me of all my papers, you imagine it is now absolutely impossible for me to justify myself. But you are under a mistake. To all that know me my word is a sufficient justification. And if anything more is needful, I know One that is able to say to the Grave, ’Give back!’ Yea, and if He say it to Jealousy, cruel as the Grave, it shall hear and obey His voice. Wishing you the blessing which you now want above any other--namely, unfeigned and deep repentance,--I remain Your much injured yet still affectionate Husband. To Mrs. Wesley, At the Foundery, London. To Sir James Lowther, afterwards Earl of Lonsdale LONDON, May 16, 1759. DEAR SIR,--Since I received your favour I have had many thoughts on worldly and Christian prudence. What is the nature of each! How do they differ! How may we distinguish one from the other! It seems worldly prudence either pursues worldly ends-- riches, honour, ease, or pleasure; or pursues Christian ends on worldly maxims or by worldly means. The grand maxims which obtain in the world are, The more power, the more money, the more learning, and the more reputation a man has, the more good he will do. And whenever a Christian, pursuing the noblest ends, forms his behaviour by these maxims, he will infallibly (though perhaps by insensible degrees) decline into worldly prudence. He will use more or less of conformity to the world, if not in sin, yet in doing some things that are good in themselves, yet (all things considered) are not good to him; and perhaps at length using guile or disguise, simulation or dissimulation; either seeming to be what he is not, or not seeming to be what he is. By any of these marks may worldly prudence be discerned from the wisdom which is from above. This Christian prudence pursues Christian maxims, and by Christian means. The ends it pursues are holiness in every kind and in the highest degree, and usefulness in every kind and degree. And herein it proceeds on the following maxims: --The help that is done upon earth, God doeth it Himself. It is He that worketh all in all; and that, not by human power; generally He uses weak things to confound the strong;--not by men of wealth; most of His choicest instruments may say, ’Silver and gold have I none’;--not by learned or wise men after the flesh; no, the foolish things hath God chosen;--not by men of reputation, but by the men that were as the filth and offscouring of the world: all which is for this plain reason--’that no flesh may glory in His sight.’ Christian prudence pursues these ends upon these principles, by only Christian means. A truly prudent Christian, while in things purely indifferent he becomes all things to all men, yet wherever duty is concerned, matters the example of all mankind no more than a grain of sand. His word is then, Non me, qui caetera, vincit Impetus; et rapido contrarius evehor orbi.1 He will not, to gain the favour or shun the hate of all, omit the least point of duty. He cannot prevail upon himself on any account or presence to use either simulation or dissimulation. There is no guile in his mouth, no evasion or ambiguity. Having one desire, one design, to glorify God with his body and with his spirit; having only one fear, Lest a motion, or a word, Or thought arise to grieve his Lord; [Ovid’s Metamorphoses, II. i. 72-3 (trs. by Addison): ’I steer against their notions: nor am I Borne back by all the current of the sky.’ ] having one rule, the Word of God; one guide, even His Spirit, he goes on in childlike simplicity. Continually seeing Him that is invisible, he walks in open day. Looking unto Jesus, and deriving strength from Him, he goes on in His steps, in the work of faith, the labour of love, the patience of hope, till he is called up to be ever with the Lord. Oh that this were in all points your own character! Surely you desire it above all things. But how shall you attain! Difficulties and hindrances surround you on every side! Can you bear with my plainness! I believe you can. Therefore I will speak without any reserve. I fear you have scarce one friend who has not more or less of the prudence which is not from above. And I doubt you have (in or near your own rank) hardly one example of true Christian prudence! Yet I am persuaded your own heart advises you right, or rather God in your heart. Oh that you may hearken to His voice alone, and let all creatures keep silence before Him! Why should they encumber you with Saul’s armour! If you essay to go forth thus, it will be in vain. You have no need of this, neither of his sword or spear; for you trust in the Lord of hosts. O go forth in His strength! and with the stones of the brook you shall overthrow all your enemies.--I am, dear sir, Your obedient servant for Christ’s sake. To Clayton Carthy NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 12, 1759. DEAR CLAYTON,--I hope you have received the sermon upon the New Birth. I can easily send you one a week. I have finished eight, and am now transcribing the fourth. You should supply any word that is wanting. Go east, west, north, or south, to Norton [Norton St. Philips (Journal, iii. 324).] or elsewhere, and speak sense or nonsense for a quarter of an hour. I believe it will avail both for your soul and body more than you imagine. I do ’think what is doing.’ By this post (to leave that poor sinner without excuse) I have wrote once more in the following words: I make you one more offer. Only leave off speaking against me behind my back (whereby you do not hurt me, but the cause of God) and restore my papers to me, and you will find me Your still affectionate Husband. [Carthy had incurred Mrs. Wesley’s anger by defending her husband’s character. See letter of April 9.] My part is to go on my way and to finish my work.--I am, dear Clayton, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Carthy, At the New Room, In Bristol. To Sir James Lowther NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE June 1, 1759. DEAR SIR,--Considering the variety of business which must lie upon you, I am not willing to trouble you too often, yet cannot any longer delay to return thanks for your favour of May 21. How happy is it that there is an higher wisdom than our own to guide us through the mazes of life! that we have an unction from the Holy One to teach us of all things where human teaching fails! And it certainly must fail in a thousand instances. General rules cannot reach all particular cases, in some of which there is such a complication of circumstances that God alone can show what steps we should take. There is one circumstance in your case which claims your peculiar attention, and makes it necessary often to check that boldness and simplicity which otherwise would be both your duty and pleasure. But oh how easily may you comply too far, and hurt yourself in hopes of gaining another! nay, perhaps hurt the other too, by that very compliance which was designed to help! And who is able to lay the line! to determine how far you should comply, and where fix your foot! May the God of wisdom direct you in all your steps! And I conceive He will rather do this by giving you light directly from Himself in meditation and private prayer than by the advice of others, who can hardly be impartial in so tender a point. Is it not, then, advisable that you should much commune with God and your own heart! You may then lay aside all the trappings that naturally tend to hide you from yourself, and appear naked, as a poor sinful worm, before the great God, the Creator of heaven and of earth! the great God, who is your Father and your Friend! who hath prepared for you a kingdom! who calls you to forget the little things of earth, and to sit down with Him on His throne! O may you dwell on these things till they possess your whole soul and cause you to love the honour which cometh of God only!--I am, dear sir, Your obedient servant. To Dr. Taylor, of Norwich HARTLEPOOL, July 3, 1759. REVEREND SIR,--I esteem you as a person of uncommon sense and learning, but your doctrine I cannot esteem; and some time since, I believed it my duty to speak my sentiments at large concerning your doctrine of Original Sin. When Mr. Newton of Liverpool [Afterwards the Rev. John Newton of Olney. See letter of April 9, 1765.] mentioned this, and asked whether you designed to answer, you said you thought not, ’for it would only be a personal controversy between John Wesley and John Taylor.’ How gladly, if I durst, would I accept of this discharge from so unequal contest! for I am throughly sensible, humanly speaking, it is formica contra leonem. [’An ant against a lion,’] How gladly, were it indeed no other than a personal controversy! But certainly it is not: it is a controversy de re, if ever there was one in this world; indeed, concerning a thing of the highest importance--nay, all the things that concern our eternal peace. It is Christianity or heathenism! for, take away the scriptural doctrine of Redemption or Justification, and that of the New Birth, the beginning of sanctification, or (which amounts to the same) explain them as you do, suitably to your doctrine of Original Sin, and what is Christianity better than heathenism! wherein, save in rectifying some of our notions, has the religion of St. Paul any pre-eminence over that of Socrates or Epictetus! This is, therefore, to my apprehension, the least a personal controversy of any in the world. Your person and mine are out of the question. The point is, Are those things that have been believed for many ages throughout the Christian world real, solid truths, or monkish dreams and vain imaginations! But farther: it is certain, between you and me there need be no personal controversy at all; for we may agree to leave each other’s person and character absolutely untouched, while we sum up and answer the several arguments advanced as plainly and closely as we can. Either I or you mistake the whole of Christianity from the beginning to the end! Either my scheme or yours is as contrary to the scriptural as the Koran is. Is it mine, or yours! Yours has gone through all England and made numerous converts. I attack it from end to end. Let all England judge whether it can be defended or not! Earnestly praying that God may give you and me a right understanding in all things, I am, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Samuel Furly YARM, July 7, 1759. DEAR SAMMY,--Our Conference at Leeds is to begin on Wednesday, August 1. I hope to see you at it. If you are in Yorkshire some days sooner, we shall have more time together. Your present call to Kippax is clear: when you are called farther, that will be clear also. What avails all knowledge but that which ministers to the knowledge of Christ, and which qualifies us for saving our own souls and the souls of them that hear us! What knowledge you have of other things retain; but secure this in all and above all.--I am, with love to Nancy, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To the Revd. Mr. Furly, At Lakenheath, Near Brandon, Suffolk. To Miss C-- YORK, July 15, 1759. DEAR MISS C-- ,--Your letter gave me much satisfaction, though it was long before I received it. Now I find you can speak freely to me; and as you have found the way, I hope to hear from you a little oftener. In a few days I hope to be at Leeds. Why should you not give me the pleasure of hearing from you there! At present you are a captive of unbelief, though an unwilling captive. But I trust you shall ere long know One that bringeth the prisoners out of captivity. You can say from your heart,-- I would not to the foe submit; I hate the tyrant’s chain: Bring, Lord, the prisoner from the pit; Nor let me cry in vain.1 And you will not cry in vain; only cry on, though it be weariness and pain to slothful flesh and blood. If instability and ingratitude were sufficient to prevent either present or future salvation, then would no child of Adam ever have been saved from the foundation of the world. But these and all manner of sin are washed away by the blood of the covenant. You want only to be acquainted with this to have it sprinkled upon your heart. And how soon may it be! Why not now! If you have nothing to pay, leave all your harmlessness, your good desires or works, all you have and are behind! Are you to be saved freely! Then be it as thou wilt! Freely the gift of God receive, Pardon and peace in Jesus find. [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, iv. 247, altered slightly.] Away with your preparation! The Lord Himself prepare your heart and then hearken thereto! Away with your reasoning! Be a little child! Sink down before the Saviour of sinners, the Lover of your soul! Let Him have the glory over you. What hinders! Dear Miss C-- , be not reserved or fearful when you speak to Your affectionate brother and servant. To Mr. -- EVERTON, August 6, 1759 DEAR SIR,--In the Minutes of the Conference we observe that ’poring too much upon our inbred sin’ may bring us ’under a kind of bondage’--that is, when we fix, as it were, both eyes of the mind upon it; whereas one only should be fixed upon this, and the other constantly upon Christ. One with whom I was speaking a day or two ago, who seems to be entered into rest, by looking at sin alone, had lost all her joy and peace, and almost her faith, and was like a condemned unbeliever; while her friend (whom I judge to be higher in grace than her) only felt an inexpressible want and emptiness (yet consistent with peace as well as with love) till she was filled with the fullness of God. O tread in her steps! Be simple, little, nothing: yet be loved of God! yet a member of Christ, a child of God! an heir of all His promises! Be still, and know that He is God! Obmutesce, pulvis et cinis. kai genhsetai galhnh h megalh. [’Become dumb, dust and ashes. And there shall be a great calm.’ A piece of the letter has been torn off; but this seems to be its substance.] To Dorothy Furly LONDON, August 19, 1759. MY DEAR SISTER,--The observing that rule might prevent abundance of mischief: I wish others would observe it as well as you. Thomas Walsh was a good and a wise man; yet there were some circumstances, not commonly known, which easily account for the darkness he went through before he went to paradise. [See Wesley’s Veterans, v. 190-8.] I hope you have talked with Cornelius Bastable as well as heard him preach. He is an uncommon monument of the power of grace, strengthening the understanding as well as renewing the heart. For so weak an head and so bad a temper as he once had I do not know among all our preachers. Probably the difference between you and others lies in words chiefly. All who expect to be sanctified at all expect to be sanctified by faith. But meantime they know that faith will not be given but to them that obey. Remotely, therefore, the blessing depends on our works, although immediately on simple faith. Enjoy while you may the advantage which I had once, and shall have again when God sees best.--I am Your affectionate brother. Certainly you may say to me whatever you have a mind, either by writing or speaking. To Mr. Jones LONDON, August 22, 1759. SIR,--Nothing is more certain than that the kingdom of God is not divided against itself; that peace and joy in the Holy Ghost are no ways obstructive of righteousness, even in the highest degree of it. Hold fast, therefore, that whereunto you have attained, and in peace and joy wait for perfect love. We know this is not of works, lest any man should boast; and it is no more of sufferings than it is of works. Nothing is absolutely pre-required but a sense of our want; and this may be a calm, peaceful, yet joyful sense of it. When I was lately in Rotherham, I talked with eleven persons who seem to be perfected in love. [Wesley says in the Journal for Aug. 2, 1759: ’Thence I went on to Rotherham, and talked with five men and six women (as I had done with many others before in various places) who believe they are saved from sin. And this fact I believe, that they "rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks." I believe they feel nothing but love now: what they will do, I leave to God.’ ] Of these Jane Green (the wife of one of our preachers) was facile princeps--higher and deeper in experience than them all; and she never was in darkness or heaviness one hour during the second conviction. Only she felt in a manner not to be expressed her own foolishness, emptiness, and nothingness. And in this state she quietly continued till God said, ’Be thou clean.’ While I was riding (since Christmas) three- or four-and twenty hundred miles I found no want of strength. But when my work was at an end, so was my strength. When I want it, I shall have it again. I thought you was to have been here in October; but God’s time is the best! He cloth all things well. Why should we not trust Him in all!--I am, dear sir, Ever yours. Will you take the time and pains to read the Notes critically over, and give me your alterations and additions before I print another edition! To Richard Tompson LONDON, August 22, 1759. I am afraid you would hardly save yourself harmless by the publication of those letters. However, if you are inclined to run the hazard, I do not object. Only it would be needful to advertise the readers that what I wrote was in haste, just as I could snatch a little time now and then, to answer the private letter of a private friend, without any thought of its going any farther.--I am Your affectionate brother. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ BRISTOL, October 20, 1759. SIR,--Since I came to Bristol I heard many terrible accounts concerning the French prisoners at Knowle,--as that ’they were so wedged together that they had no room to breathe’; that ’the stench of the rooms where they lodged was intolerable’; that ’their food was only fit for dogs’; that ’their meat was carrion, their bread rotten and unwholesome’; and that, ’in consequence of this inhuman treatment, they died in whole shoals.’ Desiring to know the truth, I went to Knowle on Monday, and was showed all the apartments there. But how was I disappointed! (1) I found they had large and convenient space to walk in, if they chose it, all the day. (2) There was no stench in any apartment which I was in, either below or above. They were all sweeter and cleaner than any prison I have seen either in England or elsewhere. (3) Being permitted to go into the larder, I observed the meat hanging up, two large quarters of beef. It was fresh and fat, and I verily think as good as I ever desire to eat. (4) A large quantity of bread lay on one side. A gentleman took up and cut one of the loaves. It was made of good flour, was well-baked, and perfectly well-tasted. (5) Going thence to the hospital, I found that even in this sickly season there are not thirty persons dangerously ill out of twelve or thirteen hundred. (6) The hospital was sweeter and cleaner throughout than any hospital I ever saw in London. I think it my duty to declare these things, for clearing the innocent and the honour of the English nation. Yet one thing I observed with concern. A great part of these men are almost naked; and winter is now coming upon them in a cold prison and a colder climate than most of them have been accustomed to. But will not the humanity and generosity of the gentlemen of Bristol prevent or relieve this distress! Did they not make a notable precedent during the late war! And surely they are not weary of well-doing. Tuesday night we did a little according to our power; but I shall rejoice if this be forgotten through the abundance administered by their liberality in a manner which they judge most proper. Will it not be both for the honour of their city and country, for the credit of our religion, and for the glory of God, who knows how to return it sevenfold into their bosom!-- I am Your humble servant. To his Wife COLEFORD, October 23, 1759. DEAR MOLLY,--I will tell you simply and plainly the things which I dislike. If you remove them, well. If not, I am but where I was. I dislike (1) Your showing any one my letters and private papers without my leave. This never did any good yet, either to you or me or any one. It only sharpens and embitters your own spirit. And the same effect it naturally has upon others. The same it would have upon me, but that (by the grace of God) I do not think of it. It can do no good. It can never bring me nearer, though it may drive me farther off. And should you do as you often threaten, then the matter is over. I know what I have to do. In all this you are fighting against yourself. You are frustrating your own purpose, if you want me to love you. You take just the wrong way. No one ever was forced to love another. It cannot be: love can only be won by softness; foul means avail nothing. But you say, ’I have tried fair means, and they did not succeed.’ If they do not, none will. Then you have only to say, ’This evil is of the Lord: I am clay in His hand.’ I dislike (2) Not having the command of my own house, not being at liberty to invite even my nearest relations so much as to drink a dish of tea without disobliging you. I dislike (3) The being myself a prisoner in my own house; the having my chamber door watched continually so that no person can go in or out but such as have your good leave. I dislike (4) The being but a prisoner at large, even when I go abroad, inasmuch as you are highly disgusted if I do not give you an account of every place I go to and every person with whom I converse. I dislike (5) The not being safe in my own house. My house is not my castle. I cannot call even my study, even my bureau, my own. They are liable to be plundered every day. You say, ’I plunder you of nothing but papers.’ I am not sure of that. How is it possible I should I miss money too, and he that will steal a pin will steal a pound. But were it so, a scholar’s papers are his treasure--my Journal in particular. ’But I took only such papers as relate to Sarah Ryan and Sarah Crosby.’ That is not true. What are Mr. Landey’s letters to them Besides, you have taken parts of my Journal which relate to neither one nor the other. I dislike (6) Your treatment of my servants (though, indeed, they are not properly mine). You do all that in you lies to make their lives a burthen to them. You browbeat, harass, rate them like dogs, make them afraid to speak to me. You treat them with such haughtiness, sternness, sourness, surliness, ill-nature, as never were known in any house of mine for near a dozen years. You forget even good breeding, and use such coarse language as befits none but a fishwife. I dislike (7) Your talking against me behind my back, and that every day and almost every hour of the day; making my faults (real or supposed) the standing topic of your conversation. I dislike (8) Your slandering me, laying to my charge things which you know are false. Such are (to go but a few days back)--’that I beat you,’ which you told James Burges [One of the masters at Kingswood. Wesley visited the schoolhouse in 1739, and was there during the fire of 1757. See Diary in Journal, ii. 206, 240, 302; iv. 242.]; that I rode to Kingswood with Sarah Ryan, which you told Sarah Crosby; and that I required you, when we were first married, never to sit in my presence without my leave, which you told Mrs. Lee, [Eleanor Lee, ’a mother in Israel,’ whom Wesley buried in 1778. See Journal, vi. 213.] Mrs. Fry, and several others, and stood it before my face. I dislike (9) Your common custom of saying things not true. To instance only in two or three particulars. You told Mr. Ireland [James Ireland, of Brislington, near Bristol. See next letter.] ’Mr. Vazeille learnt Spanish in a fortnight.’ You told Mr. Fry ’Mrs. Ellison [Wesley’s sister Susanna, who spent her last years in London. Evidently some reference to Sophia Hopkey.] was the author as to my intrigue in Georgia.’ You told Mrs. Ellison ’you never said any such thing; you never charged her with it.’ You also told her ’that I had laid a plot to serve you as Susannah was served by the two elders.’ I dislike (10) Your extreme, immeasurable bitterness to all who endeavour to defend my character (as my brother, Joseph Jones, Clayton Carthy [See letter of June 12. ]), breaking out even into foul, unmannerly language, such as ought not to defile a gentlewoman’s lips if she did not believe one word of the Bible. And now, Molly, what would any one advise you to that has a real concern for your happiness Certainly (1) to show, read, touch those letters no more, if you did not restore them to their proper owner; (2) to allow me the command of my own house, with free leave to invite thither whom I please; (3) to allow me my liberty there that any who will may come to me without let or hindrance; (4) to let me go where I please and to whom I please without giving an account to any; (5) to assure me you will take no more of my papers nor anything of mine without my consent; (6) to treat all the servants where you are, whether you like them or no, with courtesy and humanity, and to speak (if you speak at all) to them, as well as others, with good nature and good manners; (7) to speak no evil of me behind my back; (8) never to accuse me falsely; (9) to be extremely cautious of saying anything that is not strictly true, both as to the matter and manner; and (10) to avoid all bitterness of expression till you can avoid all bitterness of spirit. These are the advices which I now give you in the fear of God and in tender love to your soul. Nor can I give you a stronger proof that I am Your affectionate Husband. To the Editor of the ’Morning Chronicle’ November 4, 1759. On Tuesday, October 16 last, I made a collection at the New Room in Bristol for the French prisoners confined at Knowle. The money contributed then and the next day was about three-and-twenty pounds. Judged it best to lay this out in shirts and flannel waistcoats, and accordingly bought, of Mr. Zepheniah Fry, in the Castle, check shirts and woollen cloth to the amount of eight pounds ten shillings and sixpence; and of Mrs. Sarah Cole, check linen to the amount of five pounds seventeen shillings. The linen was immediately delivered to two or three poor women, who were to be paid the common price, and to some others, who offered to make them into shirts, &c., for nothing. The money remaining I lodged in the hands of Mr. James Ireland of Horsleydown Street, as he speaks French readily, and Mr. John Salter of Bedminster, who had been with me both at the prison and the hospital. I directed them to give a waistcoat and two shirts to every one who was remanded from the hospital to the prison, and the other half to those they should judge most needy or most deserving.--I am, &c. To John Downes, Rector of St. Michael’s, Wood Street To Samuel Furly LONDON, November 21, 1759. DEAR SAMMY,--At present you are just where you ought to be, and as you ought to be. It is of great use to be in suspense. Nothing more effectually breaks our will. While you stay, you do well to give all the assistance you can to the Society. They must be weak and undisciplined as yet. Probably they want you more than once a month. [See letter of June 19, 1760.] I doubt not of Abraham’s being perfected in love. But he was rather under the evangelical than the legal dispensation. And none can doubt but all the Jewish believers were perfected before they died. But that many of them were perfected long before they died I see no reason to think. The Holy Ghost was not fully given before Jesus was glorified. Therefore the law (unless in a very few exempt cases) made nothing perfect. It is certain the word ’perfect’ in the Old Testament bears several senses. But we lay no stress upon the word at all. The thing is pure love. The promise of this was given by Moses, but not designed to be fulfilled till long after. See Deuteronomy xxx. 1-6. By the whole tenor of the words it appears it was then, when He had gathered the Jews from all nations, that God was so to circumcise their hearts. However, this may be fulfilled in you and me. Let us hasten toward it! With love to Nancy, I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Furly, At Kippax, Near Ferry Bridge, Yorks. To his Wife BEDFORD, November 24, 1759. MY DEAR MOLLY,--You have been much upon my thoughts this morning. Shall I tell you what I thought Then take it in good part. Take it kindly, as it is kindly meant. What do you gain by keeping my papers [See letter of Oct. 23.] or, at least, think you gain Why, this: you gain the satisfaction of showing them, or parts of them, to others; you gain the power of justifying yourself, and of hurting (at least by vexing) me; you gain occasion to make people think ill of me, and to make them think well of you. And hereby you make yourself more friends and me more enemies. Very well. But are you quite sure of this Is it pure satisfaction which you gain by showing them Is there not often a doubt whether you do right, a secret misgiving which spoils the satisfaction Will the showing them justify you for taking them Is it not rather adding sin to sin And will not even men of the world say, ’What a wretch is this, first to rob, then to expose her own husband’ If, therefore, you make them think ill of me, you do not make them think well of yourself. If you make me more enemies, you do not make yourself one more friend--nay, all these after a time are less your friends than ever they were before. But what if you did gain by it all that you suppose, would it make amends for what you lose thereby You totally lose my esteem; you violently shock my love; you quite destroy my confidence. You oblige me to lock up everything as from a thief; to stand continually upon my guard; to watch all the time you are near me, as never knowing what you may steal next and expose to all the world. You cut yourself off from joint prayer. For how can I pray with one that is daily watching to do me hurt You cut yourself off from all friendly intercourse with many who would otherwise rejoice to converse with and serve you. You rob yourself of many precious opportunities of public prayer and attending the Lord’s Table. Now, how dearly must you love justifying yourself and blackening me, if you will do it at this expense! O Molly, throw the fire out of your bosom! Shun as you would a serpent those that stir it up. And see in a true light Your affectionate Husband. To Mrs. Wesley, At the Foundery, London. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 51: 49. 1760 ======================================================================== 1760 To George Merryweather BRENTFORD, January 24, 1760. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I received yours with the bill a day or two ago. I wish you would everywhere recommend two books in particular--The Christian Pattern and the Primitive Physick.[Wesley’s An Extract of the Christian’s Pattern had been published in 1741, and reprinted in 1744, 1746, and 1759. It was an abridgement of his translation of 1735. The eighth edition of his Primitive Physick was issued in 1759.] It is a great pity that any Methodist should be without them. I wonder Brother Mather [Alexander Mather was stationed in the York Circuit, which included Yarm. He became one of the moat powerful preachers and judicious leaders of Methodism, and was President of the Conference in 1792.] does not write to me. He should not forget his friends. I hope the gentleman with whom I breakfasted at Yarm [Probably in July 1759. Mr. Waldy was a landed proprietor in Yarm. See letter of Dec. 28, 1767.] has not forsaken you. Even the rich may enter into the kingdom; for with God all things are possible. See that you stir up the gift of God that is in you. What is our Lord’s word to you--’Let the dead bury their dead; but follow thou Me!’--I am Your affectionate brother. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ WINDMILL HILL., February 18, 1760. SIR,--On Sunday, December 16 last, I received a £20 Bank bill from an anonymous correspondent, who desired me to lay it out in the manner I judged best for the use of poor prisoners. I immediately employed some in whom I could confide to inquire into the circumstances of those confined in Whitechapel and New Prison. I knew the former to have very little allowance even of bread, and the latter none at all. Upon inquiry they found one poor woman in Whitechapel Prison very big with child and destitute of all things. At the same time I casually heard of a poor man who had been confined for nine months in the Poultry Compter, while his wife and three children (whom he before maintained by his labour) were almost perishing through want. Not long after, another poor woman, who had been diligent in helping others, was herself thrown into Whitechapel Prison. The expense of discharging these three and giving them a few necessaries amounted to £10 10s. One pound fourteen shillings I expended in stockings and other clothing, which was given to those prisoners who were in the most pressing want. The remainder, £7 16s., was laid out in bread, which was warily distributed thrice a week. I am therefore assured that the whole of this sum was laid out in real charity. And how much more noble a satisfaction must result from this to the generous benefactor (even supposing there were no other world, supposing man to die as a beast dieth) than he could receive from an embroidered suit of clothes or a piece of plate made in the newest fashion! Men of reason, judge!--I am, sir, Your humble servant. To Samuel Furly LONDON, February 25, 1700. DEAR SAMMY,--At present I have but just time to tell you I hope to be at Leeds on Tuesday, March 11. Your manner of proposing your objection puts me in mind of your friend Mr. Dodd. You speak ex cathedra. But the matter is not so clear as it appears to you. It is, however, a point, though considered long ago, worth considering again and again. But you must stay your stomach till you either see or hear again from Your affectionate brother. To Miss March WEDNESBURY, March 4, 1760. Certainly the more freedom you use the more advantage you will find. But at the same time it will be needful continually to remember from whom every good and perfect gift cometh. If He blesses our intercourse with each other, then we shall never repent of the labour. It is a blessing indeed when God uncovers our hearts and clearly shows us what spirit we are of. But there is no manner of necessity that this self-knowledge should make us miserable. Certainly the highest degree of it is well consistent both with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Therefore how deeply soever you may be convinced of pride, self-will, peevishness, or any other inbred sin, see that you do not let go that confidence whereby you may still rejoice in God your Saviour. Some, indeed, have been quite unhappy, though they retained their faith, through desire on the one hand and conviction on the other. But that is nothing to you; you need never give up anything which you have already received: you will not, if you keep close to that,-- For this my vehement soul stands still; Restless, resigned, for this I wait. We have a fuller, clearer knowledge of our own members than of those belonging to other Societies; and may therefore, without any culpable partiality, have a better opinion of them. It is a great thing to spend all our time to the glory of God. But you need not be scrupulous as to the precise time of reading and praying; I mean, as to the dividing it between one and the other. A few minutes one way or the other are of no great importance. May He who loves you fill you with His pure love!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell () MANCHESTER, March I 7, I 760. SIR,--The humanity which you showed during the short time I had the pleasure of conversing with you at Lewisham emboldens me to trouble you with a line in behalf of a worthy man. I apprehend the collector at Northwich in Cheshire has informed the Honourable Board that ’Mr. James Vine is a preacher at Northwich and makes disturbances in the town.’ That he attends the preaching of the Methodists is true; but it is not true that he is a preacher. It is likewise true that the rabble of Northwich have sometimes disturbed our congregations; but herein Mr. Vine was only concerned as a sufferer, not an actor. I know him to be a careful, diligent officer, and a zealous lover of King George. Wishing you all temporal and spiritual blessings, I remain, sir, Your obedient servant. To Lady Rawdon LIVERPOOL., March 18, 1760. MY LADY,--It was impossible to see the distress into which your Ladyship was thrown by the late unhappy affair without bearing a part of it, without sympathizing with you. But may we not see God therein May we not both hear and understand His voice We must allow it is generally ’small and still’; yet He speaks sometimes in the whirlwind. Permit me to speak to your Ladyship with all freedom; not as to a person of quality, but as to a creature whom the Almighty made for Himself, and one that is in a few days to appear before Him. You were not only a nominal but a real Christian. You tasted of the powers of the world to come. You knew God the Father had accepted you through His eternal Son, and God the Spirit bore witness with your spirit that you were a child of God. But you fell among thieves, and such as were peculiarly qualified to rob you of your God. Two of these in particular were sensible, learned, well-bred, well-natured, moral men. These did not assault you in a rough, abrupt, offensive manner. No; you would then have armed yourself against them, and have repelled all their attacks. But by soft, delicate, unobserved touches, by pleasing strokes of raillery, by insinuations rather than surly arguments, they by little and little sapped the foundation of your faith--perhaps not only of your living faith, your ’evidence of things not seen,’ but even of your notional. It is well if they left you so much as an assent to the Bible or a belief that Christ is God over all I And what was the consequence of this Did not your love of God grow cold Did not you Measure back your steps to earth again Did not your love of the world revive even of those poor, low trifles, which in your very childhood you utterly despised Where are you now full of faith looking into the holiest, and seeing Him that is invisible Does your heart now glow with love to Him who is daily pouring His benefits upon you Do you now even desire it Do you now say (as you did almost twenty years ago),-- Keep me dead to all below, Only Christ resolved to know; Firm, and disengaged, and free, Seeking all my bliss in Thee Is your taste now for heavenly things Are not you a lover of pleasure more than a lover of God And oh what pleasure! What is the pleasure of visiting of modern conversation Is there any more reason than religion in it I wonder what rational appetite does it gratify Setting religion quite out of the question, I cannot conceive how a woman of sense can --relish, should I say no, but suffer so insipid an entertainment. Oh that the time past may suffice! Is it now not high time that you should awake out of sleep Now God calls aloud! My dear Lady, now hear the voice of the Son of God, and live! The trouble in which your tender parent is now involved may restore all that reverence for her which could not but be a little impaired while you supposed she was ’righteous over-much.’ Oh how admirably does God lay hold of and ’strengthen the things that remain’ in you!--your gratitude, your humane temper, your generosity, your filial tenderness! And why is this but to improve every right temper; to free you from all that is irrational or unholy; to make you all that you were--yea, all that you should be; to restore you to the whole image of God--I am, my Lady, Yours, &c. To his Wife LIVERPOOL, March 23, 1760. Poor Molly! Could you not hold out a little longer! not one month not twenty days Have you found out a presence already for talking in the old strain A thin one indeed: but, such as it is, it may serve the turn for want of a better. ’You have taken a bed to pieces. And you want to put it in my study. And I do not tell you whether you may or no’! Truly I cannot look upon this whole affair as any other than a presence. For what need had you to take the bed in pieces at all and what need was there (if it was taken in pieces) that it should lie in the one little room which I have when you have four rooms to yourself Alas, that to this hour you should neither know your duty nor be willing to learn it! Indeed, if you was a wise, whether a good woman or not, you would long since have given me a carte blanche: you would have said, ’Tell me what to do, and I will do it; tell me what to avoid, and I will avoid it. I promised to obey you, and I will keep my word. Bid me do anything, everything. In whatever is not sinful, I obey. You direct, I will follow the direction.’ This it had been your wisdom to have done long ago, instead of squabbling for almost these ten years. This it is both your wisdom and your duty to do now; and certainly better late than never. This must be your indispensable duty, till (1) I am an adulterer; (2) you can prove it. Till then I have the same right to claim obedience from you as you have to claim it from Noah Vazeille. [Her son.] Consequently every act of disobedience is an act of rebellion against God and the King, as well as against Your affectionate Husband. To Miss March LIVERPOOL, March 29, 1760. Having a little longer reprieve, I snatch the opportunity of writing a few lines before we embark. Prayer is certainly the grand means of drawing near to God; and all others are helpful to us only so far as they are mixed with or prepare us for this. The comfort of it may be taken away by wandering thoughts, but not the benefit: violently to fight against these is not the best and speediest way to conquer them; ;but rather humbly and calmly to ask and wait for His help, who will bruise Satan under your feet. You may undoubtedly remain in peace and joy until you are perfected in love. You need neither enter into a dispute, when persons speak wrong, nor yet betray the truth; there is a middle way. You may simply say, ’I believe otherwise; but I think, and let think; I am not fond of contending on this or any other head, lest I receive more hurt than I can do good.’ Remember your calling; be A simple follower of the Lamb, And harmless as a little child. To Miss March DUBLIN, April 16, 1760. Eltham is a barren soil indeed. I fear scarce any are to be found there who know anything of the power of religion, and not many that have so much as the form. But God is there, and He can supply every want. Nothing contributes to seriousness more than humility, because it is a preparation for every fruit of the Holy Spirit; and the knowledge of our desperate state by sin has a particular tendency to keep us earnest after deliverance; and that earnestness can hardly consist with levity, either of temper or behaviour. Those who have tasted of the goodness of God are frequently wanting in declaring it. They do not as they ought stir up the gift of God which is in every believer by exciting one another to continual thankfulness and provoking each other to love and good works. We should never be content to make a drawn battle, to part neither better nor worse than we met. Christian conversation is too precious a talent to be thus squandered away. It does not require a large share of natural wisdom to see God in all things--in all His works of creation as well as of providence. This is rather a branch of spiritual wisdom, and is given to believers more and more as they advance in purity of heart. Probably it would be of use to you to be as regular as you can: I mean, to allot such hours to such employments; only not to be troubled when Providence calls you from them. For the best rule of all is to follow the will of God. To John Berridge DUBLIN, April 18, 1760. DEAR SIR,--Disce, docendus adhuc quae censet amiculus [Horace’s Epistles, I. xvii. 3:’To the instruction of an humble friend, Who would himself be better taught, attend.’]; and take in good part my mentioning some particulars which have been long on my mind, and yet I knew not how to speak them. I was afraid it might look like taking too much upon me or assuming some superiority over you. But love casts out, or at least overrules, that fear. So I will speak simply, and leave you to judge. It seems to me that, of all the persons I ever knew save one, you are the hardest to be convinced. I have occasionally spoken to you on many heads; some of a speculative, others of a practical nature: but I do not know that you was ever convinced of one, whether of great importance or small. I believe you retained your own opinion in every one, and did not vary an hair’s breadth. I have likewise doubted whether you was not full as hard to be persuaded as to be convinced’; whether your will do not adhere to its first bias, right or wrong, as strongly as your understanding. I mean with regard to any impression which another may make upon them. For perhaps you readily, too readily, change of your own mere motion; as I have frequently observed great fickleness and great stubbornness meet in the same mind. So that it is not easy to please you long, but exceeding easy to offend you. Does not this imply the thinking very highly of yourself particularly of your own understanding Does it not imply, what is always connected therewith, something of self sufficiency ’You can stand alone; you care for no man; you need no help from man.’ It was not so with my brother and me when we were first employed in this great work. We were deeply conscious of our own insufficiency; and though in one sense we trusted in God alone, yet we sought His help from all His children, and were glad to be taught by any man. And this, although we were really alone in the work; for there were none that had gone before us therein, there were none then in England who had trod that path wherein God was leading us. Whereas you have the advantage which we had not: you tread in a beaten path; others have gone before you, and are going now in the same way, to the same point. Yet it seems you choose to stand alone; what was necessity with us is choice with you; you like to be unconnected with any, thereby tacitly condemning all. But possibly you go farther yet; do not you explicitly condemn all your fellow labourers, blaming one in one instance, one in another, so as to be throughly pleased with the conduct of none Does not this argue a vehement proneness to condemn a very high degree of censoriousness Do you not censure even peritos in sua arte [’Those who are clever in their particular profession.’ ] Permit me to relate a little circumstance to illustrate this. After we had been once singing an hymn at Everton, I was just going to say, ’I wish Mr. Whitefield would not try to mend my brother’s hymns. He cannot do it. How vilely he has murdered that hymn, weakening the sense as well as marring the poetry!’ But how was I afterwards surprised to hear it was not Mr. Whitefield, but Mr. B.! In very deed it is not easy to mend his hymns any more than to imitate them. Has not this aptness to find fault frequently shown itself in abundance of other instances sometimes with regard to Mr. Parker or Mr. Hicks, [William Parker, Mayor of Bedford, was excluded by the Moravians from their Society, and preached at the Foundery in 1758 (Journal, iv.86, 201, 248). For William Hicks, see ibid. 335, 344; and letter of June 14, 1780.] sometimes with regard to me And this may be one reason why you take one step which was scarce ever before taken in Christendom: I mean, the discouraging the new converts from reading--at least, from reading anything but the Bible. Nay, but get off the consequence who can: if they ought to read nothing but the Bible, they ought to hear nothing but the Bible; so away with sermons, whether spoken or written! I can hardly imagine that you discourage reading even our little tracts, out of jealousy lest we should undermine you or steal away the affections of the people. I think you cannot easily suspect this. I myself did not desire to come among them; but you desired me to come. I should not have obtruded myself either upon them or you: for I have really work enough, full as much as either my body or mind is able to go through; and I have, blessed be God, friends enough--I mean, as many as I have time to converse with. Nevertheless, I never repented of that I spent at Everton; and I trust it was not spent in vain. I have not time to throw these thoughts into a smoother form; so I give you them just as they occur. May the God whom you serve give you to form a right judgement concerning them, and give a blessing to the rough sincerity of, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Ebenezer Blackwell NEWRY, April 26, 1760, DEAR SIR,--I hope your lameness is now at an end, but not the benefit you have reaped from it. May we not in every trial, great or small, observe the hand of God And does He send any sooner than we want it or longer than we want it I found the inflammation which I had in my eyes last month [The inflammation began at Warrington, and ’was much increased by riding forty miles with a strong and cold wind exactly in my face’ to Chester. See Journal, iv. 373] came just in the right time. The danger is that anything of this kind should pass over before the design of it is answered. Whether Miss Freeman [She went with him in Dublin to see the French prisoners sent from Carrickfergus. See Journal, iv. 377; and letter of May 28, 1757.] should make use of Lough Neagh, or Lough Leighs (forty miles nearer Dublin), I suppose she is not yet able to determine till I can send her some farther information. And that I cannot do to my own satisfaction till I am upon the spot; for though Lough Neagh is scarce fifteen miles from hence, yet I can hardly find any one here who knows any more of the circumstances of it than if it lay in the East Indies. Hitherto I have had an extremely prosperous journey. And all the fields are white to the harvest. But that the labourers are few is not the only hindrance to the gathering it in effectually. Of those few, some are careless, some heavy and dull, scarce one of the spirit of Thomas Walsh. The nearest to it is Mr. Morgan [James Morgan. See letters of Sept. 2, 1758, and June 23, 1760.]; but his body too sinks under him, and probably will not last long. In a few days I expect to be at Carrickfergus, [See next letter.] and to have from those on whose word I can depend a full account of that celebrated campaign. I believe it will be of use to the whole kingdom. Probably the Government will at last awake and be a little better prepared against the next encounter. When you have half an hour to spare, I hope you will give it me under your own hand that Mrs. Blackwell and you are not only in good health, but labouring more than ever after an healthful mind, and trampling the world and the devil under your feet.--I am, dear sir Your ever affectionate servant. The week after next I shall spend mostly at Sligo. To Ebenezer Blackwell CARRICKFERGUS, May 7, 1760. DEAR SIR,--I can now give you a clear and full account of the late proceedings of the French here; as I now lodge at Mr. Cobham’s, under the same roof with Mons. Cavenac, the French Lieutenant-General. When the people here saw three large ships about ten in the morning anchor near the town, they took it for granted they were English, till about eleven the French began landing their men. The first party came to the north gate between twelve and one. Twelve soldiers planted on the wall (there were an hundred and sixty in the town) fired on them as they advanced, wounded the General, and killed several. But when they had fired four rounds, having no more ammunition, they were obliged to retire. The French then entered the town (at the same time that another party entered at the east end of it), keeping a steady fire up the street, till they came near the Castle. The English then fired hotly from the gate and walls, killed their second General (who had burst open the gate and gone in sword in hand), with upwards of fourscore men; but, having no more cartridges nor any man that knew how to make them, they thought it best to capitulate. They agreed to furnish such a quantity of provisions in six hours, on condition the French should not plunder. But they began immediately to serve themselves with meat and drink; having been in such pressing want that, before they landed, the men were glad to eat raw oats to sustain nature. And some hours after, no provisions being brought, they took all they could find, with a good deal of linen and wearing-apparel, chiefly from the houses whose inhabitants were run away. But they neither hurt nor affronted man, woman, or child, nor did any mischief for mischief’s sake; though many of the inhabitants affronted them, cursed them to their face, and even took up pokers or other things to strike them. I have had much conversation with Mons. Cavenac, who speaks Latin pretty readily. He is a Lieutenant-Colonel in the King’s Guards and a Knight of the Order of St. Louis. (Indeed, all the soldiers were picked men drafted out of the Guards, and more like officers than common men.) I found him not only a very sensible man but throughly instructed even in heart religion. I asked him ’if it was true that they had a design to burn Carrick and Belfast.’ (After one General was wounded and the other killed, the command had devolved upon him.) He cried out, ’Jesu, Maria! We never had such a thought! To burn, to destroy, cannot enter into the head or the heart of a good man.’ One would think the French King sent these men on purpose to show what officers he has in his Army. I hope there are some such in the English Army. But I never found them yet.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Lord Rawdon SLIGO, May 18, 1760. MY LORD,--I have taken the liberty to speak to Lady Rawdon [See letter of March 18.] all that was in my heart, and doubt not that your Lordship will second it on every proper occasion. The late awful providence I trust will not pass over without a suitable improvement. God has spoken aloud, and happy are they that hear and understand His voice. In one respect I have been under some apprehension on your Lordship’s account also. I have been afraid lest you should exchange the simplicity of the gospel for a philosophical religion. O my Lord, why should we go one step farther than this, ’We love Him because He first loved us’--I am Your Lordship’s most obedient servant. We go to Castlebar to-morrow, thence to Loughrea. To Dorothy Furly ATHLONE, June 1, 1760. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am persuaded it is not a little thing which will make me angry at you. I hope your thinking evil of me would not; for you may have many reasons so to do. Try: perhaps by prayer and a little resolution you may avoid hearing those disputes about holiness. It implies no more than this: If John Jones or any other begins a discourse concerning the errors or sins of absent persons, tell him, ’I beg you would say no more on this head; I dare not, and I will not, hear, unless those persons were present.’ If one begins any caution of that kind, stop him, only with mildness and good humour; say, ’I believe you speak out of kindness: but I must not hear; it both distresses and hurts my soul. Therefore, if you really wish my welfare, be silent, or let us call another cause.’ Where you see good, you may add, ’I consulted Mr. Wesley on this head, and this was the advice he gave me.’ No one ever ’walked in the light as God is in the light’ (I mean in the full sense of the expression) till ’the blood of Jesus Christ had cleansed him from all sin.’ ’If we are perfectly saved, it is through His blood.’ This is the plain meaning of the text; and it may be fulfilled in you before you sleep. God is Sovereign, in sanctifying as well as justifying. He will act when as well as how He pleases; and none can say unto him, What doest Thou When the lungs are ulcerated, cold bathing not only does no hurt, but is the most probable cure. Sammy is a letter in my debt. I do not know but he is providentially called to this kingdom. I have now finished more than half my progress, having gone through two of the four provinces. Who knows whether I shall live to go through the other two It matters not how long we live, but how well.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly MOUNTMELLICK, June, 19, 1760. DEAR SAMMY,--Certainly you cannot remove without giving Mr. Crook a quarter’s warning. If you do remove, you need be under no concern about repaying, nor about those you leave behind. Our preachers, when it is needful, must allow them a little more time. [He had been helping the Methodists in the neighbourhood of his curacy. See letters of Nov. 21, 1759, and June 23, 1760. ] How easy it is to puzzle a cause, and to make a thousand plausible objections to any proposition that can be advanced. This makes me quite out of conceit with human understanding and human language. So confused is the clearest apprehension! So ambiguous the most determinate expressions! Lay aside the terms ’Adamic law, ’gospel law,’ or any law. The thing is beyond dispute, and you may as well demand a scriptural proof that two and two make four. Adam in Paradise was able to apprehend all things distinctly, and to judge truly concerning them; therefore it was his duty so to do. But no man living is now able to do this; therefore neither is it the duty of any man now living. Neither is there any man now in the body who does or can walk in this instance by that rule which was bound upon Adam. Can anything be more plain than this--that Adam could, that I cannot avoid mistaking Can anything be plainer than this--If he could avoid it, he ought or than this--If I cannot, I ought not I mean it is not my duty: for the clear reason that no one can do the impossible. Nothing in the Sermon or the Law contradicts this. If anything does, it is wrong. Oh what a work might be done in this kingdom if we had six zealous, active, punctual men in it! Be you one.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles COOLALOUGH, June 23, 1760. DEAR BROTHER,--Where you are I know not, and how you are I know not; but I hope the best. Neither you nor John Jones [See letter of June 1.] has ever sent me your remarks upon that tract in the late volume of Sermons. [The fourth volume, which included six tracts. Thoughts on Christian Perfection is the fifth. The doctrine had been largely considered at the London Conference in Aug. 1759, and the tract was published soon after. The Preface to it is dated Bristol, Oct. 16, 1759. See letter of June 12, 1759.] You are not kind. Why will you not do all you can to make me wiser than I am Sam. Furly told me his objections at once; so we canvassed them without loss of time. [See previous letter.] Do you know what is done, anything or nothing, with regard to the small edition of the Notes [First edition, 4to, 1755. Third, corrected, Bristol; Grabham & Pine, 1760-2, 12mo, 3 vols, See letter of June 18, 1756.] Mr. I’Anson writes me a long account of the Sussex affair. It is of more consequence than our people seem to apprehend. If we do not exert ourselves, it may drive us to that bad dilemma--Leave preaching, or leave the Church. We have reason to thank God it is not come to this yet. Perhaps it never may. In this kingdom nothing is wanting but a few more zealous and active labourers. James Morgan, [See letter of April 26.] John Johnson, [John Johnson became an itinerant preacher in 1755, and after sixteen years settled at Lisburn. For some time he was General Superintendent in Ireland. He died on Dec. 29, 1803, at the age of seventy eight. See letter of Sept. 26, 1784, to him.] and two or three more do their best; the rest spare themselves. I hope Sally and your little ones are well. Where and how is my wife I wrote to her on Saturday last. Adieu! Where must the Conference be, at Leeds or Bristol If we could but chain or gag the blatant beast, there would be no difficulty. [12] To Miss March SLIGO, June 27, 1760. A day or two ago I was quite surprised to find among my papers a letter of yours, which I apprehend I have not answered. Every one, though born of God in an instant, yea and sanctified in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees, both after the former and the latter change. But it does not follow from thence that there must be a considerable tract of time between the one and the other. A year or a month is the same with God as a thousand: if He wills, to do is present with Him. Much less is there any necessity for much suffering: God can do His work by pleasure as well as by pain. It is therefore undoubtedly our duty to pray and look for full salvation every day, every hour, every moment, without waiting till we have either done or suffered more. Why should not this be the accepted time Certainly your friend will suffer loss if he does not allow himself time every day for private prayer. Nothing will supply the want of this. Praying with others is quite another thing. Besides, it may expose us to great danger; it may turn prayer into an abomination to God: for Guilty we speak, if subtle from within Blows on our words the self-admiring sin! O make the best of every hour! To his Wife ENNIS, NEAR LIMERICK, July 12, 1760. MY DEAR,--Though you have not answered my two last, I will not stand upon ceremony. I am now looking toward England again, having wellnigh gone through this kingdom. In a few days I purpose moving toward Cork, where I shall probably take ship for Bristol. There the Conference is to begin (if it please God to give me a prosperous voyage) on Wednesday, August 27. If there be no ship ready to sail from Cork on or about August 20, I design (God willing) to return straight to Dublin, and embark there. [He returned by Dublin. See letter of June 23.] My desire is to live peaceably with all men; with you in particular. And (as I have told you again and again) everything which is in my power I do and will do to oblige you; everything you desire, unless I judge it would hurt my own soul, or yours, or the cause of God. And there is nothing which I should rejoice in more than the having you always with me; provided only that I could keep you in a good humour, and that you would not speak against me behind my back. I still love you for your indefatigable industry, for your exact frugality, and for your uncommon neatness and cleanliness, both in your person, your clothes, and all things round you. I value you for your patience, skill, and tenderness in assisting the sick. And if you could submit to follow my advice, I could make you an hundred times more useful both to the sick and healthy in every place where God has been pleased to work by my ministry. O Molly, why should these opportunities be lost Why should you not Catch the golden moments as they fly, And by few fleeting hours ensure eternity [Adapted from his brother Samuel’s poem on William Morgan. See Journal, i. 104.] If you really are of the same mind with me, if you want to make the best of a few days, to improve the evening of life, let us begin to-day! And what we do let us do with our might. Yesterday is past, and not to be recalled: to-morrow is not ours. Now, Molly, let us set out: Let us walk hand in hand To Immanuel’s land! If it please God we meet again, let us meet for good. Had you rather we should lodge at the room [When they were to be together at Bristol The Rev. George Stonehouse lived there for some time. See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 215n, 223, &C.] or at Mr. Stonehouse’s Peace be with your spirit!--I am, dear Molly, Your affectionate Husband. To John Trembath CORK, August 17, 1760. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The conversation I had with you yesterday in the afternoon gave me a good deal of satisfaction. As to some things which I had heard (with regard to your wasting your substance, drinking intemperately, and wronging the poor people of Siberton), I am persuaded they were mistakes; as I suppose it was that you converse much with careless, unawakened people. And I trust you will be more and more cautious in all these respects, abstaining from the very appearance of evil. [See letter of Sept. 21, 1755.] That you had not always attended the preaching when you might have done it you allowed, but seemed determined to remove that objection, as well as the other of using such exercises or diversions as give offence to your brethren. I believe you will likewise endeavour to avoid light and trifling conversation, and to talk and behave in all company with that seriousness and usefulness which become a preacher of the gospel. Certainly some years ago you was alive to God. You experienced the life and power of religion. And does not God intend that the trials you meet with should bring you back to this You cannot stand still; you know this is impossible. You must go forward or backward. Either you must recover that power and be a Christian altogether, or in a while you will have neither power nor form, inside nor outside. Extremely opposite both to one and the other is that aptness to ridicule others, to make them contemptible, by exposing their real or supposed foibles. This I would earnestly advise you to avoid. It hurts yourself; it hurts the hearers; and it greatly hurts those who are so exposed, and tends to make them your irreconcilable enemies. It has also sometimes betrayed you into speaking what was not strictly true. O beware of this above all things! Never amplify, never exaggerate anything. Be rigorous in adhering to truth. Be exemplary therein. Whatever has been in time past, let all men now know that John Trembath abhors lying, that he never promises anything which he does not perform, that his word is equal to his bond. I pray be exact in this; be a pattern of truth, sincerity, and godly simplicity. What has exceedingly hurt you in time past, nay, and I fear to this day, is want of reading. I scarce ever knew a preacher read so little. And perhaps by neglecting it you have lost the taste for it. Hence your talent in preaching does not increase. It is just the same as it was seven years ago. It is lively, but not deep; there is little variety; there is no compass of thought. Reading only can supply this, with meditation and daily prayer. You wrong yourself greatly by omitting this. You can never be a deep preacher without it any more than a thorough Christian. O begin! Fix some part of every day for private exercises. You may acquire the taste which you have not; what is tedious at first will afterwards be pleasant. Whether you like it or no, read and pray daily. It is for your life; there is no other way: else you will be a trifler all your days, and a pretty, superficial preacher. Do justice to your own soul; give it time and means to grow. Do not starve yourself any longer. Take up your cross, and be a Christian altogether. Then will all the children of God rejoice (not grieve) over you, and in particular Yours, &c. To Samuel Furly LAUNCESTON, September 4, 1760. DEAR SAMMY,--People in England, and in Ireland much more, are apt to veer from north to south. In May last Mr. Archdeacon wanted to see me, of all people in the world, and was ready (as he sent me word), not only to receive me into his church and house, but to go with me wherever I went. In July he is quite of another mind, having found I take too much upon me. Either this is owing (as I much fear) to a false brother, who, after eating of my bread, privately lifts up his heel against me, or he was struck to the heart on reading the Appeals and some of our other writings, and has now, by the assistance of the neighbouring clergy, worn off the impression. That he was provided with a curate before he received yours, I do not believe. However, all is well. [Furly had evidently been applying to the Archdeacon for a curacy. See letter of June 19.] Most of our preachers had very near left off preaching on practical religion. This was, therefore, earnestly recommended to them in the Conference at London. I am glad they followed the advice which was then given, which may be done without neglecting to speak on justification. This I choose to do on Sundays chiefly, and wherever there is the greatest number of unawakened hearers. I thought I had sent to you the answer to those queries which I sent a copy of to the printer in Bristol. But whether you have it or no, do you preach according to your light, as I do according to mine. I am now entering into Cornwall, which I have not visited these three years, and consequently all things in it are out of order. [The previous day at Launceston he had found ’the small remains of a dead, scattered Society; and no wonder, as they have had scarce any discipline and only one sermon in a fortnight.’Next day he had a similar experience at Camelford; but the state of other Societies cheered him. See Journal, iv. 406.] Several persons talk of sharing my burthen, but none does it; so I must wear out one first.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To the Editor of the ’London Chronicle’ LONDON, September 17, 1760. SIR,--As you sometimes insert things of a religious nature in your paper, I shall count it a favour if you will insert this. Some years ago I published A Letter to Mr. Law, and about the same time An Address to the Clergy. Of the former Mr. Law gives the following account in his Collection of Letters lately published: To answer Mr. Wesley’s letter seems to be quite needless, because there is nothing substantial or properly argumentative in it. I was once a kind of oracle to Mr. Wesley. I judged him to be much under the power of his own spirit. To this was owing the false censure which he published against the Mystics as enemies to good works. (Pages 128, 130.) His letter is such a juvenile composition of emptiness and pertness as is below the character of any man who had been serious in religion for half a month. It was not ability but necessity that put his pen into his hand. He had preached much against my books, and forbid his people the use of them; and for a cover of all this he promised from time to time to write against them; therefore an answer was to be made at all adventures. He and the Pope conceive the same reasons for condemning the mystery revealed by Jacob Behmen. (Page 190.) Of the latter he gives this account: The pamphlet you sent is worse than no advice at all; but infinitely beyond Mr. Wesley’s Babylonish Address to the Clergy, almost all of which is empty babble, fitter for an old grammarian that was grown blear-eyed in mending dictionaries than for one who had tasted of the powers of the world to come (page 198). I leave others to judge whether an answer to that letter be quite needless or no, and whether there be anything substantial in it; but certainly there is something argumentative. The very queries relating to Jacob’s Philosophy are arguments, though not in form; and perhaps most of them will be thought conclusive arguments by impartial readers. Let these likewise judge if there are not arguments in it (whether conclusive or no) relating to that entirely new system of divinity which he has revealed to the world. It is true that Mr. Law, whom I love and reverence now, was once ’a kind of oracle’ to me. He thinks I am still ’under the power of’ my ’own spirit,’ as opposed to the Spirit of God. If I am, yet my censure of the Mystics is not at all owing to this, but to my reverence for the oracles of God, which, while I was fond of them, I regarded less and less; till at length, finding I could not follow both, I exchanged the Mystic writers for the scriptural. It is sure, in exposing the Philosophy of Behmen, I use ridicule as well as argument; and yet I trust I have by the grace of God been in some measure ’serious in religion,’ not ’half a month ’only, but ever since I was six years old, [His father admitted him to the Lord’s Table when he was only eight. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 330.] which is now about half a century. I do not know that the Pope has condemned him at all, or that he has any reason so to do. My reason is this, and no other: I think he contradicts Scripture, reason, and himself; and that he has seduced many unwary souls from the Bible way of salvation. A strong conviction of this, and a desire to guard others against that dangerous seduction, laid me under a necessity of writing that letter. I was under no other necessity; though I doubt not but Mr. Law heard I was, and very seriously believed it. I very rarely mention his books in public; nor are they in the way of one in an hundred of those whom he terms my people--meaning, I suppose, the people called Methodists. I had therefore no temptation, any more than power, to forbid the use of them to the Methodists in general. Whosoever informed Mr. Law of this wanted either sense or honesty. He is so deeply displeased with the Address to the Clergy because it speaks strongly in favour of learning; but still, if this part of it is only ’fit for an old grammarian grown blear-eyed in mending dictionaries,’ it will not follow that ’almost all of it is mere empty babble’; for a large part of it much more strongly insists on a single eye and a clean heart. Heathen philosophers may term this ’empty babble’; but let not Christians either account or call it so!--I am, sir, Your humble servant. To his Brother Charles REDRUTH September 21, 1760. DEAR BROTHER,--I do not apprehend that letter to be any proof of L. A.’s understanding. [Nehemiah Curnock thought this reference might be to Wesley’s sister Anne. see Journal, iv. 413n.] I believe you had not time to consider it. Do you really think she was the inditer That she was the transcriber of it I allow; but is not the hand of Joab in this Did you not take knowledge not only of the sentiments but the very language of honest James Relly [See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 400-1n. He was an Antinomian of bad repute. But see letter of July 7, 1761.] Your message by John Jones seems to supersede the necessity of my writing; yet I think of sending a few civil lines, without entering into the merits of the cause. Is it not an excellent copy of our friend’s countenance to ’beg leave to live apart’ Quis enim negat [’For who forbids this’] If the unbeliever will depart, let her depart. But she will as soon leap into the sea. [Our friend is his wife. Charles wrote on the letter: ’She asks to part.’] I speak everywhere of bribery and run goods. I suppose John Jones has sent you the Minutes of the Conference. [Held at Bristol in August.] On Friday se’nnight I hope to preach at Shepton Mallet at noon and at Bristol in the evening. [On Oct. 3 he preached at both places at the time mentioned.] Vive hodie! [’Live to-day’, the motto on his seal.] Adieu. I should think if you was solus cum solo, [’Closeted only with him.’] the point to be insisted on with John Gambold would be, ’You went to the Moravians to find happiness. Have you found it What have you gained by the exchange’ It is time enough, I suppose, for me to write; for you cannot go to London soon. To his Brother Charles PLYMOUTH Dock, September 28, 1760. DEAR BROTHER,--I have no objection to the bestowing another reading upon Mr. Law’s Letters. But I think I have answered them quantum sufficit by the letter in Lloyd’s Evening Post [And the London Chronicle. See letter of Sept. 17.]; only, if need be, it may be inserted in some of the monthly magazines. Since I wrote that letter I have procured (which I could not before) the Address to the Clergy. It is amazing! Nothing is more plain than that he never read it. I doubt whether he ever saw it. [This letter shows the importance the brothers attached to Law’s strictures.] I care not a rush for ordinary means; only that it is our duty to try them. All our lives and all God’s dealings with us have been extraordinary from the beginning. We have all reason, therefore, to expect that what has been will be again. I have been preternaturally restored more than ten times. I suppose you will be thus restored for the journey, and that by the journey as a natural means your health will be re-established, provided you determine to spend all the strength which God shall give you in His work. Cornwall has suffered miserably by my long absence and the unfaithfulness of the preachers. I left seventeen hundred in the Societies, and I find twelve hundred. If possible, you should see Mr. Walker. [Samuel Walker, Vicar of Truro. See letter of July 16, 1761.] He has been near a month at the Hot Wells. He is absolutely a Scot in his opinions, but of an excellent spirit. Mr. Stonehouse’s horse performs to a miracle. He is considerably better than when I had him. On Friday evening (if nothing extraordinary occur) I hope to be at Bristol between five and six. Probably I shall leave Shepton Mallet at two. My love to Sally. Adieu. If John Fisher [One of the preachers. See letter of Nov. 21.] is at Bristol, pray desire him to send what Thomas Seccomb left [Thomas Seccomb, a Cornishman, was one of Wesley’s preachers. His father disinherited him, and he died of consumption in Ireland, where Lord Rawdon took him into his house and treated him as his son. Seccomb asked that the Methodists might come and receive his dying benediction. Lord Rawdon was present, and after Seccomb had addressed the people he lay down and passed away. Lord Rawdon sent an account of his death to a nobleman in London adding, ’Now, my Lord, find me if you can a man that will die like a Methodist!’ See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 379-80; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 139.] (with an account) to his poor mother. To Miss March LONDON, November 11, 1760. Conviction is not condemnation. You may be convinced, yet not condemned; convinced of useless thoughts or words, and yet not condemned for them. You are condemned for nothing, if you love God and continue to give Him your whole heart. Certainly spiritual temptations will pass through your spirit, else you could not feel them. I believe I understand your state better than you do yourself. Do not perplex yourself at all about what you shall call it. You are a child of God, a member of Christ, an heir of the kingdom. What you have hold fast (whatever name is given to it), and you shall have all that God has prepared for them that love Him. Certainly you do need more faith; for you are a tender, sickly plant. But see,-- Faith while yet you ask is given; God comes down, the God and Lord That made both earth and heaven! You cannot live on what He did yesterday. Therefore He comes to-day! He comes to destroy that tendency to levity, to severe judging, to anything that is not of God. Peace be with your spirit! To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ LONDON, November 17, I 760. SIR,--In your last paper we had a letter from a very angry gentleman (though he says he had put himself into as good humour as possible), who personates a clergyman, but is, I presume, in reality a retainer to the theatre. He is very warm against the people vulgarly called Methodists, ’ridiculous impostors,’ ’religious buffoons,’ as he styles them; ’saint-errants’ (a pretty and quaint phrase), full of ’inconsiderateness, madness, melancholy, enthusiasm’; teaching a ’knotty and unintelligible system’ of religion--yea, a ’contradictory or self-contradicting’; nay, a ’mere illusion,’ a ’destructive scheme, and of pernicious consequence’; since ’an hypothesis is a very slippery foundation to hazard our all upon.’ Methinks the gentleman has a little mistaken his character: he seems to have exchanged the sock for the buskin. But, be this as it may, general charges prove nothing. Let us come to particulars. Here they are: ’The basis of Methodism is the grace of assurance’ (excuse a little impropriety of expression), ’regeneration being only a preparative to it.’ Truly this is somewhat ’knotty and unintelligible.’ I will endeavour to help him out. The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith;--the faith which works by love; which, by means of the love of God and our neighbour, produces both inward and outward holiness. This faith is an evidence of things not seen; and he that thus believes is regenerate, or born of God; and he has the witness in himself (call it assurance or what you please): the Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. ’From what scripture’ every one of these propositions ’is collected’ any common Concordance will show. ’This is the true portraiture of Methodism,’ so called. ’A religion superior to this’ (the love of God and man) none can ’enjoy,’ either in time or in eternity. But the Methodists do not hold ’good works meritorious.’ No; neither does ours, or any other Protestant Church. But meantime they hold it is their bounder duty, as they have time, to do good unto all men; and they know the day is coming wherein God will reward every man according to his works. But they ’act with sullenness and sourness, and account innocent gaiety and cheerfulness a crime almost as heinous as sacrilege.’ Who does Name the men. I know them not, and therefore doubt the fact; though it is very possible you account that kind of gaiety innocent which I account both foolish and sinful. I know none who denies that true religion--that is, love, the love of God and our neighbour--’elevates our spirits, and renders our minds cheerful and serene.’ It must, if it be accompanied (as we believe it always is) with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and if it produces a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. But they ’preach up religion only to accomplish a lucrative design, to fleece their hearers, to accumulate wealth, to rob and plunder, which they esteem meritorious.’ We deny the fact. Who is able to prove it Let the affirmer produce his witnesses, or retract. This is the sum of your correspondent’s charge, not one article of which can be proved; but whether it can or no, ’we have made them,’ says he, ’a theatrical scoff and the common jest and scorn of every chorister in the street.’ It may be so; but whether you have done well herein may still admit of a question. However, you cannot but wish ’we had some formal Court of Judicature erected’ (happy Portugal and Spain!) ’to take cognizance of such matters.’ Nay, cur optas quod habes [Horace’s Satires, 1. iii. 126.] Why do you wish for that you have already The Court is erected: the holy, devout playhouse is become the House of Mercy; and does take cognizance hereof ’of all pretenders to sanctity, and happily furnishes us with a discerning spirit to distinguish betwixt right and wrong.’ But I do not stand to their sentence; I appeal to Scripture and reason, and by these alone consent to be judged. --I am, sir, Your humble servant. To Mrs. Abigail Brown LONDON, November 21, 1760. DEAR ABBY,--I cannot advise. You must follow your own conscience. Act as you are fully persuaded in your own mind. Consider first what is best with regard to eternity, and then take your measures accordingly. Mr. Fisher [See letter of Sept. 28.] will assist you in whatever you would have done; and if you want money, I have desired him to help you to it. Speak freely to me, if you love me; and believe me to be, dear Abby. Your sincere friend and affectionate brother. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ London, November 22, 1760. SIR,--Just as I had finished the letter published in your last Friday’s paper four tracts came to my hands: one wrote, or procured to be wrote, by Mrs. Downes; one by a clergyman in the county of Durham; the third by a gentleman of Cambridge; and the fourth by a member (I suppose, dignitary) of the Church of Rome. How gladly would I leave all these to themselves, and let them say just what they please! as my day is far spent and my taste for controversy is utterly lost and gone. But this would not be doing justice to the world, who might take silence for a proof of guilt. I shall therefore say a word concerning each. I may, perhaps, some time say more to one or two of them. The letter which goes under Mrs. Downes’s name scarce deserves any notice at all, as there is nothing extraordinary in it but an extraordinary degree of virulence and scurrility. Two things only I remark concerning it, which I suppose the writer of it knew as well as me: (1) that my letter to Mr. Downes was both wrote and printed before Mr. Downes died; (2) that when I said, Tibi parvula res est [See letter of Nov. 17, 1759.] (’Your ability is small’) I had no view to his fortune, which I knew nothing of, but (as I there expressly say) to his wit, sense, and talents as a writer. The tract wrote by the gentleman in the North is far more bulky than this; but it is more considerable for its bulk than for its matter, being little more than a dull repetition of what was published some years ago in The Enthusiasm of the Methodists and Papists Compared. [See letter of Feb. 1, 1750.] I do not find the author adds anything new, unless we may bestow that epithet on a sermon annexed to his Address, which, I presume, will do neither good nor harm. So I leave the Durham gentleman, with Mrs. Downes, to himself and his admirers. The author of the letter to Mr. Berridge is a more considerable writer. In many things I wholly agree with him, though not in admiring Dr. Taylor; but there is a bitterness even in him which I should not have expected in a gentleman and a scholar. So in the very first page I read, ’The Church, which most of your graceless fraternity have deserted.’ Were the fact true (which it is not), yet is the expression to be commended Surely Dr. Green himself thinks it is not. I am sorry, too, for the unfairness of his quotations. For instance: he cites me (a page 53) as speaking of ’faith shed abroad in men’s hearts like lightning.’ Faith shed abroad in men’s hearts! I never used such an expression in my life: I do not talk after this rate. Again, he quotes, as from me (b page 57), so, I presume, Mr. W. means, ’a behaviour does not pretend to add the least to what Christ has done.’ But be these words whose they may, they are none of mine. I never spoke, wrote--no, nor read them before. Once more, is it well judged for any writer to show such an utter contempt of his opponents as you affect to do with regard to the whole body of people vulgarly termed Methodists ’You may keep up,’ say you, ’a little bush-fighting in controversy; you may skirmish awhile with your feeble body of irregulars; but you must never trust to your skill in reasoning’ page 77). Upon this I would ask: (1) If these are such poor, silly creatures, why does so wise a man set his wit to them ’Shall the King of Israel go out against a flea’ (2) If it should happen that any one of these silly bush-fighters steps out into the plain, engages hand to hand, and foils this champion by mere dint of reason, will not his defeat be so much the more shameful as it was more unexpected But I say the less at present, not only because Mr. Berridge is able to answer for himself, but because the title--page bids me expect a letter more immediately addressed to myself. The last tract, entitled A Caveat against the Methodists, is in reality a caveat against the Church of England, or rather against all the Churches in Europe who dissent from the Church of Rome. Nor do I apprehend the writer to be any more disgusted at the Methodists than at Protestants of every denomination; as he cannot but judge it equally unsafe to join to any society but that of Rome. Accordingly all his arguments are levelled at the Reformed Churches in general, and conclude just as well if you put the word ’Protestant’ throughout in the place of the word ’Methodist.’ Although, therefore, the author borrows my name to wound those who suspect nothing less, yet I am no more concerned to refute him than any other Protestant in England; and still the less, as those arguments are refuted over and over in books which are still common among us. But is it possible any Protestants, nay Protestant clergymen, should buy these tracts to give away --Is, then, the introducing Popery the only way to overthrow Methodism If they know this, and choose Popery as the smaller evil of the two, they are consistent with themselves. But if they do not intend this, I wish them more seriously to consider what they do.--I am, sir, Your humble servant. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ TO MR. SOMEBODY, alias PHILODEMUS, alias T. H. LONDON, December 1, 1760. SIR,--I am very happy in having given you ’infinite pleasure by my animadversions upon your letter,’ and therefore cannot but add a few more, hoping they may give you still farther satisfaction. It is, indeed, great condescension in you to bestow a thought upon me, since ’it is only losing time’ (as you observe in your last), as you ’judge arguing with Methodists is like pounding fools in a mortar.’ However, do not despair; perhaps, when you have pounded me a little more, my foolishness may depart from me. I really was so foolish as to think that by saying’ We Churchmen’ you assumed the character of a clergyman. Whether you retain to the theatre or no is easily shown: tell your name, and the doubt is cleared up. [See letter of Nov. 17.] But who or what you are affects not me: I am only concerned with what you say. But you complain, I have ’passed over the most interesting and material circumstances’ in your letter. I apprehend just the contrary: I think nothing in it is passed over which is at all material. Nor will I knowingly pass over anything material in this; though I am not a dealer in many words. You say: (1) ’You have impiously apostatized from those principles of religion which you undertook to defend.’ I hope not. I still (as I am able) defend the Bible, with the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of our Church; and I do not defend or espouse any other principles, to the best of my knowledge, than those which are plainly contained in the Bible as well as in the Homilies and Book of Common Prayer. You blame me (2) for teaching heterodox doctrine concerning faith and good works (I am obliged to put the meaning of many of your straggling sentences together as well as I can). As to the former, which you still awkwardly and unscripturally style the grace of assurance (a phrase I never use), you say: ’You have given it a true Methodistical gloss. But where are the proofs from Scripture Not one single text.’ Sir, that is your ignorance. I perceive the Bible is a book you are not acquainted with. Every sentence in my account is a text of Scripture. I purposely refrained from quoting chapter and verse, because I expected you would bewray your ignorance, and show that you was got quite out of your depth. As your old friend Mr. Vellum says, ’You will pardon me for being jocular.’ To one who seriously desired information on this point I would explain it a little farther. Faith is an evidence or conviction of things not seen, of God, and the things of God. This is faith in general. More particularly it is a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. This directly leads us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; not with slavish, painful fear, but with the utmost diligence, which is the proper import of that expression. When this evidence is heightened to exclude all doubt, it is the plerophory or full assurance of faith. But any degree of true faith prompts the believer to be zealous of good works. On this head you say: ’Your definition of good works’ (truly I gave none at all) ’is still more extraordinary. You shall have it in your own words, where you quarrel with me for esteeming them meritorious,--No, neither does ours or any other Protestant Church; but meantime they hold it their bounder duty as they have time to do good unto all men. And they know the day is coming wherein God will render to every man according to his works. Admirable contradiction! Was you intoxicated, or jure diving mad Is man to be judged for his deeds done in this life, when it is immaterial whether he does any or not These are your own words, sir.’ What That ’it is immaterial whether he does any good works or not’ Hey-day! How is this O, I cry your mercy, sir, now I find where the shoe pinches. You have stumbled on an hard word which you do not understand. But give me leave, sir, to assure you (you may take my word for once) that meritorious and material are not all one. Accordingly not only the Church of England but all other Protestant Churches allow good works to be material, and yet (without any contradiction) deny them to be meritorious. They all likewise allow that the genuine fruit of faith is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; and consequently that cheerfulness or serenity of spirit (a mixture of that peace and joy) is so far from being a crime, that it is the undoubted privilege of every real Christian. I know no Methodist (so called) who is of another mind: if you do, tell me the man. I believe ’it is not your intention to do this.’ But you must either do it or bear the blame. You blame me (3) for allowing of lay preachers. This is too knotty a point to be settled at present. I can only desire those who want farther information therein to read calmly A Letter to a Clergyman [See letter of May 4, 1748, and Works, viii. 221-6 ] or the latter part of the third Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. You blame me (4) for acting from ’a lucrative principle,’ though you ’deny you used the word robbing.’ (True; for you only said, ’To rob and plunder.’) In proof of this you refer to the houses I have built (in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne). But don’t you know, sir, those houses are none of mine I made them over to trustees long ago. I have food to eat and raiment to put on; and I will have no more till I turn Turk or Pagan.--I am, sir, in very good humour, Your well-wisher. PS.--It is not very material whether T. H., Somebody, and Philodemus are the same individual or not. I have subjoined his Questions with my Answers; though they have all been answered fifty times before. Q. 1. Whether a very considerable body of the Methodists do not declare that there can be no good hopes of salvation without Assurance A. Yes: if you mean by that term a divine evidence or conviction that Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Q. 2. Whether they do not put a greater confidence in what they call Regeneration than in the moral or social duties of life A. No. They hold the due discharge of all these duties to be absolutely necessary to salvation. The latter part of this query, ’of the mercy of the Divine Being,’ seems to have lost its way. Q. 3. Whether the Stage in later years has ever ridiculed anything really serious A. Yes; a thousand times. Who that reads Dryden’s, Wycherley’s, or Congreve’s plays can doubt it Q. 4. Whether anything can be religious that has not right reason to countenance it A. No. True religion is the highest reason. It is indeed wisdom, virtue, and happiness in one. To Samuel Furly LONDON, December 9, 1760. DEAR SAMMY,--I am determined to publish nothing against Mr. Hervey unless his answer to my letter is published. Indeed, it is not his; it is Mr. Cudworth’s, [See letter of Nov. 29, 1758.] both as to matter and manner. So let it pass for the present. Richard Tompson (who lives in Prince’s Square, Ratcliff Highway) told me honestly, ’Sir, I want a little money, and I can have it by printing the letters which passed between you and me.’ I answered, ’You know I never designed my letters for public view, but you may print them if you please. I am quite indifferent about it.’[See letter of Aug. 22, 1759, to Tompson.] When I say ’I have no time to write largely in controversy,’ I mean this; every hour I have is employed more to the glory of God. Therefore, if short answers to opponents will not suffice, I cannot help it; I will not, I cannot, I dare not spend any more time in that kind of writing than I do. ’Well, but many think you ought.’ Undoubtedly they do; but I am to be guided by my own conscience. I am laying another plot for you. Mr. Fletcher is rector of Madeley, in Shropshire. [Fletcher became vicar in 1760. See letter of Jan. 25, 1762, to Furly.] If he takes you to be his curate, probably you may be ordained priest. I will write to him about it.--I am, with love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Editor of the ’London Magazine’ TO MR. T. H., alias PHILODEMUS, alias SOMEBODY, alias STEPHEN CHURCH, alias R. W. LONDON, December 12, 1760. Patience, dear sir, patience! or I am afraid your choler will hurt your constitution as well as your argument. Be composed, and I will answer your queries, ’speedily, clearly, and categorically.’ Only you will give me leave to shorten them a little, and to lay those together which have some relation to each other. Permit me likewise, before I enter on particulars, to lay a few circumstances before you which may add some light to the subject and give you a clearer knowledge of the people with whom you are so angry. About thirty years since, I met with a book written in King William’s time, called The Country Parson’s Advice to his Parishioners. There I read these words: ’If good men of the Church will unite together in the several parts of the kingdom, disposing themselves into friendly societies, and engaging each other in their respective combinations to be helpful to each other in all good, Christian ways, it will be the most effectual means for restoring our decaying Christianity to its primitive life and vigour and the supporting of our tottering and sinking Church.’ A few young gentlemen then at Oxford approved of and followed the advice. They were all zealous Churchmen, and both orthodox and regular to the highest degree. For their exact regularity they were soon nicknamed Methodists; but they were not then, or for some years after, charged with any other crime, real or pretended, than that of being righteous over-much. [See letter of June 11, 1731, to his mother.] Nine or ten years after, many others ’united together in the several parts of the kingdom, engaging in like manner to be helpful to each other in all good, Christian ways.’ At first all these were of the Church; but several pious Dissenters soon desired to unite with them. Their one design was to forward each other in true, scriptural Christianity. Presently the flood-gates were opened, and a deluge of reproach poured upon them from all quarters. All manner of evil was spoken of them, and they were used without either justice or mercy; and this chiefly (I am sorry to say it) by the members of our own Church. Some of them were startled at this, and proposed a question, when they were met together at Leeds, whether they ought not to separate from the Church; but after it had been fairly and largely considered, they were one and all satisfied that they ought not. The reasons of that determination were afterwards printed and lately reprinted and strongly enforced by my brother. Hinc illae lacrymae! [’Hence these tears,’ Terence’s Andria, 1. i. 99.] This, I presume, has occasioned your present queries. For though you talk of our ’Episcopal communion,’ I doubt not that you are either a Papist or a Dissenter. If I mistake, you may easily set me right by telling your real name and place of abode. But, in spite of all we could say or do, the cry still continued; ’You have left the Church; you are no ministers or members of it.’ I answer, as I did fourteen years ago to one who warmly affirmed this: ’Use ever so many exaggerations, still the whole of the matter is, (1) I often use extemporary prayer; (2) wherever I can, I preach the gospel; (3) those who desire to live according to the gospel, I advise how to watch over each other and to put from them those who walk disorderly.’ [See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. III. 9.] Now, whether these things are right or wrong, this single point I must still insist upon: all this does not prove either that I am no member or that I am no minister of the Church of England. Nay, nothing can prove that I am no member of the Church, till I am either excommunicated or renounce her communion, and no longer join in her doctrine and in the breaking of bread and in prayer. Nor can anything prove I am no minister of the Church, till I either am deposed from my ministry or voluntarily renounce her, and wholly cease to teach her doctrines, use her offices, and obey her rubrics. Upon the same principle that I still preach and endeavour to assist those who desire to live according to the gospel, about twelve years ago I published proposals for printing ’A Christian Library: Consisting of Extracts from and Abridgements of the Choicest Pieces of Practical Divinity which have been published in the English Tongue.’ And I have done what I proposed. Most of the tracts therein contained were written by members of our own Church; but some by writers of other denominations: for I mind not who speaks, but what is spoken. On the same principle, that of doing good to all men, of the ability that God giveth, I published ’Primitive Physick; or an Easy and Natural Method of Curing most Diseases’; and, some years after, a little tract entitled Electricity made Plain and Useful. On the same principle I printed an English, a Latin, a French, and a short Hebrew Grammar, as well as some of the Classics, and a few other tracts, in usum juventutis Christianae. [’For the use of Christian youth.’] This premised, I now proceed to the queries:-- Q. 1. ’Why have you not cleared yourself of those reflections that you stand charged with by a learned author’ I have throughly cleared myself in the three letters to that learned author which were published immediately after his tracts. Q. 2. ’Can you constantly charge your people to attend the worship of our Church and not Dissenters’ meetings ’I can: this is consistent with all I have written and all I have done for many years. ’But do you not call our Church a mere rope of sand’ No: look again into the Plain Account, [See letter in Dec. 1748, Sect. l. II, to Vincent Perronet.] and you will see (if you care to see) that those words are not spoken of our Church. Q. 6. ’But do you not hold doctrine contrary to hers’ No. ’Do you not make a dust about words’ No. ’Do you not bewilder the brains of weak people’ No. Q. 11. ’Do you not in print own Episcopacy to be jure divino’ Not that I remember. Can you tell me where But this I own; I have no objection to it--nay, I approve it highly. Q. 16. ’But are you not guilty of canonical disobedience to your Bishop’ I think not. Show me wherein. Q. 17. ’Did not you suffer your lay preachers at Leeds to debate whether they should separate from the Church’ Yes, and encouraged them to say all that was in their hearts. ’Why did you do this’ To confirm their adherence to it; and they were so confirmed that only two out of the whole number have since separated from it. Q. 18. ’If most votes had carried the day, what had followed’ If the sky should fall! Q. 12. ’What did you propose by preaching up to the people a solemn covenant’ To confirm them in fearing God and working righteousness. I shall probably do the same again shortly. And if you desire any farther information, you are welcome to hear every sermon which I preach concerning it. Q. 13. ’Was not this intended to cut them off from ever communicating with any company of Christians but yourselves’ No; nothing less. It was not intended to cut them off from anything but the devil and his works. Q. 14. ’Do you not commend the Quakers’ Yes, in some things. ’And the French prophets’ No. Q. 15. ’Do you not stint your lay preachers to three or four minutes only in public prayers’ I advise them not usually to exceed four or five minutes either before or after sermon. [See A Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion, 1758, p. 244.] Q. 3. ’Is not your Christian Library an odd collection of mutilated writings of Dissenters of all sorts’ No. In the first ten volumes there is not a line from any Dissenter of any sort; and the greatest part of the other forty is extracted from Archbishop Leighton, Bishops Taylor, Patrick, Ken, Reynolds, Sanderson, and other ornaments of the Church of England. Q. 4. ’Is not this declaring that you have a superior privilege beyond all men to print, correct, and direct as you please’ I think not. I suppose every man in England has the same privilege. Q. 5. ’Is it performed according to the first proposals and the expectation of the subscribers’ It is performed according to the first proposals; nor could any subscriber reasonably expect more. Q. 7. ’Why did you not in your New Testament distinguish those places with italics where you altered the old translation’ Because it was quite needless; as any who choose it may easily compare the two translations together. ’But should you not have given the learned a reason for every alteration’ Yes, if I had written for the learned; but I did not, as I expressly mentioned in the Preface. Q. 8. ’Do you not assume too much in philosophy and physic as well as in theology’ I hope not. Q. 9. ’Why did you meddle with electricity’ For the same reason as I published the Primitive Physick--to do as much good as I can. Q. 19. ’Are you a clergyman at all’ Yes. ’Are you not a Quaker in disguise’ No. ’Did not you betray the Church, as Judas his Master, with a kiss’ No. ’If you be in the wrong, God confound your devices!’ I say the same thing. ’If in the right, may He display it to all people!’ Amen! In His own time. I take this opportunity to answer the queries also which occur on page 614: 1. ’If the operations of the Spirit overpower the natural faculties, must they not destroy free agency’ I neither teach nor believe that the ordinary operations of the Spirit do overpower the natural faculties. 2. ’If every man be furnished with an inward light as a private guide and director, must it not supersede the necessity of revelation’ This affects the Quakers, not the Methodists, who allow no inward light but what is subservient to the written Word, and to be judged thereby: they are therefore no ’enthusiasts’; neither is it yet proved that they are ’deluded’ at all. They follow no ignis fatuus, but ’search the Scriptures freely and impartially.’ And hence their ’doctrines are not the dogmas of particular men,’ but are all warranted by Scripture and reason.--I am, sir, Your sincere well-wisher. To Miss March LONDON, December 12, 1760. You may blame yourself, but I will not blame you, for seeking to have your every temper, and thought, and word, and work suitable to the will of God. But I doubt not you seek this by faith, not without it; and you seek it in and through Christ, not without Him. Go on; you shall have all you seek, because God is love. He is showing you the littleness of your understanding and the foolishness of all natural wisdom. Certainly peace and joy in believing are the grand means of holiness; therefore love and value them as such. ’Why is the law of works superseded by the law of love’ Because Christ died. ’Why are we not condemned for coming short even of this’ Because He lives and intercedes for us. I believe it is impossible not to come short of it, through the unavoidable littleness of our understanding. Yet the blood of the covenant is upon us, and therefore there is no condemnation. I think the extent of the law of love is exactly marked out in the 13th of the [First of] Corinthians. Let faith fill your heart with love to Him and all mankind; then follow this loving faith to the best of your understanding; meantime crying out continually, ’Jesus is all in all to me.’ To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ TO MR. T. H., alias E. L., &c. &c. December 20, 1760. What, my good friend again! Only a little disguised with a new name and a few scraps of Latin! I hoped, indeed, you had been pretty well satisfied before; but since you desire to hear a little farther from me, I will add a few words, and endeavour to set our little controversy in a still clearer light. Last month you publicly attacked the people called Methodists without either fear or wit. You charged them with ’madness, enthusiasm, self-contradiction, imposture,’ and what not! I considered each charge, and, I conceive, refuted it to the satisfaction of all indifferent persons. You renewed the attack, not by proving anything, but affirming the same things over and over. I replied; and, without taking notice of the dull, low scurrility, either of the first or second letter, confined myself to the merits of the cause, and cleared away the dirt you had thrown. You now heap together ten paragraphs more, most of which require very little answer. In the first you say: ’Your foolishness is become the wonder and admiration of the public.’ In the second: ’The public blushes for you, till you give a better solution to the articles demanded of you.’ In the third you cite my words, I still maintain ’the Bible, with the Liturgy, and Homilies of our Church; and do not espouse any other principles but what are consonant to the Book of Common Prayer.’ You keenly answer: ’Granted, Mr. Methodist; but whether or no you would not espouse other principles if you durst is evident enough from some innovations you have already introduced, which I shall attempt to prove in the subsequent part of my answer.’ Indeed, you will not. You neither prove, nor attempt to prove, that I would espouse other principles if I durst. However, you give me a deadly thrust: ’You falsify the first Article of the Athanasian Creed.’ But how so Why, I said: ’The fundamental doctrine of the people called Methodists is, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the true faith.’ Sir, shall I tell you a secret--It was for the readers of your class that I changed the hard word ’catholic’ into an easier. In the fourth paragraph you say: ’Did you never use that phrase the grace of assurance ’ Never, that I remember, either in preaching or writing; both your ears and eyes have been very unhappy if they informed you I did: and, how many soever look either sorrowful or joyful, that will not prove the contrary. ’But produce your texts.’ What, for a phrase I never use I pray you have me excused. But (as I said before) ’from what scripture every one of my propositions is collected any common Concordance will show.’ To save you trouble, I will for once point out those scriptures: ’Whosoever will be saved must believe’ (Mark xvi. 16; Acts xvi. 31); ’This faith works by love’ (Gal. v. 6); it is ’an evidence of things not seen’ (Heb. xi. 1); ’He that believes is born of God’ (1 John v. 1); ’He has the witness in himself’ (verse 10); ’The Spirit itself witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God’ (Rom. viii. 16). In the fifth you say: ’You embrace any shift to twist words to your own meaning.’ This is saying just nothing. Any one may say this of any one. To prove it is another point. In the sixth you say: ’No Protestant divine ever taught your doctrine of Assurance.’ I hope you know no better; but it is strange you should not. Did you never see Bishop Hall’s Works Was not he a Protestant divine Was not Mr. Perkins, Bolton, Dr. Sibbs, Dr. Preston, Archbishop Leighton Inquire a little farther; and do not run thus hand over head, asserting you know not what. By assurance (if we must use the expression) I mean ’a confidence which a man hath in God that by the merits of Christ his sins are forgiven and he reconciled to the favour of God.’ Stop! Do not run your head into a noose again. These are the words of the Homily. In the seventh you grant ’that works are not meritorious unless accompanied with faith.’ No, nor then neither. But pray do not talk of this any more till you know the difference between meritorious and rewardable; otherwise your ignorance will cause you to blunder on without shame and without end. In your eighth you throw out an hard word, which somebody has helped you to, Thaumaturg --what is it --about lay preachers. When you have answered the arguments in the Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, I will say something more upon that head. In the ninth you say something, no way material, about the houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle; and in the last you give me a fair challenge to a ’personal dispute.’ Not so; you have fallen upon me in public, and to the public I appeal. Let all men, not any single umpire, judge whether I have not refuted your charge, and cleared the people called Methodists from the foul aspersions which, without why or wherefore, you had thrown upon them. Let all my countrymen judge which of us have spoken the words of truth and soberness, which has reason on his side, and which has treated the other with a temper suitable to the gospel. If the general voice of mankind gives it against you, I hope you will be henceforth less flippant with your pen. I assure you, as little as you think of it, the Methodists are not such fools as you suppose. But their desire is to live peaceably with all men; and none desires this more than JOHN WESLEY. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 52: 50. 1761 ======================================================================== 1761 To the Editor of the ’London Chronicle’ January 2, 1761, SIR, --Of all the seats of woe on this side hell few, I suppose, exceed or even equal Newgate. If any region of horror could exceed it a few years ago, Newgate in Bristol did; so great was the filth, the stench, the misery, and wickedness which shocked all who had a spark of humanity left. How was I surprised, then, when I was there a few weeks ago! (1) Every part of it, above stairs and below, even the pit wherein the felons are confined at night, is as clean and sweet as a gentleman’s house; it being now a rule that every prisoner wash and clean his apartment throughly twice a week. (2) Here is no fighting or brawling. If any thinks himself ill-used, the cause is immediately referred to the Keeper, who hears the contending parties face to face and decides the affair at once. (3) The usual grounds of quarrelling are removed; for it is very rarely that any one cheats or wrongs another, as being sure, if anything of this kind is discovered, to be committed to a closer confinement. (4) Here is no drunkenness suffered, however advantageous it might be to the Keeper as well as the tapster. (5) Nor any whoredom, the women prisoners being narrowly observed and kept separate from the men; nor is any woman of the town now admitted --no, not at any price. (6) All possible care is taken to prevent idleness: those who are willing to work at their callings are provided with tools and materials, partly by the Keeper, who gives them credit at a very moderate profit; partly by the alms occasionally given, which are divided with the utmost prudence and impartiality. Accordingly at this time, among others, a shoemaker, a tailor, a brazier, and a coachmaker are working at their several trades. (7) Only on the Lord’s Day they neither work nor play, but dress themselves as clean as they can, to attend the public service in the chapel, at which every person under the roof is present. None is excused unless sick; in which case he is provided gratis both with advice and medicines. (8) And, in order to assist them in things of the greatest concern (besides a sermon every Sunday and Thursday), they have a large Bible chained on one side of the chapel, which any of the prisoners may read. By the blessing of God on these regulations the prison now has a new face: nothing offends either the eye or ear; and the whole has the appearance of a quiet, serious family. And does not the Keeper [Samuel Johnson, in his Lives of the Poets, says that Abel Dagge, the keeper, treated savage with the utmost tenderness and civility, when confined in Newgate jail, Bristol, for debt. Dagge was one of the firstfruits of Whitefield’s ministry in Bristol prison in 1737, and adorned his profession. see Journal, ii. 173; Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon, ii. 356-7; and letter of May 7, 1739.] of Newgate deserve to be remembered full as well as the Man of Ross? May the Lord remember him in that day! Meantime will not one follow his example? --I am, sir, Your humble servant. To the Author of the ’Westminster Journal’ [The New Weekly Miscellany, or Westminster Journal.] LONDON, January 7, 1761. SIR, --I hope you are a person of impartiality; if so, you will not insert what is urged on one side of a question only, but likewise what is offered on the other Your correspondent is doubtless a man of sense, and he seems to write in a good humour; but he is extremely little acquainted with the persons of whom he undertakes to give an account There is ’gone abroad,’ says he, ’an ungoverned spirit of enthusiasm, propagated by knaves and embraced by fools.’ Suffer me now to address the gentleman himself. Sir, you may call me both a knave and a fool; but prove me either the one or the other if you can. ’Why, you are an enthusiast.’ What do you mean by the term? A believer in Jesus Christ? An asserter of His equality with the Father and of the entire Christian revelation? Do you mean one who maintains the antiquated doctrines of the New Birth and Justification by Faith? Then I am an enthusiast. But if you mean anything else, either prove or retract the charge The enthusiasm which has lately gone abroad is faith which worketh by love. Does this ’endanger government itself’? Just the reverse. Fearing God, it honours the King. It teaches all men to be subject to the higher powers, not for wrath, but for conscience’ sake. But ’no power in England ought to be independent of the supreme power.’ Most true; yet ’the Romanists own the authority of a Pope, independent of civil government.’ They do, and thereby show their ignorance of the English Constitution. ’In Great Britain we have many popes, for so I must call all who have the souls and bodies of their followers devoted to them.’ Call them so, and welcome. But this does not touch me; nor Mr. Whitefield, Jones, [Thomas Jones, M.A., of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, died of fever on June 6, 1762, in his thirty-third year. He set up a weekly lecture in his church: but before long this was stopped by his enemies. See letter to Wesley in Arminian Mag. 1780, p. 165; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 324-5.] or Romaine; nor any whom I am acquainted with. None of us have our followers --thus devoted to us. Those who follow the advice we constantly give are devoted to God, not man. But ’the Methodist proclaims he can bring into the field twenty-five thousand men.’ What Methodist? Where and when? Prove this fact, and I will allow you I am a Turk (1) ’But it is said they are all good subjects. Perhaps they are; because under a Protestant Government they have all the indulgence they can wish for.’ And do you seriously wish for a Popish Government to abridge them of that indulgence? ’But has not a bad use been made of this? Has not the decency of religion been perverted?’ Not in the least: the decency of religion is never so well advanced as by advancing inward and outward religion together. (2) ’Have not the minds of the vulgar been darkened to a total neglect of their civil and social duties?’ Just the contrary. Thousands in London as well as elsewhere have been enlightened to understand and prevailed on to practice those duties as they never did before. (3) ’Has not the peace of many families been ruined?’ The lost peace of many families has been restored. In others a furious opposition to true religion has occasioned division, as our Lord foretold it would. (4) ’Have not the circumstances of many industrious tradesmen been hurt?’ I believe not. I know no instance; but I know an hundred tradesmen in London who began to be industrious since they began to fear God, and their circumstances, low enough till then, are now easy and affluent I am almost ashamed to spend time upon these threadbare objections, which have been answered over and over. But if they are advanced again, they must be answered again, lest silence should pass for guilt ’But how can the Government distinguish between tenderness of conscience and schemes of interest?’ Nothing more easy. ’They may withdraw the licenses of such.’ Sir, you have forgot the question. Before they withdraw them they are to distinguish whether they are such or no. And how are they to do this? ’Oh, it is very easy’! So you leave them as wise as they were before But ’the Methodist who pretends to be of the Church of England in forms of worship and differs from her in point of doctrine is not, let his presences be what they will, a member of that Church.’ Alas, sir! your friends will not thank you for this. You have broke their heads sadly. Is no man of the Church, let him pretend what he will, who differs from her in point of doctrine? Au! obsecro; cave dixeris! [Terence’s Eunuchus, IV. iii. 14: ’Stop, I beseech you; beware what you say.’] I know not but you may stumble upon scandalum magnatum. [Terence’s Adelphi, 111. iv. 12: ’Libel against persons of exalted rank.’] But stay; you will bring them off quickly. ’A truly good man may scruple signing and swearing to Articles that his mind and reason cannot approve of.’ But is he a truly good man who does not scruple signing and swearing to Articles which he cannot approve of? However, this does not affect us, for we do not differ from our Church in point of doctrine. But all do who deny justification by faith; therefore, according to you, they are no members of the Church of England ’Methodists preachers’, you allow, ’practice, sign, and swear whatever is required by law’ --a very large concession; ’but the reserves they have are incommunicable and unintelligible.’ Favour us, sir, with a little proof of this; till then I must plead, Not guilty. In whatever I sign or swear to I have no reserve at all. And I have again and again communicated my thoughts on most heads to all mankind; I believe intelligibly, particularly in the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion But ’if Methodism, as its professors pretend, be a new discovery in religion’ This is a grievous mistake; we pretend no such thing. We aver it is the one old religion; as old as the Reformation, as old as Christianity, as old as Moses, as old as Adam ’They ought to discover the whole ingredients of which their nostrum is composed; and have it enrolled in the public register, to be perused by all the world.’ It is done. The whole ingredients of Methodism (so called) have been discovered in print over and over; and they are enrolled in a public register, the Bible, from which we extracted them at first. ’Else they ought not to be tolerated.’ We allow it, and desire toleration on no other terms. ’Nor should they be suffered to add or alter one grain different from what is so registered.’ Most certainly. We ought neither to add or diminish, nor alter whatever is written in that Book I wish, sir, before you write concerning the Methodists again, you would candidly read some of their writings. Common report is not a sure rule of judging; I should be unwilling to judge of you thereby To sum up the matter. The whole ingredients of our religion are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance. Against these, I think, there is no law; and, therefore, I still apprehend they may be tolerated --at least, in a Christian country. --I am, sir, Your sincere well-wisher To Dorothy Furly NORWICH, January 18, 1761 MY DEAR SISTER, --I have sometimes wondered that not one of all the clergymen we have known should ever cleave to me for God’s sake, nor one man of learning, which would ease me exceedingly. Tommy Walsh designed it; But death had quicker wings than love. Perhaps it was not best, because I am so immeasurably apt to pour out all my soul into any that loves me It is well for Sister Clarke [Mary Clarke had a small house in Christopher Alley, Moorfields, where Sarah Ryan and Sarah Crosby boarded with her, and where Miss Bosanquet stayed as a girl. See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 286.] that she is landed safe. And it is well for us, who are still amidst the waves, that He is with us whom the winds and the seas obey. He is steering you to the haven where you would be. You may well trust your soul with Him and let him do with you as seemeth Him good Certainly nothing can be of greater importance than the behaviour both of those who are renewed and of those who are known to be pressing after it. You have need to weigh every step you take. When and where do you meet now? and who are they that meet? Pray send the enclosed to your neighbour; and let all of you love and pray for Your affectionate brother To Mrs. Crosby LONDON, February 14, 1761 MY DEAR SISTER, --Miss Bosanquet gave me yours on Wednesday night. Hitherto, I think you have not gone too far. You could not well do less. I apprehend all you can do more is, when you meet again, to tell them simply, ’You lay me under a great difficulty. The Methodists do not allow of women preachers; neither do I take upon me any such character. But I will just nakedly tell you what is in my heart.’ This will in a great measure obviate the grand objection and prepare for J. Hampson’s coming. I do not see that you have broken any law. Go on calmly and steadily. If you have time, you may read to them the Notes on any chapter before you speak a few words, or one of the most awakening sermons, as other women have done long ago The work of God goes on mightily here both in conviction and conversion. This morning I have spoken with four or five who seem to have been set at liberty within this month. I believe within five weeks six in one class have received remission of sins and five in one band received a second blessing. [Wesley had been visiting the classes in London during the week.] Peace be with you all! --I am Your affectionate brother. To the Editor of the ’London Magazine’ To Mr. G. R., alias R. A., alias M. K., alias R. W. LONDON, February 17, 1761. DEAR SIR, --As you are stout, be merciful; or I shall never be able to stand it. Four attacks in one month! and pushed so home! Well, I must defend myself as I can Indeed, your first attack under the character of G. R. is not very desperate. You first give a short history of Montanism, and innocently say: ’It would fill a volume to draw a parallel between Montanism and Methodism.’ According as it was drawn; but if it contained nothing but truth, it would not fill a nutshell. You add: ’Such a crude composition is this Methodism, that there is scarce any one pestilent heresy that has infested the Church but what is an actual part of their doctrine.’ This is easily said: but, till you can prove it, it will pass for nothing In your second letter you say: ’The present troublers of our Israel are that heterogeneous mass, the Methodists.’ ’Heterogeneous’! an hard word, a very hard word! Pray, sir, what is the meaning of it? ’They are avowed enemies to the doctrine and discipline of the Church.’ Surely not avowed enemies (if they are secret ones, which no man can prove): they flatly disavow any such thing. ’Have faithfully copied the worst of men in the worst of times.’ This means nothing; it is mere garniture of the dish. ’If such men’s enthusiastical notions be the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, better would it be to be a Jew, a Turk, an infidel, than a Christian.’ This proves nothing but what was pretty plain before --namely, that you are very angry. ’Notions repugnant to common sense and to the first principles of truth and equity.’ My fundamental notions are that true religion is love, the love of God and our neighbour; the doing all things to the glory of God, and doing to all men as we would be done to. Are these notions repugnant to common sense or to the first principles of truth and equity? ’What punishment do they deserve?’ they who walk by this rule? By nature they deserve hell; but by the grace of God, if they endure to the end, they will receive eternal life In your third letter you say: ’None of the principles of the Methodists have a more fatal tendency than the doctrine of Assurance.’ I allow it; and it is past your skill to prove that this has any fatal tendency at all, unless as you wonderfully explain it in the following words: ’They insist that themselves are sure of salvation, but that all others are in a damnable state!’ Who do? Not I, nor any that I know but Papists. Therefore all that you add to disprove this, which no one affirms, is but beating the air, ’But St. Paul commands us to pass the time of our sojourning here in fear.’ Indeed, he does not; your memory fails: but St. Peter does, and that is as well Your fourth (for want of a better) is to serve for a reply to my answer. In this you stoutly say: ’Sir, your performance is frivolous and fallacious.’ Very well; but others must judge of that. ’Shocks, sir, or violent operations of the Spirit are too fully evidenced by your trances, ecstasies, and I know not what.’ I assure you, neither do I; but if you please to tell me, when you do know a little of the matter, I will give you what satisfaction I can. ’These appear in the practices of your followers, and as such must destroy free agency.’ Nay, sir, you are now too severe, especially in that keen ’as such.’ ’As you then assert such practices, you are (excuse the harshness of the expression) an enemy to religion and a deceiver of the people.’ Sir, I do excuse you. I am pretty well used to such expressions: if they hurt not you, they hurt not me. ’Until you publish in plain, intelligible words your scheme of principles, it is impossible to say what you are.’ I have done it ten times over, particularly in The Principles of a Methodist, the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion, and (what I am not without hope might be intelligible even to you) Instructions for Children. ’I must be plain with you: you seem, sir, to have as much knowledge of the Scriptures as a Mahometan.’ Sir, I thank you; and I presume you do not expect any other answer to this. ’That you are an enthusiast, a very great enthusiast, not I, let your own Journals demonstrably prove.’ Nay, why not you? I fear my Journals will not give such proof as will satisfy any impartial person. ’As to dogmas, I do not know that it is good English: I know it is false dog-Latin.’ Now, I really thought it was neither Latin nor English: I took it to be mere heathen Greek Whenever you please to favour the public with your name and place of abode, you may perhaps (if I have leisure) hear farther from Your humble servant and well-wisher To the Editor of the ’London Chronicle’ LONDON, February 19, 1761. SIR, --Is it not surprising that every person of understanding does not discern -- at the very first view that the tract entitled A Caveat against the Methodists is in reality a Caveat against the Protestants? Do not the arguments conclude (if they conclude at all), not against the Methodists only, but against the whole body of Protestants? The names, indeed, of Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley are used; but this is mere finesse! Greater men are designed, and all along are wounded through our sides I was long in hopes of seeing an answer to this artful performance from someone of more leisure as well as abilities, and some whose name would have recommended his work. For that thought has something of truth in it, -- Oh what a tuneful wonder seized the throng When Marlbro’s conquering name alarmed the foe! Had Whiznowisky [Duke Michael Wisnowiski, son of a famous general, was a weak man elected king in 1668 by the Poles, and was a mere puppet in their hands: ’infirm in body and weak in mind, without influence, because without courage and riches,’ ’an object of somewhat contemptuous homage.’ He died in 1674. See W.H.S. vii. 115-16.] 1ed the armies on, The General’s scarecrow name had foiled each blow However, who knows but reason for once may be stronger than prejudice? And many may forget my scarecrow name, and mind not who speaks but what is spoken. I am pleading now not for Methodists only, but for the whole body of Protestants; first for the Church of England, then for the Protestants of every denomination: in doing which I shall first give the substance of each section of the Romish tract; secondly an answer, and retort it upon the members of the Church of Rome. Oh that this may incite some more skilful advocate to supply my lack of service! SECTION I ’The Methodists’ (Protestants) ’are not the people of God; they are not true gospel Christians; nor is their new raised Society the true Church of Christ, nor any part of it’ (page 3) ’This is demonstrated by the Word of God marking out the people of God, the true Church of Christ, by such characters as cannot agree to the Methodists or any other new-raised sect or community’ (ibid.). ’The Old Testament is full of prophecies relating to the Church; and the New Testament makes glorious promises to it, and gives glorious characters of it’ (page 4) ’Now, all those prophecies, promises, and characters point out a society founded by Christ Himself, and by His commission propagated throughout the world, which should flourish till time should end, ever one, ever holy, ever orthodox; secured against error by the perpetual presence of Christ; ever directed by the Spirit of Truth; having a perpetual succession of pastors and teachers divinely appointed and divinely assisted. But no part of this character is applicable to any new-raised sect, who have no succession from or connexion with that one holy society; therefore no modern sect can be any part of the people of God.’ (Page 5.) I answer: It is true ’all these promises, prophecies, and characters point out a society founded by Christ Himself, and by His commission propagated throughout the world, which should flourish till time should end.’ And such is the Catholic Church --that is, the whole body of men, endued with faith working by love, dispersed over the whole earth, in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. And this Church is ’ever one.’ In all ages and nations it is the one body of Christ. It is ’ever holy’; for no unholy man can possibly be a member of it. It is ’ever orthodox’; so is every holy man in all things necessary to salvation; ’secured against error’ in things essential ’by the perpetual presence of Christ; and ever directed by the Spirit of Truth’ in the truth that is after godliness. This Church has ’a perpetual succession of pastors and teachers divinely appointed and divinely assisted.’ And there has never been wanting in the Reformed Churches such a succession of pastors and teachers, men both divinely appointed and divinely assisted; for they convert sinners to God --a work none can do unless God Himself doth appoint them thereto and assist them therein; therefore every part of this character is applicable to them. Their teachers are the proper successors of those who have delivered down through all generations the faith once delivered to the saints; and their members have true spiritual communion with the ’one holy’ society of true believers. Consequently, although they are not the whole ’people of God,’ yet are they an undeniable part of His people On the contrary, the Church of Rome in its present form was not ’founded by Christ Himself.’ All the doctrines and practices wherein she differs from us were not instituted by Christ; they were unknown to the ancient Church of Christ; they are unscriptural, novel corruptions: neither is that Church ’propagated throughout the world.’ Therefore, if either antiquity or universality be essential thereto, the Church of Rome cannot be ’the true Church of Christ. Nor is the Church of Rome one; it is not in unity with itself; it is to this day torn with numberless divisions. And it is impossible it should be ’the one Church,’ unless a part can be the whole; seeing the Asiatic, the African, and the Muscovite Churches (to name no more) never were contained in it Neither is it holy. The generality of its members are no holier than Turks or heathens. You need not go far for proof of this. Look at the Romanists in London or Dublin. Are these the holy, the only holy Church? Just such holiness is in the bottomless pit. Nor is it ’secured against error’ either ’by Christ’ or ’His Spirit’: witness Pope against Pope, Council against Council, contradicting, anathematizing each other. The instances are too numerous to be recited. Neither are the generality of her ’pastors and teachers’ either ’divinely appointed’ or ’divinely assisted.’ If God had sent them, He would confirm the word of His messengers. But He does not; they convert no sinners to God; they convert many to their own opinion, but not to the knowledge or love of God. He that was a drunkard is a drunkard still; he that was filthy is filthy still: therefore neither are they ’assisted’ by Him; so they and their flocks wallow in sin together. Consequently (whatever may be the case of some particular souls) it must be said, if your own marks be true, the Roman Catholics in general are not ’the people of God.’ It may be proper to add here the second section, which is all I had leisure to write, though it was not published till the following week SECTION II ’The Methodist’ (Protestant) ’teachers are not the true ministers of Christ; nor are they called or sent by Him’ (page 6). ’This appears from what has been already demonstrated; for if the Protestants are not the true people of Christ, their ministers cannot be the true ministers of Christ’ (ibid.). Farther, ’The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles; but the Protestant teachers do not: therefore they are not the true ministers of Christ’ (ibid.). ’All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; so that whoever without a commission from Him intrudes into the pastoral office is a thief and a robber. Now, the commission can be conveyed but two ways: either immediately from God Himself, as it was to the Apostles, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. ’But this commission has not been conveyed to Protestant preachers either of these ways. Not immediately from God Himself; for how do they prove it? By what miracles? Neither by men deriving authority from the Apostles through the channel of the Church. And they stand divided in communion from all Churches that have any pretensions to antiquity. Their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Churches; consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.’ (Pages 8-9.) I answer, ’from what has been already demonstrated,’ that nothing will follow; for you have demonstrated just nothing. Now for your ’farther’ proof. ’The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles.’ So do the Protestant ministers if the Romish do; the English in particular; as even one of yourselves, F. Courayer, [Peter F. Courayer (1681-1776), the Roman Catholic professor, wrote A Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations in 1723; and had to take refuge in England in 1728, where he joined the English Church.] has irrefragably proved. ’All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; either immediately from Himself, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. But this commission has not been conveyed to the Protestant preachers either of these ways: not immediately; for by what miracles do they prove it?’ So said Cardinal Bellarmine long ago. Neither ’by men deriving authority from the Apostles.’ Read F. Courayer, and know better. Neither are the Protestants ’divided from’ any ’Churches’ who have true ’pretensions to antiquity.’ But ’their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Church.’ By the prelates at the Council of Trent it was; who thereby anathematized the Apostle Paul, to all intents and purposes. Here you throw off the mask; otherwise you might have passed for a Protestant a little longer. ’Consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.’ Sir, we thank you. This is really a very modest assertion for the subject of a Protestant king. But to turn the tables: I said, ’If the Romish bishops do.’ For this I absolutely deny. I deny that the Romish bishops came down by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. I never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall. But unless this is proved, your own pastors on your principles are no pastors at all. But farther: it is a doctrine of your Church that the intention of the administrator is essential to the validity of the sacraments which are administered by him. Now, are you assured of the intention of every priest from whom you have received the Host? If not, you do not know but what you received as the sacrament of the altar was no sacrament at all. Are you assured of the intention of the priest who baptized you? If not, perhaps you are not baptized at all. To come close to the point in hand: if you pass for a priest, are you assured of the intention of the bishop that ordained you? If not, you may happen to be no priest, and so all your ministry is nothing worth: nay, by the same rule he may happen to be no bishop. And who can tell how often this has been the case? But if there has been only one instance in a thousand years, what becomes of your uninterrupted succession? This ad hominem. But I have a word more ad rem. Can a man teach what he does not know? Is it possible a man should teach others what he does not know himself? Certainly it is not. Can a priest, then, teach his hearers the way to heaven marked out in our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount if he does not know or understand the way himself? Nothing is more impossible. But how many of your priests know nothing about it! What avails, then, their commission to teach what they cannot teach, because they know it not? Did God, then, send these men on a fool’s errand? send them to do what they cannot do? O say not so! And what will be the event of their attempting to teach they know not what? Why, ’if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.’ To Sarah Moore LONDON, March 3, 1761. MY DEAR SISTER, --I hope to spend a night or two with you at Sheffield [Wesley preached at Sheffield on July 29. He had not been able to visit there the previous year. See letter of May 29.] in my return from Newcastle. Probably I may see Hallam too. I am glad to hear you are athirst for God. Look for Him. Is He not nigh at hand? Beware of unbelief. Receive a blessing now. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LEEDS, March 24, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER, --I stepped over from Manchester hither yesterday, and am to return thither to-morrow. [He preached at Manchester at 5 a.m., and reached Leeds about 5 p.m. See Journal, iv. 445.] I cannot fix my route through Scotland till I hear from Mr. Gillies [Dr. John Gillies, of the College Church, Glasgow. See Journal, iv. 62-3, 117.]; but I expect to be at Aberdeen in four or five weeks and at Newcastle about the middle of May. My best friend (such she undoubtedly is in a sense) remains still in London. [See next letter.] I do not expect any change till the approach of death; and I am content. With regard to me all is well. John Nelson and John Manners [John Manners’s health gave way under the strain of a preacher’s life. He died at York in 1764. See Journal, iv. 515-18, v. 58, 67; and letter of July 28, 1775, to John King.] both write to me from York that they wish T. Olivers [See letters of March 24, 1757, and April 25, 1761, to him.] would spend some time longer in the Newcastle Circuit. I wish so too. I think it would be better for himself and for many others. O let us follow after the things which make for peace! --I am Yours affectionately. Alas! Alas! So poor Jacob Rowell says: ’Mr. Wesley has nothing to do with his Round; and all the Societies in it but Barnard Castle are willing to separate.’ In God’s name, let one of you go into that Round without delay! To James Rouquet MANCHESTER, March 30, 1761. DEAR JEMMY, --The thing you mention has been much in my thoughts, and indeed for some years last past. The dreadful consequences which have arisen from the disunion of Christian ministers, especially those whom God has lately employed, are too glaring to be hid from any who do not wilfully shut their eyes. How often has this put a sword into the hand of the common enemy! how often has it made the children of God go heavily! and how many of them has it turned out of the way! On the other hand, how many and how great are the advantages which would flow from a general union, of those at least who acknowledge each other to be messengers of God! I know nothing [but sin] which I would not do or leave undone to promote it; and this has been my settled determination for at least ten years last past. But all my overtures have been constantly rejected; almost all of them stand aloof, and at length they have carried their point. I let them alone. I’ll give the fruitless contest o’er. However, if you can think of any expedient which is likely to avail, I will make a fresh trial. God has lately done great things. Mr. Berridge and Whitefield were much knit to us. The grand breach is now between the irregular and regular clergy. The latter say: ’Stand by yourselves; we are better than you!’ And a good man is continually exhorting them so to do, whose steady advice is so very civil to the Methodists. But we have nothing to do with them. And this man of war is a dying man --it is poor, honest Mr. Walker. Finding all other means ineffectual, on Monday the 2nd instant I opened my wife’s bureau and took what I found of my own. (No notes, bills, or papers of hers: in saying this, she only does as she uses to do.) Some hours after, she talked like an Empress Queen; on which I told her plainly, ’While you are in this mind I will neither bed nor board with you.’ On .... following I found her of a better mind; so on Saturday and Sunday [He was then in London. ] we were together as usual. But if we should live to meet again, and she behaves as she did on that day, I should think it my bounden duty to do as I did then. I judge her case to be proper lunacy; but it is a preternatural, a diabolical lunacy, and therefore at those times (I know what I say) I do not think my life is safe with her. And yet I feel just as much resentment toward her as I do to Sall. Roqt. Peace be with you and yours. To Dr. Green LONDON, April 2, 1761. REVEREND SIR, --I have no desire to dispute, least of all with one whom I believe to fear God and work righteousness. And I have no time to spare. Yet I think it my duty to write a few lines with regard to those you sent to Mr. Bennet. You therein say: ’If you sent me the books to inform me of an error which I had publicly advanced, pardon me if I say I know numbers who call themselves Methodists assert their assurance of salvation at the very time they wallow in sins of the deepest dye.’ Permit me, sir, to speak freely. I do not doubt the fact. But (1) Those who are connected with me do not call themselves Methodists. Others call them by that nickname, and they cannot help it; but I continually warn them not to pin it upon themselves. (2) We rarely use that ambiguous expression of ’Christ’s righteousness imputed to us.’ (3) We believe a man may be a real Christian without being ’assured of his salvation.’ (4) We know no man can be assured of salvation while he lives in any sin whatever. (5) The wretches who talk in that manner are neither Methodists nor Moravians, but followers of William Cudworth, James Relly, and their associates, who abhor us as much as they do the Pope, and ten times more than they do the devil. If you oppose these, so do I; and have done privately and publicly for these twenty years. But you say: ’Such as do not profess this doctrine will not be affected by my sermon.’ Indeed they will; for the world (as you yourself did) lump all that are called Methodists together. Consequently whatever you then said of Methodists in general falls on us as well as them; and so we are condemned for those very principles which we totally detest and abhor: a small part of the Preservative (had you taken the pains to read it) would have convinced you of this. ’Did you send them to convince me of some important truth? I have the New Testament.’ So have I; and I have read it for above these fifty years, and for near forty with some attention. Yet I will not say that Mr. Green may not convince me of some truth which I never yet learned from it. I want every help, especially from those who strive both to preach and to live the gospel. Yet certainly I must dissent from you or you from me wherever either conceives the other to vary from it. Some of my writings you ’have read.’ But allow me to ask, Did not you read them with much prejudice or little attention? Otherwise surely you would not have termed them ’perplexing.’ Very few lay obscurity or intricacy to my charge. Those who do not allow them to be true do not deny them to be plain. And if they believe me to have done any good at all by writing, they suppose it is by this very thing --by speaking on practical and experimental religion more plainly than others have done. I quite agree we ’neither can be better men nor better Christians than by continuing members of the Church of England.’ And not only her doctrines but many parts of her discipline I have adhered to at the hazard of my life. If in any point I have since varied therefrom, it was not by choice but necessity. Judge, therefore, if they do well who throw me into the ditch, and then beat me because my clothes are dirty! Wishing you much of the love of God in your heart and much of His presence in your labours, I remain, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother. To George Downing LIVERPOOL, April 6, 1761. DEAR SIR, --Let who will speak, if what is spoken be true, I am ready to subscribe it. If it be not, I accept no man’s person. Magis amica veritas. [’I prefer truth to the dearest friend.’] I had an agreeable conversation with Mr. Venn, [On March 25 he breakfasted with Henry Venn, recently appointed Vicar of Huddersfield.] who, I suppose, is now near you. I think he is exactly as regular as he ought to be. I would observe every punctilio of order, except where the salvation of souls is at stake. There I prefer the end before the means. I think it great pity that the few clergymen in England who preach the three grand scriptural doctrines --Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Holiness consequent thereon --should have any jealousies or misunderstandings between them. What advantage must this give to the common enemy! What an hindrance is it to the great work wherein they are all engaged! How desirable is it that there should be the most open, avowed intercourse between them! So far, indeed, as they judge it would be for the glory of God, they may openly declare wherein they disagree. But surely, if they are ashamed to own one another in the faces of all mankind, they are ashamed of Christ, they are ashamed of Him that sends if they dare not avow whom He has sent. Excuses, indeed, will never be wanting. But will these avail before God? For many years I have been labouring after this --labouring to unite, not scatter, the messengers of God. Not that I want anything from them. As God has enabled me to stand almost alone for these twenty years, I doubt not but He will enable me to stand either with them or without them. But I want all to be helpful to each other, and all the world to know we are so. Let them know who is on the Lord’s side. You, I trust, will always be of that number. O let us preach and live the whole gospel! The grace of our Lord be with your spirit! --I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate brother and servant. To the Earl of Dartmouth (?) LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1761. DEAR SIR, --1. In order to answer the question more clearly which Mr. [Downing [See previous letter.’]] has proposed to you, it may be well look a little backward. Some years since, two or three clergymen of the Church of England, who were above measure zealous for all her rules and orders, were convinced that religion is not an external thing, but ’righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,’ and that this righteousness and peace and joy are given only to those who are justified by faith. As soon as they were convinced of these great truths, they preached them; and multitudes flocked to hear. For these reasons, and no others, real or pretended (for as yet they were strictly regular), because they preached such doctrine, and because such multitudes followed them, they were forbid to preach in the churches. Not daring to be silent, they preached elsewhere, in a school, by a river-side, or upon a mountain; and more and more sinners forsook their sins and were filled with peace and joy in believing. 2. But at the same time huge offence was taken at their ’gathering congregations’ in so irregular a manner; and it was asked, -- (1) ’Do you judge that the Church with the authority of the State has power to enact laws for her own government?’ I answer: If a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me, no Church has power to enjoin me silence. Neither has the State; though it may abuse its power and enact laws whereby I suffer for preaching the gospel. (2) ’Do you judge it your duty to submit to the laws of the Church and State as far as they are consistent with a good conscience?’ I do. But ’woe is me if I preach not the gospel’: this is not consistent with a good conscience. (3) ’Is it a law of the Church and State that none of her ministers shall gather congregations but by the appointment of the bishop? If any do, does not she forbid her people to attend them? Are they not subversive of the good order of the Church? Do you judge there is anything sinful in such a law?’ I answer: (I) If there is a law that a minister of Christ who is not suffered to preach the gospel in the church should not preach it elsewhere, I do judge that law to be absolutely sinful. (ii) If that law forbids Christian people to hear the gospel of Christ out of their parish church when they cannot hear it therein, I judge it would be sinful for them to obey it. (iii) This preaching is not subversive of any good order whatever. It is only subversive of that vile abuse of the good order of our Church whereby men who neither preach nor live the gospel are suffered publicly to overturn it from the foundation, and in the room of it to palm upon their congregations a wretched mixture of dead form and maimed morality. (4) ’If these premises be allowed.’ They cannot be allowed. So, from nothing, nothing follows. 3. It was objected farther, -- (1) ’In every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil.’ There must; but put civil out of the question. It only tends to puzzle the cause. (2) ’The Scriptures likewise enjoin this.’ They do, that all things in the church be done in order. (3) ’There is an ecclesiastical order established in England, and it is a lawful one.’ I believe it is in general not only lawful but highly commendable. (4) ’But Mr. [Downing] tells you: " You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and were ennobled on that account." These points, I think, are not very material; but that which follows is. " You have by deliberate and repeated acts of your own engaged yourself to defend it. Your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it."’ A guardian of what? What is it that you have ’deliberately engaged yourself to defend’? The constitution of the Church of England. And is not her doctrine a main part of this constitution? a far more essential part thereof than any rule of external order? Of this, then, you are a formal guardian; and you have deliberately engaged yourself to defend it. But have you deliberately engaged to defend her orders to the destruction of her doctrine? Are you a guardian of this external circumstance when it tends to destroy the substance of her constitution? And if you are engaged, at all events, to defend her order, are you also to defend the abuse of it? Surely no. Your rank, your station, your honour, your conscience, all engage you to oppose this. (5) ’But how can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution, and that in their genuine issue’ (or natural tendency) ’are totally subversive of it?’ Are the principles of those clergymen a direct renunciation of the established constitution? Are their practices so? Are either the one or the other ’totally subversive of it’? Not so: their fundamental principles are the very principles of the Established Church. So is their practice too; save in a very few points, wherein they are constrained to deviate. Therefore it is no ways inconsistent with your duty to encourage, countenance, and support them; especially seeing they have no alternative. They must either be thus far irregular or destroy their own souls, and let thousands of their brethren perish for lack of knowledge. (6) Nay, but their ’principles and practices are of this character. For (I) They gather congregations and exercise their ministerial office therein in every part of this kingdom, directly contrary to the restraint laid on them at their ordination and to the design of that parochial distribution of duty settled throughout this nation. (ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained, and thereby contradict the Twenty-third Article. (iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters, and say that, rather than be so controlled, they would renounce all communion with this Church. (iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.’ I answer: (I) They do gather congregations everywhere and exercise their ministerial office therein. But this is not contrary to any restraint which was laid upon them at their ordination; for they were not ordained to serve any particular parish. And it is remarkable that Lincoln College was founded ad propagandam Christianam fidem et extirpandas haereses. [’For propagating the Christian faith and extirpating heresies.’ See letter of June 17, 1746, sect. 111. 5.] But were it otherwise, suppose a parish minister to be either ignorant or negligent of his duty, and one of his flock adjures me for Christ’s sake to tell him what he must do to be saved, was it ever the design of our Church that I should refuse to do it because he is not of my parish? ’(ii) They maintain it lawful for men to preach who are not episcopally ordained.’ In some circumstances they do; particularly where thousands are rushing into destruction, and those who are ordained and appointed to watch over them neither care for nor know how to help them. ’But hereby they contradict the Twenty-third Article, to which they have subscribed.’ They subscribed it in the simplicity of their hearts, when they firmly believed none but Episcopal ordination valid. But Bishop Stillingfleet has since fully convinced them this was an entire mistake. [See letter of July 16, 1755. ] ’(iii) They disclaim all right in the bishops to control them in any of these matters.’ In every point of an indifferent nature they obey the bishops for conscience’ sake; but they think Episcopal authority cannot reverse what is fixed by divine authority. Yet they are determined never to renounce communion with the Church unless they are cast out headlong. If it be said, ’Nay, but if I varied from the Church at all, I would throw off my gown and be a professed Dissenter,’ --what! would you profess to dissent when you did not? If you would, they dare not do it. They love the Church, and therefore keep to all her doctrine and rules as far as possibly they can; and if they vary at all, it shall not be an hair’s breadth farther than they cannot help. ’(iv) These principles they industriously propagate among their followers.’ Indeed they do not: the bulk of their followers know just nothing of the matter. They industriously propagate among them nothing but inward and outward holiness. (7) ’Now these are oppositions to the most fundamental principles and essentially constituent parts of our Establishment; and not of ours only, but of every ecclesiastical Establishment that is or ever has been in the Christian world.’ ’The most fundamental principles’! No more than the tiles are the most fundamental principles of an house. Useful, doubtless, they are; yet you must take them off if you would repair the rotten timber beneath. ’Essentially constituent parts of our Establishment’! Well, we will not quarrel for a word. Perhaps the doors may be essentially constituent parts of the building we call a church. Yet, if it were on fire, we might innocently break them open or even throw them for a time off the hinges. Now this is really the case. The timber is rotten--yea, the main beams of the house; and they want to place that firm beam, salvation by faith, in the room of salvation by works. A fire is kindled in the Church, the house of the living God: the fire of love of the world, ambition, covetousness, envy, anger, malice, bitter zeal--in one word, of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Oh who will come and help to quench it? Under disadvantages and discouragements of every kind, a little handful of men have made a beginning; and I trust they will not leave off till the building is saved or they sink in the ruins of it. 4. To sum up the whole. A few irregular men openly witness those truths of God which the regular clergy (a few excepted) either suppress or wholly deny. Their word is accompanied with the power of God, convincing and converting sinners. The word of those is not accompanied with power: it neither wounds nor heals. The former witness the truth and the power of God by their own life and conversation: therefore the world, men who know not God, hate them and speak all manner of evil against them falsely. The latter are of the world: therefore the world loves its own and speaks honourably of them. Which of these ought you to hear,--those who declare or those who deny the truth of God? that word which is the power of God unto salvation, or that which lulls men on to destruction? the men who live as well as preach the gospel, or those whose lives are no better than their doctrine? ’But they are irregular.’ I answer: (1) That is not their choice. They must either preach irregularly or not at all. (2) Is such a circumstance of weight to turn the scale against the substance of the gospel? If it is, if none ought to speak or hear the truth of God unless in a regular manner, then (to mention but one consequence) there never could have been any reformation from Popery. For here the entire argument for Church order would have stood in its full force. Suppose one had asked a German nobleman to hear Martin Luther preach; might not his priest have said (without debating whether he preached the truth or not): ’My lord, in every nation there must be some settled order of government, ecclesiastical and civil. There is an ecclesiastical order established in Germany. You are born under this Establishment. Your ancestors supported it, and your very rank and station constitute you a formal and eminent guardian of it. How, then, can it consist with the duty arising from all these to give encouragement, countenance, and support to principles and practices that are a direct renunciation of the established constitution?’ Had the force of this reasoning been allowed, what had become of the Reformation? Yet it was right; though it really was a subversion of the whole ecclesiastical constitution with regard to doctrine as well as discipline. Whereas this is no such thing. The doctrine of the Established Church, which is far the most essential part of her constitution, these preachers manifestly confirm, in opposition to those who subvert it. And it is the opposition made to them by those subverters which constrains them in some respects to deviate from her discipline; to which in all others they conform for conscience. Oh what pity that any who preach the same doctrine, and whom those subverters have not yet been able to thrust out, should join with them against their brethren in the common faith and fellow witnesses of the common salvation!--I am, dear sir, Your willing servant for Christ’s sake. To his Wife WHITEHAVEN, April 24, 1761. MY DEAR MOLLY,--Although I have not had any answer to my former letters, yet I must trouble you once more, and repeat the advice I gave you before, ’Beware of tale-bearers.’ God has given you plenty of temporal blessings; and if you only avoid this snare (to which your natural temper lays you open), you may have plenty of spiritual too. Indeed, He mingles afflictions with your cup. But may not these be blessings also? May they not be admirable means to break the impetuosity and soften the harshness of your spirit? Certainly they may. Certainly they have this effect on many; and why not on you likewise? Is not everything contrary to your will intended to conquer it, and to bring it into a full subordination to the will of God? And when once this is done, what can hurt you? Then you are invulnerable; you are defended from head to foot by armour which neither the world nor the devil can pierce. Then you will go on unmoved, through honour and dishonour, through evil report and good report. You will happily experience in your own soul the truth of that fine observation, ’In the greatest afflictions which can befall the just, either from heaven or earth, they remain immovable in virtue, and perfectly submissive to God, by an inward, loving regard to Him uniting all the powers of their soul.’--I am with much sincerity, dear Molly, Your affectionate Husband. What is become of the Chancery suit? Of Noah [Noah and Anthony Vazeille, her sons.]? Of John [See letter of April 24, 1757.] and Jenny Matthews, and poor Anthony? To Mrs. Wesley, At the Foundery, London. To Thomas Olivers WHITEHAVEN, April 25, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have a desire to ask you some questions on two or three heads, which you may answer as particularly as you please. (1) Have you read over The Doctrine of Original Sin? I mean the book wrote in answer to Dr. Taylor? Have you read it with attention and prayer? Do you understand it? Have you seriously considered it? Is there anything in it which you think wrong? or does it express your own judgement? (2) Have you read over the sermons in the first and fourth volumes on Justification and the New Birth? Do you think you throughly understand them? Is there anything in them which you cannot agree to? (3) Have you read over the Thoughts upon Perfection in the fourth volume? Did you read them with humility and prayer? with calmness and deliberation? Have you considered them again and again, crying to God for help? Is there anything in them which you do not understand, or which you think is not right? On all these heads you may speak freely to, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. Direct to Newcastle. To Mrs. Booth SUNDERLAND, May 29, 1761. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is a long time to the 1st of August. Before that time many of us may be in Abraham’s bosom. If I am at Sheffield that morning, very probably I may be at Woodseats the same day at noon. I do not know but George Tizard [Tizard became a preacher in 1759, and was afterwards a clergyman.] may be on that Round some time longer. Oh what cause have we to praise God for all the wonders He has wrought!--I am, with love to Brother Booth, Your affectionate brother. I return to Newcastle in a day or two. To John Hosmer NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I apprehend, if you will give another careful reading to those four pages, 244-7, [Thoughts on Christian Perfection. See letter of June 23, 1760.] you will find all your objections anticipated or answered. However, I do not think much of answering them over again. Your words are: ’You say, "A mistake is not a sin, if love is the sole principle of action; yet it is a transgression of the perfect law"; therefore perfect love is not the perfect law’! Most sure; for by ’the perfect law’ I mean that given to Adam at his creation. But the loving God with all his heart was not the whole of that law: it implied abundantly more; even thinking, speaking, and acting right in every instance, which he was then able, and therefore obliged, to do. But none of his descendants are able to do this; therefore love is the fulfilling of their law. Perhaps you had not adverted to this. The law of love, which is the whole law given to us, is only one branch of that perfect law which was given to Adam in the beginning. His law was far wider than ours, as his faculties were more extensive. Consequently many things might be transgressions of the latter which were not of the former. ’But if ignorance be a transgression of the perfect law.’ Whoever said or thought so? Ignorance is not, but mistake is. And this Adam was able to avoid; that kind of ignorance which was in him not constraining him to mistake, as ours frequently does. ’But is "a voluntary transgression of a known law" a proper definition of sin?’ I think it is of all such sin as is imputed to our condemnation. And it is a definition which has passed uncensured in the Church for at least fifteen hundred years. To propose any objections that naturally arise is right; but beware you do not seek objections. If you once begin this, you will never have done. Indeed, this whole affair is a strife of words. The thing is plain. All in the body are liable to mistakes, practical as well as speculative. Shall we call them sins or no? I answer again and again, Call them just what you please. To George Merryweather NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I had allotted two nights for Yarm; but by the advice of our brethren here I have made a little alteration in my plan. On Wednesday and Thursday the 18th instant I am to be at Stockton. On Friday evening and Saturday noon I purpose (with God’s leave) to preach at Yarm. [He preached at Yarm on the Friday evening at seven, and on Saturday at noon ’applied those words, "Now abide faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love."’ See Journal, iv. 464; and letter of Jan. 24, 1760.] On Saturday evening I am to be at Hutton Rudby, which is nearer the centre of our Societies.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Hall NEAR NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 14, 1761. DEAR PATTY--Why should any of us live in the world without doing a little good in it? I am glad you have made a beginning. See that you are not weary of well doing; for it will often be a cross. But bear the cross, and it will bear you. The best fruit grows under the cross. I have often thought it strange that so few of my relations should be of any use to me in the work of God. My sister Wright was, of whom I should least have expected it; but it was only for a short season. My sister Emly and you, of whom one might have expected more, have, I know not how, kept at a distance, and sometimes cavilled a little, at other times as it were approved, but never heartily joined in the work. Where did it stick? Did you not throughly understand what my brother and I were doing? Did you not see the truth? Or did the cause lie in your heart? You had no will to join hand in hand. You wanted resolution, spirit, patience. Well, the day is far spent. What you do, do quickly. ’Life for delay no time will give!’ [My] work in the country cannot be finished before the latter end of August, as the circuit is now larger by [some] hundred miles than when I was in the North two [years] ago. O let the one thing be ever uppermost in our thoughts! To promote either your temporal or eternal good will always be a pleasure to, dear Patty, Your affectionate Brother. [Wesley was much concerned about his sister. See letter of Dec. 26 to his brother.] Endorsed ’I am obliged to my dear B[rother] for [this].’ To Miss March STOCKTON, June 17, 1761. I apprehend your great danger now is this--to think you never shall receive that blessing because you have not received it yet; nay, perhaps you may be tempted to believe that there is no such thing, and that those who thought they had received it were mistaken as well as you. This danger will be increased if some who professed to be sanctified long ago, and yet have not received this blessing, affirm there is no such thing, and begin to warn others against falling into this delusion. But keep close to your rule, the Word of God, and to your guide, the Spirit of God, and never be afraid of expecting too much. As yet you are but a babe. Oh what heights of holiness are to come! I hope you do not forget to pray for me. Adieu! To Alexander Coates OTLEY, July 7, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The perfection I teach is perfect love: loving God with all the heart; receiving Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, to reign alone over all our thoughts, words, and actions. The Papists neither teach nor believe this: give even the devil his due. They teach there is no perfection here which is not consistent with venial sins; and among venial sins they commonly reckon simple fornication. Now, I think this is so far from the perfection I teach, that it does not come up to any but Mr. Relly’s perfection. To say Christ will not reign alone in our hearts in this life, will not enable us to give Him all our hearts--this in my judgement is making Him an half-Saviour. He can be no more, if He does not quite save us from our sins. I pray, then, be not quite so peremptory. Who exalts Christ most? those who call on Him to be the sole Monarch of the heart, or those who allow Him only to share the power and to govern most of the thoughts and tempers? Who honour Him most? those who believe He heals all our sickness, takes away all our ungodliness, or those who say, He heals only the greater part of it, till death does what He cannot do? I know no creature (of us) who says, ’Part of our salvation belongs to Christ and part to us.’ No; we all say, Christ alone saves us from all sin; and your question is not about the Author but the measure of salvation. Both agree it is all Christ; but is it all salvation or only half salvation He will give? Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and an holy man. But we know nothing but his name; for his writings are all destroyed, not one line of them left. But, Brother Coates, this way of talking is highly offensive. I advise you (1) If you are willing to labour with us, preach no doctrine contrary to ours. I have preached twenty years in some of Mr. Whitefield’s Societies; yet to this day I never contradicted him among his own people. I did not think it honest, neither necessary at all. I could preach salvation by faith, and leave all controversy untouched. I advise you (2) Avoid all those strong, rhetorical exclamations ’Oh horrid! Oh dreadful!’ and the like, unless when you are strongly exhorting sinners to renounce the devil and all his works. (3) Acquaint yourself better with the doctrine we preach, and you will find it not dreadful but altogether lovely. (4) Observe that if forty persons think and speak wrong, either about justification or sanctification (and perhaps fancy they have attained both), this is no objection to the doctrines themselves. They must bear their own burthen. But this does not at all affect the point in question. (5) Remember, as sure as you are that ’believers cannot fall from grace,’ others (wise and holy men too) are equally sure they can; and you are as much obliged to bear with them as they are to bear with you. (6) Abstain from all controversy in public. Indeed, you have not a talent for it. You have an honest heart, but not a clear head. Practical religion is your point; therefore (7) Keep to this: repentance toward God, faith in Christ, holiness of heart and life, a growing in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, the continual need of His atoning blood, a constant confidence in Him, and all these every moment to our life’s end. In none of these will any of our preachers contradict you or you them. When you leave this plain path and get into controversy, then they think you ’invade the glories of our adorable King and the unspeakable rights and privileges and comforts of His children’; and can they then ’tamely hold their peace’? O Sander, know the value of peace and love!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell BRADFORD, July 16, 1761. DEAR SIR,--Methinks it is a long time since I saw or heard anything of you. I hope, however, that Mrs. Blackwell and you are not only alive, but more alive than ever, seeking and enjoying something more than King George is likely to find either at his wedding or his coronation. [George III was married to Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz on Sept. 8, and crowned on Sept. 22.] And can you likewise give me a comfortable account of Miss Freeman, both as to her health and her spirit? I often think of her, and sometimes have a mind to send her another letter, though she is one in my debt already. Mr. Venn was so kind as to come over hither yesterday and spend the evening with us. [This visit of Henry Venn is not mentioned in the Journal, but another is noticed on July 24. See next letter.] I am a little embarrassed on his account, and hardly know how to act. Several years before he came to Huddersfield some of our preachers went thither, carrying their lives in their hands, and with great difficulty established a little, earnest Society. These eagerly desire them to preach there still; not in opposition to Mr. Venn (whom they love, esteem, and constantly attend), but to supply what they do not find in his preaching. It is a tender point. Where there is a gospel ministry already, we do not desire to preach; but whether we can leave off preaching because such an one comes after is another question, especially when those who were awakened and convinced by us beg and require the continuance of our assistance. I love peace, and follow it; but whether I am at liberty to purchase it at such price I really cannot tell. I hear poor Mr. Walker is near death. [Samuel Walker, of Truro. He died at Blackheath on the 19th.] It seems strange that, when there is so great a want of faithful labourers, such as him should be removed; but the will of God is always best, and what He does we shall know hereafter! I have been for some days with Mr. Grimshaw, an Israelite indeed. A few such as him would make a nation tremble. He carries fire wherever he goes. Mr. Venn informs me that Mr. Whitefield continues very weak. [Whitefield took a serious cold in Bristol, and was laid aside in March and April. He was an invalid for twelve months, and obliged with a few exceptions to refrain from preaching. See Tyerman’s Whitefield, ii. 441-3.] I was in hope, when he wrote to me lately, that he was swiftly recovering strength. Perhaps, sir, you can send me better news concerning him. What need have we, while we do live, to live in earnest!--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. If you have not a mind for me to write again, you must not write yourself. For about a fortnight I shall be at or near Leeds. To Ebenezer Blackwell NORWICH, August 15, 1761. DEAR SIR,--As you are encompassed with a thousand temptations, and some of them of the most dangerous kind, it is an unspeakable blessing that you still continue with your face heavenward. And if you have resolution to break through a thousand hindrances and allow some time every day for private prayer, I doubt not but you will receive every gospel blessing in this world and in the world to come. Mr. Venn [See previous letter, and that of June 22, 1763. Venn was present at the Conference in Leeds on Aug. 10, 1762.] and I have had some hours’ conversation together, and have explained upon every article. I believe there is no bone of contention remaining, no matter of offence, great or small. Indeed, fresh matter will arise if it be sought; but it shall not be sought by me. We have amicably compromised the affair of preaching. He is well pleased that the preachers should come once a month. That story was one of those which we cleared up. But Mr. Oddie [James Oddie, one of Wesley’s ablest and most judicious preachers. He entered into trade at Yarm, and married, as his second wife, Mrs. Colbeck, of Keighley, from whom he was separated in 1785. For a short time he preached at Dewsbury in connexion with John Atlay. see Journal, iv. 531; Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 298-300; and letter of Feb. 13, 1762.] (the person of whom it was told) will be in town next week, and can himself give you full satisfaction concerning it. On this day se’nnight I hope to be in town, and tomorrow se’nnight at West Street Chapel. With sincere love to Mrs. Blackwell and Mrs. Dewal, I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. I thank you for sending me the letters. To his Brother Charles LONDON, September 8, 1761. DEAR BROTHER,--Our Conference [The Conference in London began on Tuesday, Sept. 1, and closed on Saturday.] ended, as it began, in peace and love. All found it a blessed time: Excepto, quod non simul esses, caetera laeti. [Horace’s Epistles, 1. x. 50: ’Our minds with this exception gay, That you, our friend, were far away.’] The Minutes John Jones can help you to, who sets out hence in two or three days. The right hand of the Lord bringeth mighty things to pass. Not the least of them is that my wife cordially loves T. Maxfield. Why should not Bath be supplied from Bristol? Order it so. I have no objection. They will by that means often have a more able preacher than they would otherwise have. If he does not linger by the way, a preacher may be at Bristol on Thursday night. I do not at all think (to tell you a secret) that the work will ever be destroyed, Church or no Church. What has been done to prevent the Methodists leaving the Church you will see in the Minutes of the Conference. I told you before, with regard to Norwich, dixi. I have done at the last Conference all I can or dare do. Allow me liberty of conscience, as I allow you. On Monday se’nnight I hope to set out for Bristol. My love to Sally. Adieu! I know not what you will do with an exceeding honest mad woman, Mrs. Greer, of Newry, in Ireland, who, I hear, is embarking for Bristol. She comes without her husband’s consent. P. Jaco desires to take a journey to Canterbury before he returns to Bristol. I doubt not the Moravians will be courteous. And I fear that is all. Pray tell Brother Sheen [See letter of Dec. 26 to Charles Wesley.] I am satisfied with his letter. He may stay at Bristol till I come. And be so kind as to tell Isaac I approve of his reasons, and think he ought to go home; but have the Stewards found one fit to succeed him? To Samuel Furly LONDON, September 8, 1761. DEAR SAMMY,--I hope we have effectually provided against that evil disease the scribendi cacoethes in our preachers, as we have agreed that none shall publish anything for the time to come till he has first submitted it to the judgement of his brethren met in Conference. That is really a fine passage which you cite from Mr. Ridley. He is an excellent writer. I have often seen that text cleared up before, but never in so convincing a manner. What all our brethren think concerning that circumstance of entire sanctification--that it is instantaneous, although a gradual growth in grace both precede and follow it, you may see in the Minutes of the Conference, wherein it was freely debated. Any of the good old Puritans would have been no less amazed had they come into one of our congregations and heard us declare that God willeth every man without exception to be saved. O Sammy, shake off the disputandi cacoethes, and be a quiet, simple, loving Christian!--I am, with love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. You seem to fear receiving any hurt from Mr. Venn. Therefore I fear he does hurt you. To the Rev. Mr. Furly, At Kippax, Near Ferry Bridge, Yorks. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, September 8, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If local preachers who differ from us will keep their opinions to themselves, then they may preach in our Societies; otherwise they must not. And upon this condition we are all willing to receive William Darney into connexion with us. The sooner you set out for Whitehaven the better. The Society there need not be frightened at a married preacher, considering we have paid forty pounds of their debt out of the collection. And if the expense for wives be too heavy, I will help them out. Do all you can to propagate the books in that circuit and to fulfil the office of an Assistant.--I am, with love to Sister Lowes, Your affectionate friend and brother. [See letters of March 6, 1759 (to him), and Oct. 30, 1761.] Mr. Lowes, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Grace Walton LONDON, September 8, 1761. SISTER,--If a few more persons come in when you are meeting, either enlarge four or five minutes on the question you had, with a short exhortation (perhaps for five or six minutes, sing and pray). [See letters of Feb. 14, 1761, and March 18, 1769.] I think, and always, its meaning is this: ’I suffer not a woman to teach in a congregation, nor thereby to assert authority over the man . . . God has invested with this prerogative; whereas teaching . I ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity: Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you would never finally perish? Have you a witness that sin shall never enter more? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what meaning? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are living? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am Your affectionate brother. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, October 30, 1761. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The thing is settled. Thomas Newall [Thomas Newall became a preacher in 1761, and retired in 1780 .] is to labour with you in the Whitehaven Circuit, and see that you break up fresh ground. In the meantime William Darney is to divide the Allendale Circuit with T. Hanby. [Thomas Hanby, born in Carlisle in 1733; President in 1794. Wesley ordained him on Aug. 1, 1785, with John Pawson and Joseph Taylor, ’three of our well-tried preachers,’ to minister in Scotland. See Wesley’s Veterans, ii. 51-77.] As to maintenance, first let the Society do what they can. And they have good encouragement. Secondly, at Christmas I will make up what is wanting to you and Sister Lowes. ’Dwell in the land, and be doing good, and verily thou shalt be fed.’--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. [See letters of Sept. 8, 1761, and Jan. 25, 1762, to him.] See that you perform the whole office of an Assistant. To Mrs. Ryan LONDON, November 12, 1761. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your letter gave me much satisfaction. You answer me simply and clearly. So much the rather I will ask you some more questions, which you may answer as soon as you have opportunity. [See letter of Nov. 4, 1758, to her.] Had you then, or have you had since, a witness that you should never finally perish? Have you a witness that you shall no more offend God? If so, what need have you to watch against sin! Do you ever use self-examination? At what times or in what manner? Do you always see God? Does no cloud ever interpose? Are you as sure you see Him as that you are alive? Does nothing ever dim your sight of God? Have you an experimental proof of the ever-blessed Trinity? Is your mind always stayed on God? Do your thoughts never wander from Him in prayer, in business, or in travelling? What are you looking for now?--I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, December 26, 1761. DEAR BROTHER,--Spend as many hours in the congregation as you will or can. But exercise alone will strengthen your lungs. Or electrifying, which I wonder you did not try long ago. Never start at its being a quack medicine. I desire no other, particularly since I was so nearly murdered by being cured of my ague secundum artem. You should always (and I hope you do) write standing and sloping. We are always in danger of enthusiasm, but I think no more now than any time these twenty years. The word of God runs indeed, and loving faith spreads on every side. Don’t take my word or any one’s else, but come and see. ’Tis good to be in London now. It is impossible for me to correct my own books. I sometimes think it strange that I have not one preacher that will and can. I think every one of them owes me so much service. Is it right that my sister Patty should suffer Mr. Hall to live with her? I almost scruple giving her the sacrament, seeing he does not even pretend to renounce Betty Rogers. [Mrs. Hall. Westley Hall died in 1776. Betty Rogers seems to be the young seamstress by whom he had an illegitimate child. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, pp. 370-3; and letter of June 14.] Was it right for W. Baynes [William Baynes had been a preacher (1749-56), and was a master at Kingswood School at the time of the fire in 1757. See Journal, iv. 242, vi. 177-8; C. Wesley’s Journal, I;. 256.] to carry on his affair with Sammy Whittaker without consulting either you or me? Pray tell Brother Sheen I am hugely displeased at his reprinting the Nativity hymns [Hymns for the Nativity of our Lord, sixth edition, was printed in Bristol in 1761. Sheen was probably a master at Kingswood, as Charles Wesley wants him to be told there was ’a hue and cry’ in London because parents had not been informed of the safe arrival of their boys at school (about 1757). See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 266; and letter of Sept. 8 to him.] and omitting the very best hymn in the collection, ’All glory to God in the sky, &c.’ I beg they may never more be printed without it. Omit one or two, and I will thank you. They are namby-pambical. I wish you would give us two or three invitatory hymns. We want such exceedingly. My love to Sally. My wife gains ground. Adieu! To Elizabeth Hardy LONDON, December 26, 1761. DEAR SISTER,--The path of controversy is a rough path. But it seems smoother while I am walking with you; so that I could follow you through all its windings, only my time will not permit. The plain fact is this: I know many who love God with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength. He is their one desire, their one delight, and they are continually happy in Him. They love their neighbour as themselves. They feel as sincere, fervent, constant a desire for the happiness of every man, good or bad, friend or enemy, as for their own. They ’rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks.’ Their souls are continually streaming up to God in holy joy, prayer, and praise. This is plain, sound, scriptural experience; and of this we have more and more living witnesses. But these souls dwell in a shattered, corruptible body, and are so pressed down thereby that they cannot exert their love as they would by always thinking, speaking, and acting precisely right. For want of better bodily organs, they sometimes inevitably think, speak, or act wrong. Yet I think they need the advocacy of Christ, even for these involuntary defects; although they do not imply a defect of love, but of understanding. However that be, I cannot doubt the fact. They are all love; yet they cannot walk as they desire. ’But are they all love while they grieve the Holy Spirit?’ No, surely; they are then fallen from their steadfastness; and this they may do even after they are sealed. So that, even to such, strong cautions are needful. After the heart is cleansed from pride, anger, and desire, it may suffer them to re-enter; therefore I have long thought some expressions in the Hymns are abundantly too strong, as I cannot perceive any state mentioned in Scripture from which we may not, in a measure at least, fall. Persons who talked of being emptied before they were filled were for some time a great stumbling-block to me too; but I have since considered it thus: The great point in question is, Can we be saved from all sin or not? Now, it may please God to act in that uncommon manner, purposely to clear this point--to satisfy those persons that they are saved from all sin before He goes on in His work. Forgive me, dear Miss Hardy, that I do but just touch upon the heads of your letter. Indeed, this defect does not spring from the want of love, but only from want of time. I should not wonder if your soul was one of the next that was filled with pure love. Receive it freely, thou poor bruised reed! It is able to make thee stand.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 53: 51. 1762 ======================================================================== 1762 To Christopher Hopper NORWICH, January 18, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Public affairs do look exceeding dark, and the clouds gather more and more. [See letter of March 1 to him.] Yet the Lord sitteth above the water-floods, and remaineth a King for ever. And He (whatever be the lot of His enemies) shall give His people the blessing of peace. If you do not establish good order in the Orphan House, it is pity you should go there. This is the very design of your Master; for this end are you sent. Do just as I would do in every instance if I were in your place. Act just the thing that is right, whoever is pleased or displeased. I hereby give it under my hand I will stand by you with all my might. I am glad you have had a free conversation with T. Olivers. [See letter of March 24, 1761.] There is good in him, though he is a rough stick of wood. But love can bow down the stubborn neck. By faith and love we shall overcome all things. Peace be with you and yours.--I am Your ever affectionate brother. I set out for London to-morrow. To Samuel Furly LONDON, January 25, 1762. DEAR SAMMY,--But that I have pretty near attained to the happiness nil admirari, I should have a little wondered at your long silence. But it is not strange, if ’Time changes Thought,’ and it would not surprise me much, if in a year or two more, you should wonder at the strange man’s face as one you ne’er had known. If you entangled yourself with no kind of promise to the Archbishop, I doubt not but your ordination will prove a blessing. [Wesley hoped to get him ordained as Fletcher’s curate. See letter of Dec. 9, 1760.] The care of a parish is indeed a weighty thing, which calls for much and earnest prayer. In managing it you must needs follow your own conscience, whoever is pleased or displeased. Then, whether your success be less or more, you will by-and-by give up your account with joy. I myself hear frequently unscriptural as well as irrational expressions from those at whose feet I shall rejoice to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus; but blasphemy I never heard from one of them, either teacher or hearer. What is wide of Scripture or reason I mildly reprove; and they usually receive it in love. Generally they are convinced; when I cannot convince, I can bear them, yea, and rejoice at the grace of God which is in them. Sammy, beware of the impetuosity of your temper! It may easily lead you awry. It may make you evil affected to the excellent ones of the earth. Don’t expect propriety of speech from uneducated persons. The longer I live the larger allowances I make for human infirmities. I exact more from myself and less from others. [A beautiful sign of mellowing character.] Go thou and do likewise!-- I am, with love to Nancy, Your ever affectionate friend and brother. Take nothing, absolutely nothing, at second hand. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, January 25, 1762. DEAR MATTHEW,--I ordered Mr. Franks [His Book Steward. See letter of Nov. 6, 1773.] to pay the £8 bill to-day, which is £4 more than I had in my hands. What we shall do for money till the next Conference I do not know. But the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. You do well to be exact in discipline. Disorderly walkers will give us neither credit nor strength. Let us have just as many members as walk by one rule. I will beg or borrow from William Newall [See letters of Oct. 30, 1761, and Feb.13, 1762.]--anything but steal. My wife joins in love to you and yours.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss J. C. March LONDON, January 30, 1762. When you was justified, you had a direct witness that your sins were forgiven; afterward this witness was frequently intermitted, and yet you did not doubt of it. In like manner, you have had a direct witness that you are saved from sin; and this witness is frequently intermitted, and yet even then you do not doubt of it. But I much doubt if God withdraws either the one witness or the other without some occasion given on our part. I never knew any one receive the abiding witness gradually; therefore I incline to think this also is given in a moment. But there will be still after this abundant room for a gradual growth in grace. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, February 13, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Order concerning Brother Newall as you see good. If he is not wanted in the Manchester Round, I believe he would be welcome in James Oddie’s. [See letters of Aug. 15, 1761, and of Jan. 25, 1762 (to Lowes).] You must not be surprised if there is a deadness in many places during the winter season. But the spring will return. Fear nothing. Hope belongs to us. Fight on, and conquer.-- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, February 20, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--By all means go into Sussex again. And you may continue in that circuit till another preacher comes. I trust God has sent you thither for the good of others and of your own soul. Be exact in observing and in enforcing all the Rules of our Society. Then you will see more and more fruit of your labour.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Henry Brooke LONDON, March 1, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear that you continue in the good way. Never leave off a duty because you are tempted in it. You may be more tempted than usual on fasting days; and yet you may receive a blessing thereby. I expect to be either in Dublin or Cork about the end of this month. I have not, since I have been in London, heard anything of Tommy Bethel. [The Diary for Oct. 15, 1785, has: ’1 dinner, conversed, prayer, Mr. Bethell.’] I believe the letters are safely delivered.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, March I, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Public commotions fill the minds and hands of those who might otherwise employ themselves in hindering the course of the gospel. And probably they are of great use to give more seriousness and thoughtfulness to a young and inexperienced Prince. [See letter of Jan. 18.] I am glad you are in the Orphan House, were it only that you may drop a word in season to T. Olivers. This day fortnight I am to set out for Ireland. When will you set out for Scotland They want you sadly at Aberdeen. Shall I send you two or three guineas for your journey James Kershaw [See letter of Feb. 17, 1759.] may spend a month or two in Newcastle Circuit to supply your place. I think it is of importance. Much good may be done, by you in particular. We join in love to you all.--I am Ever yours. To Dr. Horne LEWISHAM, March 10, 1762. REVEREND SIR,--When you spoke of ’heresies making their periodical revolutions,’ of ’Antinomianism rampant among us,’ and immediately after of ’the new lights at the Tabernacle and Foundery,’ must not your hearers naturally think that Mr. Whitefield and I were reviving those heresies But do you know the persons of whom you speak Have you ever conversed with them Have you read their writings If not, is it kind, is it just, to pass so severe a censure upon them Had you only taken the trouble of reading one tract, the Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, you would have seen that a great part of what you affirm is what I never denied. To put this beyond dispute, I beg leave to transcribe some passages from that treatise; which will show not only what I teach now, but what I have taught for many years. I will afterward simply and plainly declare wherein I as yet differ from you; and the rather that, if I err therein, you may by God’s assistance convince me of it. I. 1. ’Justification sometimes means our acquittal at the last day (Matt. xii. 37). But this is altogether out of the present question; that justification whereof our Articles and Homilies speak meaning present forgiveness, pardon of sins, and consequently acceptance with God, who therein "declares His righteousness," or mercy, by or "for the remission of the sins that are past," saying, "I will be merciful to thy unrighteousness, and shine iniquities I will remember no more" (Rom. iii. 25; Heb. viii. 12). ’I believe the condition of this is faith (Rom. iv. 5, &c.): I mean, not only that without faith we cannot be justified, but also that, as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified. ’Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it (Luke vi. 43); much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works springing from holiness of heart. But it is allowed that entire sanctification goes before our justification at the last day (Heb. xii. 14). ’It is allowed also that repentance and "fruits meet for repentance" go before faith (Mark i. 15; Matt. iii. 8). Repentance absolutely must go before faith; fruits meet for it, if there be opportunity. By repentance I mean conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment; and by "fruits meet for repentance," forgiving our brother (Matt. vi. 14-15), ceasing from evil, doing good (Luke iii. 8-9, &c.), using the ordinances of God, and in general obeying Him according to the measure of grace which we have received (Matt. vii. 7, xxv. 29). But these I cannot as yet term good works, because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.’[A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Part I. See Works, viii. 46-7.] 2. ’Faith alone is the proximate condition of present justification.’ II. 1. I have shown here at large what is the doctrine I teach with regard to justification, and have taught ever since I was convinced of it myself by carefully reading the New Testament and the Homilies. In many points I apprehend it agrees with yours: in some it does not; these I come now to consider. May God enable me to do it in love and meekness of wisdom! You say: ’Happy times when faith and a good life were synonymous terms!’ (page 7). I conceive they never were. Is not faith the root, a good life the tree springing therefrom ’That good works are a necessary condition of our justification may be proved, first, from express testimonies of Scripture. So Isaiah i. 16-17: "Cease from evil, learn to do well." Then "your sins that were as scarlet shall be white as snow." Here ceasing from evil and learning to do well are the conditions of pardon.’ I answer: Without them there is no pardon; yet the immediate condition of it is faith. He that believeth, and he alone, is justified before God. ’So Ezekiel xxxiii. 14-16: If the sinner "turn from his evil ways" and "walk in the statutes of life," then "all his sins shall not be once mentioned to him."’ Most sure--that is, if he believe; else, whatever his outward walking be, he cannot be justified. The next scripture you cite, Matthew xi. 28 (Sermon, p. 10), proves no more than this--that none find ’rest to their souls’ unless they first come to Christ (namely, by faith) and then obey Him. But ’He says, "Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."’ He does so; but how does it appear that this relates to justification at all ’St. Peter also declares, "In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him" (Acts x. 35).’ He is; but none can either fear God or work righteousness till he believes according to the dispensation he is under. ’And St. John: "He that doeth righteousness is righteous."’ I do not see that this proves anything. ’And again: "If we walk in the light, as God is in the light, then have we communion with Him, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John i. 7).’ This would prove something, if it could be proved that ’cleansing us from all sin’ meant only justification. ’The Scriptures insist upon the necessity of repentance in particular for that purpose. But repentance comprehends compunction, humiliation, hatred of sin, confession of it, prayer for mercy, ceasing from evil, a firm purpose to do well, restitution of ill-got goods, forgiveness of all who have done us wrong, and works of beneficence.’ (Pages 11-12.) I believe it does comprehend all these, either as parts or as fruits of it and it comprehends ’the fear’ but not ’the love of God’ that flows from an higher principle. And he who loves God is not barely in the right way to justification: he is actually justified. The rest of the paragraph asserts just the same thing which was asserted in those words: ’Previous to justifying faith must be repentance, and, if opportunity permits, "fruits meet for repentance."’ But still I must observe that ’neither the one nor the other is necessary either in the same sense or in the same degree with faith.’ No scripture testimony can be produced which any way contradicts this. 2. ’That works are a necessary condition of our justification may be proved, secondly, from scripture examples; particularly those recited in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. These all ’through faith wrought righteousness: without working righteousness, they had never obtained the promises.’ (Page 13.) I say the same thing: none are finally saved but those whose faith ’worketh by love.’ ’Even in the thief upon the cross faith was attended by repentance, piety, and charity.’ It was: repentance went before his faith; piety and charity accompanied it. ’Therefore he was not justified by faith alone.’ Our Church, adopting the words of St. Chrysostom, expressly affirms in the passage above cited he was justified by faith alone. And her authority ought to weigh more than even that of Bishop Bull, or of any single man whatever. Authority, be pleased to observe, I plead against authority, reason against reason. It is no objection that the faith whereby he was justified immediately produced good works. 3. How we are justified by faith alone, and yet by such a faith as is not alone, it may be proper to explain. And this also I choose to do, not in my own words, but in those of our Church: ’Faith does not shut out repentance, hope, love, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together. Neither doth faith shut out good works, necessarily to be done afterwards, of duty towards God. That we are justified only by this faith in Christ speak all the ancient authors; specially Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, Hilary, Basil, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine.’ (Homily on the Salvation of Man.) 4. You go on: ’Thirdly, if we consider the nature of faith, it will appear impossible that a man should be justified by that alone. Faith is either an assent to the gospel truths or a reliance on the gospel promises. I know of no other notion of faith.’ (Sermon, p. 15.) I do;--an elegcos of things not seen; which is far more than a bare assent, and yet toto genere different from a reliance. Therefore, if you prove that neither an assent nor a reliance justifies, nor both of them together, still you do not prove that we are not justified by faith, even by faith alone. But how do you prove that we cannot be justified by faith as a reliance on the promises Thus: ’Such a reliance must be founded on a consciousness of having performed the conditions. And a reliance so founded is the result of works wrought through faith.’ No: of works wrought without faith; else the argument implies a contradiction. For it runs thus (on the supposition that faith and reliance were synonymous terms): Such a reliance is the result of works wrought through such a reliance. 5. Your fourth argument against justification by faith alone is drawn from the nature of justification. This, you observe, ’implies a prisoner at the bar, and a law by which he is to be tried; and this is not the law of Moses, but that of Christ, requiring repentance and faith, with their proper fruits’ (page 16); which now through the blood of Christ are accepted and ’counted for righteousness.’ St. Paul affirms this concerning faith, in the 4th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But where does he say that either repentance or its fruits are counted for righteousness Nevertheless I allow that the law of Christ requires such repentance and faith before justification as, if there be opportunity, will bring forth the ’fruits of righteousness.’ But if there be not, he that repents and believes is justified notwithstanding. Consequently these alone are necessary, indispensably necessary, conditions of our justification. 6. Your last argument against justification by faith alone ’is drawn from the method of God’s proceeding at the last day. He will then judge every man "according to his works." If, therefore, works wrought through faith are the ground of the sentence passed upon us in that day, then are they a necessary condition of our justification’ (page 19): in other words, ’if they are a condition of our final, they are a condition of our present, justification.’ I cannot allow the consequence. All holiness must precede our entering into glory. But no holiness can exist till, ’being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 7. You next attempt to reconcile the writings of St. Paul with justification by works. In order to this you say: ’In the first three chapters of his Epistle to the Romans he proves that both Jews and Gentiles must have recourse to the gospel of Christ. To this end he convicts the whole world of sin; and having stopped every mouth, he makes his inference, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. We conclude," then, says he, "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." But here arise two questions: first, What are the works excluded from justifying secondly, What is the faith which justifies’ (Pages 20-2.) ’The works excluded are heathen and Jewish works set up as meritorious. This is evident from hence--that heathens and carnal Jews are the persons against whom he is arguing.’ Not so: he is arguing against all mankind; he is convicting the whole world of sin. His concern is to stop ’every mouth’ by proving that ’no flesh,’ none born of a woman, no child of man, can be justified by his own works. Consequently he speaks of all the works of all mankind antecedent to justification, whether Jewish or any other, whether supposed meritorious or not, of which the text says not one word. Therefore all works antecedent to justification are excluded, and faith is set in flat opposition to them. ’Unto him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.’ ’But what is the faith to which he attributes justification That "which worketh by love"; which is the same with the "new creature," and implies in it the keeping the commandments of God.’ It is undoubtedly true that nothing avails for our final salvation without kainh ktisis ’a new creation,’ and, consequent thereon, a sincere, uniform keeping of the commandments of God. This St. Paul constantly declares. But where does he say this is the condition of our justification In the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians particularly he vehemently asserts the contrary, earnestly maintaining that nothing is absolutely necessary to this but ’believing in Him that justifieth the ungodly’--not the godly, not him that is already a ’new creature,’ that previously keeps all the commandments of God. He does this afterward: when he is justified by faith, then his faith ’worketh by love.’ ’Therefore there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,’ justified by faith in Him, provided they ’walk in Him whom they have received, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’ (page 23). But, should they turn back and walk again after the flesh, they would again be under condemnation. But this no way proves that ’walking after the Spirit’ was the condition of their justification. Neither will anything like this follow from the Apostle’s saying to the Corinthians, ’Though I had all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.’ This only proves that miracle-working faith may be where saving faith is not. 8. To the argument, ’St. Paul says "Abraham was justified by faith,"’ you answer, ’St. James says "Abraham was justified by works"’ (page 24). True; but he neither speaks of the same justification, nor the same faith, nor the same works. Not of the same justification: for St. Paul speaks of that justification which was five-and-twenty years before Isaac was born (Genesis); St. James of that wherewith he was justified when he offered up Isaac on the altar. It is living faith whereby St. Paul affirms we are justified; it is dead faith whereby St. James affirms we are not justified. St. Paul speaks of works antecedent to justification; St. James of works consequent upon it. This is the plain, easy, natural way of reconciling the two Apostles. The fact was manifestly this: (1) When Abraham dwelt in Haran, being then seventy-five years old, God called him thence: he ’believed God,’ and He ’counted it to him for righteousness’--that is, he ’was justified by faith,’ as St. Paul strenuously asserts. (2) Many years after Isaac was born (some of the ancients thought three-and-thirty) Abraham, showing his faith by his works, offered him up upon the altar. (3) Here the ’faith’ by which, in St. Paul’s sense, he was justified long before, ’wrought together with his works’; and he was justified in St. James’s sense--that is (as the Apostle explains his own meaning), ’by works his faith was made perfect.’ God confirmed, increased, and perfected the principle from which those works sprang. 9. Drawing to a conclusion, you say: ’What pity so many volumes should have been written upon the question whether a man be justified by faith or works, seeing they are two essential parts of the same thing!’ (page 25). If by works you understand inward and outward holiness, both faith and works are essential parts of Christianity: and yet they are essentially different, and by God Himself contradistinguished from each other; and that in the very question before us-- ’Him that worketh not, but believeth.’ Therefore whether a man be justified by faith or works is a point of the last importance; otherwise our Reformers could not have answered to God their spending so much time upon it. Indeed, they were both too wise and too good men to have wrote so many volumes on a trifling or needless question. 10. If in speaking on this important point (such at least it appears to me) I have said anything offensive, any that implies the least degree of anger or disrespect, it was entirely foreign to my intention; nor, indeed, have I any provocation: I have no room to be angry at your maintaining what you believe to be the truth of the gospel; even though I might wish you had omitted a few expressions, Quas aut incuria fudit, Aut humana parum cavit natura. [Horace’s Ars Poetica, 11. 352-3: ’Such as escaped my notice, or such as may be placed to the account of human infirmity.’] In the general, from all I have heard concerning you, I cannot but very highly esteem you in love. And that God may give you both ’a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort,’ is the prayer of, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, March 11, 1762. DEAR MATTHEW,--I have enclosed that part of the Minutes of the Conference which relates to discipline. On the other paper (which you may read in every Society just before you visit the classes) you will see the design of the General Yearly Collection, [See Works, viii. 335-6.] to which every Methodist in England is to contribute something. If there is any who cannot give an halfpenny in a year, another will give it for him. The Society here has subscribed near £300. Your affectionate friend and brother. [For letter to S. Furly, March 20, see end of vol. viii.] To Thomas Rankin BRISTOL, March 20, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You should act as an Assistant in Sussex. Therefore see that our Rules be everywhere observed; and spread our books wherever you go, particularly Kempis, Primitive Physick, and Instructions for Children. [See letters of Feb. 20, 1762, and Sept. 21, 1764.] Before eight weeks are ended the Societies will be able to secure you an horse. O be simple! Be a little child before God!--I am Your affectionate brother. Read and pray much. To Mr. Thomas Rankin, At Mr. Barker’s, In Sevenoaks, Kent. To Miss March ATHLONE, May 13, 1762. You did well to write. ’It is good to hide the secrets of a king, but to declare the loving-kindness of the Lord.’ [See Tobit xii. 7.] Have you never found any wandering since Is your mind always stayed on God Do you find every thought brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ Do no vain thoughts (useless, trifling, unedifying) lodge within you Does not the corruptible body at some times more or less press down the soul Has God made your very dreams devout I have known Satan assault in their sleep (endeavouring to terrify or affright) those whom he could not touch when they were awake. As to your band, there are two sorts of persons with whom you may have to do--the earnest and the slack: the way you are to take with the one is quite different from that one would take with the other. The latter you must search, and find out why they are slack; exhort them to repent, be zealous, do the first works. The former you have only to encourage, to exhort to push forward to the mark, to bid them grasp the prize so nigh! And do so yourself. Receive a thousand more blessings; believe more, love more: you cannot love enough. Beware of sins of omission. So shall you fulfil the joy of Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly May 21, 1762. DEAR SAMMY,--This morning I came hither, and received yours. The post-boys in Ireland do not ride Pegasus. A sermon of Ab. Sharp’s [John Sharp, Archbishop of York sermon on Rom. xiv. I 7, preached on Aug. 23, 1674, before the Lord Mayor in the Guildhall Chapel: ’Another thing that would make for peace is this--never to charge upon men the consequences of their opinions when they expressly disown them.’] fully convinced me about thirty years ago that it is inconsistent with charity to charge any man with those consequences of his doctrine which he disavows. I always did so before, but not since. Otherwise what work should I make with poor George Whitefield. Another thing I was not so soon nor so easily convinced of, namely, that in spite of all my logic I cannot so prove any one point in the whole compass of Philosophy or Divinity as not to leave room for strong objections, and probably such as I could not answer. But if I could, my answer, however guarded, will give room to equally strong objections. And in this manner, if the person is a man of sense, answers and objections may go on in infinitum. I am therefore weary of altercation. Once or twice I give my reasons. If they do not convince, I have done. My day is far spent, so that I have no hours to spare for what I verily believe will profit nothing. As to that particular expression, ’Dying at the feet of mercy,’ I have only farther to add, I do not care, as it is not a scriptural phrase, whether any one takes or leaves it. It is enough for me if he says from the heart Every moment, Lord, I need, The merit of Thy death; Never shall I want it less When Thou the grace hast given, Filled me with Thy holiness And sealed the heir of heaven. I shall hang upon my God, Till I Thy perfect glory see, Till the sprinkling of Thy blood Shall speak me up to Thee. I wish Mr. Venn may have more and more success. Has he published his book concerning gospel ministers I still think it is not prudence, but high imprudence, for any of those who preach the essential gospel truths to stand aloof from each other. I cannot but judge there ought to be the most cordial and avowed union between them. But I rejoice that the shyness is not, and never was, on my side. I have done all I could; and with a single eye. For as long as God is pleased to continue with me, I want no man living. I have all things and abound. How happy is the man that trusts in Him! I expect our Conference will begin at Leeds on Tuesday the 10th of August. Peace be with you and yours!--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Furly, At Slaithwaite, Near Huddersfield, Yorks. To Jenny Lee LIMERICK, June 7, 1762. MY DEAR SISTER,--You did well to write freely. The more largely you write the more welcome your letters will be; and your soul is now so feeble and tender that it needs every help. It is certain that God has made bare His arm and wrought a great deliverance for you. He has more fully revealed His Son in you. He has purified your heart. He has saved you from pride, anger, desire. Yea, the Son has made you free, and you are free indeed. Stand fast, then, my dear friend, in this glorious liberty. Stand fast by simple faith! Look unto Jesus! Trust Him, praise Him for ever. Lean upon Him alone! And be not careful about this or that name for the blessing you have received. Do not reason one moment what to call it, whether perfection or anything else. You have faith: hold it fast. You have love: let it not go. Above all, you have Christ! Christ is yours! He is your Lord, your love, your all! Let Him be your portion in time and in eternity! Send word just how you are in every particular to Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper CORK, June 18, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--So your labour has not been in vain. I shall expect an account of the remaining part of your journey too. And you will be able to inform me of the real character and behaviour of Robert Miller also. I do not rightly understand him. But I see James Kershaw and he do not admire one another. Pray let me know as particularly as you can how William Fugill [Fugill, a native of Rothwell, near Leeds, was at first useful and acceptable; but he fell into ’some grievous sins,’ and was excluded in 1764. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 147-8.] has behaved in Scotland, and what has hindered the increase of the work at Edinburgh. I thought the Society would have been doubled before now. I expect to be in Dublin on Saturday, July 24. Then Providence will determine how I shall go forward, and whether I am to embark for Parkgate, Liverpool, or Holyhead in my way to Leeds, where I hope to meet you all on August 10. [Hopper was appointed to the Leeds Circuit at this Conference.]--I am Yours affectionately. I hope you will all exert yourselves in the Midsummer Collection for Kingswood. To Jenny Lee CORK, June 18, 1762. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is observed in Mr. De Renty’s Life that God Himself does often give desires that He will not suffer to take effect. Such probably may be your desire of death. God may make it a blessing to you, though He does not intend to fulfil it soon. But He will withhold no manner of thing that is good. Do you now find a witness in yourself that you are saved from sin Do you see God always and always feel His love and in everything give thanks My dear Jenny, you shall see greater things than these! The Lord is your Shepherd; therefore can you lack nothing. O cleave close to Him I Christ is yours! All is yours! Trust Him, praise Him evermore. Pray for Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell DUBLIN, July 28, 1762. DEAR SIR,--It was seven or eight weeks before I could prevail upon any of our brethren in England to let me know whether ’Mr. Blackwell, an eminent banker, died at his house in Lewisham or not.’ John Maddern was the first who occasionally told me he was alive. Now, a messenger of good news should be rewarded. But what can be done for this poor man, in truth I cannot tell. He hinted at a distance as if he would be much obliged if I would be bound for his behaviour. But how could I be bound for a thousand pounds who am not worth a groat I could not, therefore, but advise him to give up the thought of being in a banker’s shop; as I see no manner of probability of his procuring such sureties as are requisite. Indeed, I heartily wish he was in any way of business, as he is capable of almost anything. The people in this kingdom have been frightened sufficiently by the sickness and by the Levellers, whose design undoubtedly was deep-laid, and extended to the whole kingdom. But they broke out too soon: nothing should have appeared till a French or Spanish squadron came. The nation is not now in the same state as it was in 1641. Then there were not four thousand soldiers in the kingdom: now there are near twenty thousand. I hope you and yours have escaped the general disorder or have found it a blessing. It little matters whether we escape pain or suffer it, so it be but sanctified. Without some suffering we should scarce remember that we are not proprietors here, but only tenants at will, liable to lose all we have at a moment’s warning. Happy it were if we continually retained a lively impression of this on our minds; then should we more earnestly seek that portion which shall never be taken from us. In two or three days I am likely to embark in order to meet our brethren at Leeds. There I hope to have it under your own hand that both you, Mrs. Blackwell, Mrs. Dewal, and Miss Freeman are alive in the best sense.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Samuel Furly DUBLIN, July 30, 1762. DEAR SAMMY,--’If I am unanswered, then I am unanswerable.’ Who can deny the consequence By such an argument you carry all before you and gain a complete victory. You put me in mind of the honest man who cried out while I was preaching, ’Quid est tibi nomen’ and, upon my giving no answer, called out vehemently, ’I told you he did not understand Latin!’ I do sometimes understand, though I do not answer. This is often the case between you and me. You love dispute, and I hate it. [See letter of Sept. 15 to him.] You have much time, and I have much work. Non sumus ergo pares. But if you will dispute the point with Nicholas Norton, he is your match. He has both leisure and love for the work. For me, I shall only once more state the case. Here are forty or fifty people who declare (and I can take their word, for I know them well), each for himself, ’God has enabled me to rejoice evermore, and to pray and give thanks without ceasing. He has enabled me to give Him all my heart, which I believe He has cleansed from all sin. I feel no pride, no anger, no desire, no unbelief, but pure love alone.’ I ask, ’Do you, then, believe you have no farther need of Christ or His atoning blood’ Every one answers, ’I never felt my want of Christ so deeply and strongly as I do now. I feel the want of Christ my Priest as well as King, and receive all I have in and through Him. Every moment I want the merit of His death, and I have it every moment.’ But you think, ’They cannot want the merit of His death if they are saved from sin.’ They think otherwise. They know and feel the contrary, whether they can explain it or no. There is not one, either in this city or in this kingdom, who does not agree in this. Here is a plain fact. You may dispute, reason, cavil about it, just as long as you please. Meantime I know by all manner of proof that these are the happiest and the holiest people in the kingdom. Their light shines before men. They are zealous of good works, and labour to abstain from all appearance of evil. They have the mind that was in Christ, and walk as Christ also walked. And shall I cease to rejoice over these holy, happy men because they mistake in their judgement If they do, I would to God you and I and all mankind were under the same mistake; provided we had the same faith, the same love, and the same inward and outward holiness!--I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. Will not you meet us at Leeds on the 10th of August [The Conference met there on that date.] To his Brother Charles [September 1762.] Some thoughts occurred to my mind this morning, which I believe it may be useful to set down, the rather because it may be a means of our understanding each other clearly, that we may agree as far as ever we can and then let all the world know it. I was thinking on Christian perfection, with regard to the thing, the manner, and the time. 1. By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man ruling all the tempers, words, and actions, the whole heart and the whole life. I do not include a possibility of falling from it, either in part or in whole. Therefore I retract several expressions in our hymns which partly express, partly imply, such an impossibility. And I do not contend for the term ’sinless,’ though I do not object against it. Do we agree or differ here If we differ, wherein 2. As to the manner, I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by faith, by a simple act of faith; consequently in an instant. But I believe a gradual work both preceding and following that instant. Do we agree or differ here 3. As to the time, I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before death. Do we agree or differ here I believe it is usually many years after justification, but that it may be within five years or five months after it. I know no conclusive argument to the contrary. Do you If it must be many years after justification, I would be glad to know how many. Pretium quotus arrogat annus [Horace’s Epistles, II. i. 35: How many years should claim the prize’] And how many days, or months, or even years can you allow to be between perfection and death How far from justification must it be and how near to death If it be possible, let you and me come to a good understanding, both for our own sakes and for the sake of the people. To Dorothy Furly ST. IVES, September 15, 1762. MY DEAR SISTER,--Whereunto you have attained hold fast. But expect that greater things are at hand; although our friend [Apparently her brother. See letter of July 30, and the next one.] talks as if you were not to expect them till the article of death. Certainly sanctification (in the proper sense) is ’an instantaneous deliverance from all sin,’ and includes ’an instantaneous power then given always to cleave to God.’ Yet this sanctification (at least, in the lower degrees) does not include a power never to think an useless thought nor ever speak an useless word. I myself believe that such a perfection is inconsistent with living in a corruptible body; for this makes it impossible ’always to think right.’ While we breathe we shall more or less mistake. If, therefore, Christian perfection implies this, we must not expect it till after death. I want you to be all love. This is the perfection I believe and teach. And this perfection is consistent with a thousand nervous disorders, which that high-strained perfection is not. Indeed, my judgement is that (in this case particularly) to overdo is to undo, and that to set perfection too high (so high as no man that we ever heard or read of attained) is the most effectual (because unsuspected) way of driving it out of the world. Take care you are not hurt by anything in the Short Hymns contrary to the doctrines you have long received. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly ST. IVES, September 15, 1762. DEAR SIR,-- Spectatum satis, ac donatum jam rude quaeris, Maecenas, iterum antiquo me includere ludo Non eadem est aetas, non mens. [Horace’s Epistles, 1. i. 2-4: ’Wherefore, Maecenas, would you thus engage Your bard, dismissed with honour from the stage Again to venture in the lists of fame, His youth, his genius, now no more the same’] I have entirely lost my taste for controversy. [See previous letter and that of Oct. 13.] I have lost my readiness in disputing; and I take this to be a providential discharge from it. All I can now do with a clear conscience is not to enter into a formal controversy about the new birth or justification by faith any more than Christian perfection, but simply to declare my judgement, and to explain myself as clearly as I can upon any difficulty that may arise concerning it. So far I can go with you, but no farther. I still say, and without any self-contradiction, I know no persons living who are so deeply conscious of their needing Christ both as Prophet, Priest, and King as those who believe themselves, and whom I believe, to be cleansed from all sin--I mean from all pride, anger, evil desire, idolatry, and unbelief. These very persons feel more than ever their own ignorance, littleness of grace, coming short of the full mind that was in Christ, and walking less accurately than they might have done after their divine Pattern; are more convinced of the insufficiency of all they are, have, or do to bear the eye of God without a Mediator; are more penetrated with the sense of the want of Him than ever they were before. If Mr. Maxfield or you say that ’coming short is sin,’ be it so; I contend not. But still I say: ’There are they whom I believe to be scripturally perfect. And yet these never felt their want of Christ so deeply and strongly as they do now.’ If in saying this I have ’fully given up the point,’ what would you have more Is it not enough that I leave you to ’boast your superior power against the little, weak shifts of baffled error’ ’Canst thou not be content,’ as the Quaker said, ’to lay J. W. on his back, but thou must tread his guts out’[See letter of Nov. 4, 1758, sect. 5 (to Potter).] Here are persons exceeding holy and happy; rejoicing evermore, praying always, and in everything giving thanks; feeling the love of God and man every moment; feeling no pride or other evil temper. If these are not perfect, that scriptural word has no meaning. Stop! you must not cavil at that word: you are not wiser than the Holy Ghost. But if you are not, see that you teach perfection too. ’But are they not sinners’ Explain the term one way, and I say, Yes; another, and I say, No. ’Are they cleansed from all sin’ I believe they are; meaning from all sinful tempers. ’But have they then need of Christ’ I believe they have in the sense and for the reasons above mentioned. Now, be this true or false, it is no contradiction; it is consistent with itself, and I think consistent with right reason and the whole oracles of God. O let you and I go on to perfection! God grant we may so run as to attain!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss March BRISTOL, October 9, 1762. Though I have very little time, I must write a few lines. I thank you for your comfortable letter. Some have more of heat and some of light. The danger is that one should say to the other, ’I have no need of thee,’ or that any should mistake his place and imagine himself to be what he is not. Be not backward to speak to any whom you think are mistaken either in this or other things. A loving word spoken in faith shall not fall to the ground; and the more freely you speak to me at any time or on any head the more you will oblige Your ever affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly BRISTOL, October 13, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--In general, when I apprehend, ’Certainly this is a contradiction,’ if I find other persons of equal sagacity with myself, of equal natural and acquired abilities, apprehend it is not, I immediately suspect my own judgement; and the more so because I remember I have been many times full as sure as I am now, and yet afterwards I found myself mistaken. As to this particular question, I believe I am able to answer every objection which can be made. But I am not able to do it without expending much time which may be better employed. For this reason I am persuaded it is so far from being my duty to enter into a formal controversy about it that it would be a wilful sin; it would be employing my short residue of life in a less profitable way than it may be employed. The proposition which I will hold is this: ’A person may be cleansed from all sinful tempers, and yet need the atoning blood.’ For what For ’negligences and ignorances’; for both words and actions (as well as omissions) which are in a sense transgressions of the perfect law. And I believe no one is clear of these till he lays down this corruptible body. [See letter of Sept. 15 to him.] Now, Sammy, dropping the point of contradiction or no contradiction, tell me simply what you would have more. Do you believe evil tempers remain till death all, or some if some only, which I love truth wherever I find it; so if you can help me to a little more of it, you will oblige, dear Sammy, Yours, &c. To Thomas Maxfield CANTERBURY, November 2, 1762. Without any preface or ceremony, which is needless between you and me, I will simply and plainly tell what I dislike in your doctrine, spirit, or outward behaviour. When I say yours, I include Brother Bell and Owen and those who are most closely connected with them. 1. I like your doctrine of Perfection, or pure love; love excluding sin; your insisting that it is merely by faith; that consequently it is instantaneous (though preceded and followed by a gradual work), and that it may be now, at this instant. But I dislike your supposing man may be as perfect as an angel; that he can be absolutely perfect; that he can be infallible, or above being tempted; or that the moment he is pure in heart he cannot fall from it. I dislike the saying, This was not known or taught among us till within two or three years. I grant you did not know it. You have over and over denied instantaneous sanctification to me; but I have known and taught it (and so has my brother, as our writings show) above these twenty years. I dislike your directly or indirectly depreciating justification, saying a justified person is not in Christ, is not born of God, is not a new creature, has not a new heart, is not sanctified, not a temple of the Holy Ghost, or that he cannot please God or cannot grow in grace. I dislike your saying that one saved from sin needs nothing more than looking to Jesus; needs not to hear or think of anything else; believe, believe is enough; that he needs no self-examination, no times of private prayer; needs not mind little or outward things; and that he cannot be taught by any person who is not in the same state. I dislike your affirming that justified persons in general persecute them that are saved from sin; that they have persecuted you on this account; and that for two years past you have been more persecuted by the two brothers than ever you was by the world in all your life. 2. As to your spirit, I like your confidence in God and your zeal for the salvation of souls. But I dislike something which has the appearance of pride, of overvaluing yourselves and undervaluing others, particularly the preachers: thinking not only that they are blind and that they are not sent of God, but even that they are dead--dead to God, and walking in the way to hell; that they are going one way, you another; that they have no life in them. Your speaking of yourselves as though you were the only men who knew and taught the gospel; and as if not only all the clergy, but all the Methodists besides, were in utter darkness. I dislike something that has the appearance of enthusiasm, overvaluing feelings and inward impressions: mistaking the mere work of imagination for the voice of the Spirit; expecting the end without the means; and undervaluing reason, knowledge, and wisdom in general. I dislike something that has the appearance of Antinomianism, not magnifying the law and making it honourable; not enough valuing tenderness of conscience and exact watchfulness in order thereto; using faith rather as contradistinguished from holiness than as productive of it. But what I most of all dislike is your littleness of love to your brethren, to your own Society; your want of union of heart with them and bowels of mercies toward them; your want of meekness, gentleness, longsuffering; your impatience of contradiction; your counting every man your enemy that reproves or admonishes you in love; your bigotry and narrowness of spirit, loving in a manner only those that love you; your censoriousness, proneness to think hardly of all who do not exactly agree with you: in one word, your divisive spirit. Indeed, I do not believe that any of you either design or desire a separation; but you do not enough fear, abhor, and detest it, shuddering at the very thought. And all the preceding tempers tend to it and gradually prepare you for it. Observe, I tell you before. God grant you may immediately and affectionately take the warning! 3. As to your outward behaviour, I like the general tenor of your life, devoted to God, and spent in doing good. But I dislike your slighting any, the very least rules of the bands or Society, and your doing anything that tends to hinder others from exactly observing them. Therefore-- I dislike your appointing such meetings as hinder others from attending either the public preaching or their class or band, or any other meeting which the Rules of the Society or their office requires them to attend. I dislike your spending so much time in several meetings, as many that attend can ill spare from the other duties of their calling, unless they omit either the preaching or their class or band. This naturally tends to dissolve our Society by cutting the sinews of it. As to your more public meetings, I like the praying fervently and largely for all the blessings of God; and I know much good has been done hereby, and hope much more will be done. But I dislike several things therein,--(1) The singing or speaking or praying of several at once: (2) the praying to the Son of God only, or more than to the Father: (3) the using improper expressions in prayer; sometimes too bold, if not irreverent; sometimes too pompous and magnificent, extolling yourselves rather than God, and telling Him what you are, not what you want: (4) using poor, flat, bald hymns: (5) the never kneeling at prayer: (6) your using postures or gestures highly indecent: (7) your screaming, even so as to make the words unintelligible: (8) your affirming people will be justified or sanctified just now: (9) the affirming they are when they are not: (10) the bidding them say, ’I believe’: (11) the bitterly condemning any that oppose, calling them wolves, &c.; and pronouncing them hypocrites, or not justified. Read this calmly and impartially before the Lord in prayer. So shall the evil cease and the good remain, and you will then be more than ever united to Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Moon CANTERBURY, November 5, 1762. MY DEAR SISTER,--Ten times I believe I have been going to answer your last, and have been as often hindered. Surely Satan does not approve of our corresponding together. And no wonder, seeing he does not like what tends to the furtherance of the kingdom of God. And this your letters always do. I find an animating, strengthening power in them. And this is what I particularly want; for I often feel a feebleness of soul, a languor of spirit, so that I cannot as I would press forward toward the mark. This I am particularly sensible of when I am in company with serious, good-natured people, who are not alive to God, and yet say nothing that one can well reprove. I am then apt to sit silent, and make as it were a drawn battle. I want vigour of spirit to break through, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear. Help me forward, my friend, by your prayers. If that fever continues in the country still, you may cure all that are taken ill near you. But it must be helped at the beginning. (1) No bleeding, no blistering: these are extremely hurtful. (2) Give the patient a pint of spring water sweetened with a large spoonful of treacle, lying down in bed. If this is taken at the beginning of the fever, I never once knew it fail. How does the work of God now go on round about you Is Brother Cotty [James Cotty was a preacher from 1767 to 1780.] able to preach And can John Manners [See letter of March 24, 1761.] do anything I want much to know the particulars of Miss Romaine’s [Probably a relative of the Rev. William Romaine, who was born at Hartlepool in 1714.] experience. I wish she would write to me. Do you find a growth in grace in lowliness, meekness, patience May our Lord make all grace to abound in you!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Dr. Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester To his Brother Charles LONDON, December 11, 1762. DEAR BROTHER,--For eighteen or twenty days I heard with both ears, but rarely opened my mouth. I think I now understand the affair at least as well as any person in England. The sum is this: (1) The meeting in Beech Lane, [The meeting was apparently in Joseph Guilford’s house (see Journal, v. 7). On visiting the classes in November, Wesley found ’some were vehement for, some against, the meetings for prayer which were in several parts of the town. I said little, being afraid of taking any step which I might afterwards repent of’ (ibid. iv. 538). Thomas Maxfield was making much trouble.] before I came to town, was like a bear-garden; full of noise, brawling, cursing, swearing, blasphemy, and confusion. (2) Those who prayed were partly the occasion of this, by their horrid screaming, and unscriptural, enthusiastic expressions. (3) Being determined either ’to mend them or end them,’ I removed the meeting to the Foundery. (4) Immediately the noise, brawling, cursing, swearing, blasphemy, and confusion ceased. (5) There was less and less screaming and less of unscriptural and enthusiastic language. (6) Examining the Society, I found about threescore persons who had been convinced of sin and near fourscore who were justified at these meetings. So that on the whole they have done some hurt and much good. I trust they will now do more good, and no hurt at all. Seven persons had left the Society on this account; but four of them are come back already. I bought the ground before Kingswood School of Margaret Ward, and paid for it with my own money. [This plot was divided into pastures and gardens, in the latter of which the boys worked. See Kingswood School, p. 19.] Certainly, therefore, I have a right to employ it as I please. What can any reasonable man say to the contrary I have answered the Bishop, and had advice upon my answer. If the devil owes him a shame, he will reply. He is a man of sense; but I verily think he does not understand Greek! [See heading to letter on p. 338.] I should be glad to see Mr. Nitchman. [David Nitschmann, who had sailed with the Wesleys to Georgia as bishop in charge of the Moravian emigrants. See Journal, i.111, ii.37.] What is all beside loving faith! We join in love to Sally and you. Adieu! To Jonah Freeman CITY ROAD, December 20, 1762. MY DEAR BROTHER,--That you have received a considerable blessing from God is beyond all dispute. Hold fast whereunto you have attained, and do not reason about it. Do not concern yourself whether it should be called by this or another name. It is right as far as it goes. And whatsoever is yet lacking, God is able and willing to supply.--I am Your affectionate brother. Mr. Jonah Freeman, At Mr. Clark’s, Hosier, In Farr’s Alley, Aldersgate Street. To Samuel Furly LONDON, December 20, 1762. DEAR SAMMY,--Charles Perronet, the author of that remark on 2Peter iii. 13, does not believe Christ will reign at all upon earth, nor any millennium [See letter of March 10, 1763.] till we come to heaven. The argument by which he endeavours to prove that St. Peter there speaks only to what will precede the Day of Judgement is this: ’If those expressions, a new heaven and a new earth, refer only to this world when they occur in Isaiah, then they refer to nothing more where they are used by St. Peter.’ I should never have suspected Dr. Sherlock [William Sherlock (1641-1707) was then Prebendary of St. Paul’s, and became Dean in 1691; he was Master of the Temple 1685-1704. His Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity in 1690 was answered by Robert South (1633-1716) in his Animadversions. Sherlock replied with his Defence (1694), and in 1695 Dr. South wrote his Tritheism, accusing Sherlock of that heresy. The contest was sharp, and men of note took part in it on both sides.] of writing anything in a burlesque way. He never aimed at it in his controversy with Dr. South, and seemed exceeding angry at his opponent for doing so. Probably he knew himself to be overmatched by the Doctor, and therefore did not care to engage him on his own ground. ’But why should you be angry,’ says Dr. South, ’at wit It might have pleased God to make you a wit too.’ I think the danger in writing to Bishop Warburton is rather that of saying too much than too little. The least said is the soonest amended, and leaves an ill-natured critic the least to take hold of. I have therefore endeavoured to say as little upon each head as possible. If he replies, I shall say more. But I rather think he will not, unless it be by a side stroke when he writes on some other subject. [See letters of Dec. 11, 1762, and March 10,1763.] How does the work of God prosper at Huddersfield and Slaithwaite [Furly was at Slaithwaite 1762-6.] Do you begin to see the fruit of your labours and does your own soul prosper What signifies all but this-- to save our own souls and them that hear us--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, December, 23, 1762. DEAR BROTHER,--But how to come to the speech of the colliers is the question; as there are an hundred miles between us; as this is too critical a time for me to be out of London. I am satisfied with the learning of John Jones (as there is no point of learning in debate between us) and the judgement of John Matthews, Charles Perronet, and James Morgan. Yet it is certain his admirers will still think him unanswerable. I believe several in London have imagined themselves saved from sin ’upon the word of others’; and these are easily known. For that work does not stand. Such imaginations soon vanish away. Some of these and two or three others are still wild. But I think Mrs. Garbrand [For Mrs. Garbrand (whose name is in shorthand), see heading to letter of Sept. 29, 1764, to Ann Foard.] exceeds them all. But the matter does not stick here. I could play with all these if I could but set Thomas Maxfield right. He is mali caput et fons [’The head and fountain of the evil.’]; so inimitably wrong-headed, and so absolutely unconvincible! And yet (what is exceeding strange) God continues to bless his labours. My kind love to Sally! Adieu! I shall soon try your patience with a long letter. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 54: 52. 1763 ======================================================================== 1763 To his Brother Charles LONDON, January 5, 1763. [Wesley wrote 1762, but the year was young. The contents of the letter show that it should be 1763, as Charles Wesley endorsed it.] DEAR BROTHER, — You take me right. I am far from pronouncing my remarks ex cathedra. I only desire they may be fairly considered. I was a little surprised to find Bishop Warburton [See letter of Dec. 11, 1762.] so entirely unacquainted with the New Testament; and, notwithstanding all his parade of learning, I believe he is no critic in Greek. If Thomas Maxfield continues as he is, it is impossible he should long continue with us.[This was a time Of great ‘care and trouble’ to Wesley, due to Maxfield and Bell. Wesley had defended Maxfield from charges at the Conference of 1761, and had written plainly to him. See Journal, iv. 541-2; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 432-41.] But I live in hope of better things. Meantime festina lente! I baptized two Turks two or three weeks ago.[On Dec. 4, 1762, at the desire of Maxfield, Wesley baptized these two men, who proved to be impostors. See Journal, iv. 540, v. 3; and letter of Feb. 8.] They seem to be strong in faith; and their story is very probable, but I am not sure it is true. I wait for farther evidence. This week I have begun to speak my mind concerning five or six honest enthusiasts. [Maxfield led a select band in London. They had ‘dreams, visions, and impressions,’ and he encouraged these enthusiasts. See letter of Nov. 2, 1762.] But I move only an hair’s breadth at a time, and by this means we come nearer and nearer to each other. No sharpness will profit. There is need of a lady’s hand as well as a lion’s heart. Mr. Whitefield has fallen upon me in public open-mouthed, and only not named my name. So has Mr. Madan. [See letters of July 12, 1758; and March 20, 1763.] But let them look to it. I go on my way. I have a sufficient answer as to George Bell [Wesley heard George Bell pray for nearly an hour on Nov. 24, and afterwards told him ‘what I did not admire.’ See next letter and that of Feb. 9.]; but I will not give it before the time. We join in love to you both. My wife gains ground. She is quite peaceable and loving to all. Adieu! To the Editor of the ‘London Chronicle’ WINDMILL HILL, January 7, 1763. SIR,—When I returned to London two or three months ago, I received various accounts of some meetings for prayer which had lately been held by Mr. Bell and a few others. But these accounts were contradictory to each other. Some highly applauded them, others utterly condemned; some affirmed they had done much good, others that they had done much hurt. This convinced me it was requisite to proceed with caution and to do nothing rashly. The first point was to form my own judgment, and that upon the fullest evidence. To this end I first talked with Mr. Bell himself, whom I knew to be an honest, well-meaning man. Next I told him they were at liberty for a few times to meet under my roof. They did so, both in the Society room at the Foundry and in the chapel at West Street. By this means I had an opportunity of hearing them myself, which I did at both places. I was present the next meeting after that, which is mentioned by Mr. Dodd and Mr. Thompson in the Public Ledger. The same things which they blame I blame also; and so I told him the same evening: and I was in hopes they would be done away, which occasioned my waiting till this time. But, having now lost that hope, I have given orders that they shall meet under my roof no more. What farther steps it will be necessary for me to take is a point I have not yet determined. — I am, sir, Your humble servant. To Thomas Maxfield LONDON, January 26, 1763. MY DEAR BROTHER, — For many years I and all the preachers in connection with me have taught that every believer may and ought to grow in grace. Lately you have taught, or seemed to teach, the contrary. The effect of this is, when I speak as I have done from the beginning, those who believe what you say will not bear it — nay, they will renounce connection with us; as Mr. and Mrs. Coventry did last night. [See letter in May to a Friend.] This breach lies wholly upon you. You have contradicted what I taught from the beginning. Hence it is that many cannot bear it; but when I speak as I always have done, they separate from the Society. Is this for your honor or to the glory of God O Tommy, seek counsel, not from man, but God; not from Brother Bell, but Jesus Christ! — I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, February 8, 1763. DEAR BROTHER, — I think now the sooner you could be here the better; for the mask is thrown off. George Bell, John Dixon, [John and Elizabeth Dixon resigned their membership on Jan. 28 (Journal, v. 5).] Joseph Calvert, Benjamin Biggs, [Benjamin Biggs, whom John Murlin met at Whitehaven, was for three or four years his inseparable companion. He embarked with him in July 1758 for Liverpool; but the captain took them to the Isle of Man. Biggs was the only person present when his master, Sir James Lowther, died. The next heir, Sir William, gave him 50 a year for life, which he spent in doing good. On July 18, 1761, John Fletcher was at a meeting in Biggs’s house. See Wesley’s Veterans, ii. 161; Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, p. 373; and letter of May 16, 1759.] &c. &c., have quitted the Society and renounced all fellowship with us. I wrote to Thomas, [Maxfield. See letters of Jan. 5 and 7.] but was not favored with an answer. This morning I wrote a second time, and received an answer indeed! The substance is, ‘You take too much upon you. We will not come up.’ I know all the history of the Turk. [See letters of Jan. 5 and Feb. 26.] I must leave London on Friday to bury Mrs. Perronet. [Wesley had ‘paid the last office of love’ (administered the Holy Communion) to her on Jan. 10. See Journal, v. 4, 8.] She died on Saturday morning. The answer to the Bishop (who has broke his leg) is forthcoming. [Wesley’s letter to Bishop Warburton had just been published.] Mr. Madan wrote the Queries. I let him have the last word. I should not wonder if a dying saint were to prophesy. Listen to Sally Colston’s [Charles Wesley prayed by Mr. Colston, ‘desirous to be with Christ,’ at Bristol on Sept. 2, 1739. A letter from Sarah Colston is given in the Journal, iii. 197-8, dated Bristol, June 6, 1745, describing the happy death of ‘another of my charge,’ and closing with the words, ‘Oh that when He comes He may find me watching!’] last words! Molly Westall died last week in huge triumph. J. Jones does good. I have seen the Colonel. [Colonel Gallatin. See letter of July 19, 1750.] James Morgan [Morgan was closely associated with Maxfield. See letter of Jan. 8, 1757.] has lately been in a violent storm, and is scarce alive. I advise him to retire to Kingswood for a season. We need all your prayers. God is preparing thoroughly to purge His floor. O let us be instant eukairws akairws. [2 Tim. iv. 2: ‘in season, out of season.’] We join in love to Sally. Adieu! [Charles wrote at the back of this letter: ‘Himself confirming my prophecy of the Ranters.’] To the Editor of the ‘London Chronicle’ LONDON, February 9, 1763. SIR,—I take this opportunity of informing all whom it may concern (1) that Mr. Bell is not a member of our Society; (2) that I do not believe either the end of the world or any signal calamity will be on the 28th instant; and (3) that not one in fifty, perhaps not one in five hundred, of the people called Methodists believe any more than I do either this or any other of his prophecies.—I am Your humble servant. To his Brother Charles LONDON, February 26, 1763. DEAR BROTHER,—I perceive verba fiunt mortuo [Plautus’s Poenulus, IV. ii. 18: ‘Words are wasted on a dead man.’]; so I say no more about your coming to London. Here stand I; and I shall stand, with or without human help, if God is with me. Yesterday Mr. Madan and I with a few more gave the full hearing to the famous Turk and his associate. [See letter of Feb. 8.] He is an exquisite wretch; was originally a Spanish Jew, afterwards a Turk, then a Papist, then a Jew again, then a Protestant, and now at last (under Mr. Lombardi’s wing) a zealous Papist! Concerning his companion we are still in doubt. We fear he is little better; though we cannot prove it. Mr. Gaussen tells us the stroke will come to-morrow evening; the rest say not till Monday. [The earthquake which Bell prophesied. The Gaussens were London friends. See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii, 217; and previous letter.] Let us live to-day! I labor for peace; but they still make themselves ready for battle. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To his Brother Charles LONDON, March 6, 1763. DEAR BROTHER, — To-morrow I set out for Norwich, which I have delayed as long as possible. I am likely to have rough work there; but the turbulent spirits must bend or break. [He spent ‘a few quiet, comfortable days . . . without any jar or contention.’ See Journal, v. 10.] That story of Thomas Maxfield is not true. But I doubt more is true than is good. He is a most incomprehensible creature. I cannot convince him that separation is any evil, or that speaking in the name of God when God has not spoken is any more than an innocent mistake. I know not what to say to him or do with him. He is really mali caput et fons.[See letter of Dec. 23, 1762.] Mr. Neal has grievously peached his associates. But I shall not hastily saddle myself with him and his seven children. The week after Easter week I hope to visit the classes in Bristol, or the week following. James Morgan is love-sick, John Jones physic-sick: so that I have scarce one hearty helper but La. Coughlan. [Lawrence Coughlan. See letters of March 6, 1759 (to Matthew Lowes), and Aug. 27, 1768.] We join in love to you both. Adieu! To Samuel Furly NORWICH, March 10, 1763. DEAR SAMMY, — When we revised the notes on St. Peter, our brethren were all of the same opinion with you. So we set Charles’s criticism aside, and let the note stand as it was. I have not read Dr. Newton on the Prophecies. But the bare text of the Revelation from the time I first read it satisfied me as to the general doctrine of the Millennium. [See letters of Dec. 20, 1762, and March 27, 1764.] But of the particulars I am willingly ignorant since they are not revealed. I scarce ever yet repented of saying too little, but frequently of saying too much. To the Bishop I have said more than I usually do, and I believe as much as the occasion requires. But I spare him. If he replies, I shall probably speak more plainly, it not more largely. A notion has lately started up in London, originally borrowed from the Moravians, which quite outshoots my notions of perfection as belonging only to fathers in Christ — namely, that every man is saved from all (inward) sin when he is justified, and that there is no sin, neither anger, pride, nor any other, in his heart from that moment unless he loses justifying faith. How will you disprove this position In particular, by what New Testament authority can you overthrow it These questions have puzzled many poor plain people. I should be glad of your answer to them at large. It is a doubt whether I shall be able to leave London this summer, unless now and then for a week or two. Next week I am to return thither.—I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To the Editor of ‘Lloyd’s Evening Post’ LONDON, March 18, 1763. SIR, — A pert, empty, self-sufficient man, who calls himself ‘Philodemas’ [See letter of Dec. 12, 1760, to the Editor of the London Magazine.] (I hope not akin to S. Johnson in the Public Ledger), made use of your paper a few days ago to throw abundance of dirt at the people called Methodists. He takes occasion from the idle prophecy of Mr. Bell, with whom the Methodists have nothing to do, as he is not, nor has been for some time, a member of their Society. Had he advanced anything new or any particular charge, it would have deserved a particular answer. But as his letter contains nothing but dull, stale, general slanders, which have been confuted ten times over, it would be abusing the patience of your readers to say any more concerning it. To Bishop Warburton, bringing particular charges, I have given particular answers; I hope to the satisfaction of every reasonable and impartial man. — I am, sir, Your humble servant. To the Countess of Huntingdon [LONDON, March 20, 1763.] MY LADY, — For a considerable time I have had it much upon my mind to write a few lines to your Ladyship; although I cannot learn that your Ladyship has ever inquired whether I was living or dead. By the mercy of God I am still alive, and following the work to which He has called me; although without any help, even in the most trying times, from those I might have expected it from. Their voice seemed to be rather, ‘Down with him, down with him, even to the ground.’ I mean (for I use no ceremony or circumlocution) Mr. Madan, Mr. Haweis, [Dr. Thomas Haweis (1734-1820) was Madan’s curate at the Lock Hospital. He became Rector of All Saints’, Northampton; and had charge of Lady Huntingdon’s College, and managed several of her chapels. He was a director of the London Missionary Society.] Mr. Berridge, and (I am sorry to say it) Mr. Whitefield. Only Mr. Romaine has shown a truly sympathizing spirit and acted the part of a brother. I am the more surprised at this, because he owed me nothing (only the love which we all owe one another); he was not my son in the gospel, neither do I know that he ever received any help through me. So much the more welcome was his kindness now. The Lord repay it sevenfold into his bosom! As to the prophecies of those poor, wild men, George Bell and half a dozen more, I am not a jot more accountable for them than Mr. Whitefield is; having never countenanced them in any degree, but opposed them from the moment I heard them. Neither have these extravagances any foundation in any doctrine which I teach. The loving God with all our heart, soul, and strength, and the loving all men as Christ loved us, is and ever was, for these thirty years, the sum of what I deliver, as pure religion and undefiled. However, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved! The will of the Lord be done! Poor and helpless as I am, Thou cost for my vileness care: Thou hast called me by my name! Thou cost all my burdens bear. Wishing your Ladyship a continual increase of all blessings, I am, my Lady, Your Ladyship’s servant for Christ’s sake. To Mrs. —— LONDON, March 21, 1763, MY DEAR SISTER,—My coming into the country is quite uncertain, till I see what turn things here will take. I am glad to hear the work of God prospers among you; &c. To the Editor of the ‘London Chronicle’ LONDON, April 5, 1763. SIR, — Some time since, I heard a man in the street bawling, ‘The Scripture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness asserted and maintained by the Rev. John Wesley!’ I was a little surprised, not having published anything on the head; and more so when, upon reading it over, I found not one line of it was mine, though I remembered to have read something like it. Soon after (to show what I really do maintain) I published Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, mentioning therein that ‘pious fraud’ which constrained me so to do. The modest author of the former publication now prints a second edition of it, and faces me down before all the world — yea, and proves that it is mine. Would you not wonder by what argument Oh, the plainest in the world. ‘There is not,’ says he, ‘the least fraud in the publication nor imposition on Mr. Wesley; for the words are transcribed from the ninth and tenth volumes of his Christian Library.’ But the Christian Library is not Mr. Wesley’s writing: it is ‘Extracts from and Abridgements of’ other writers; the subject of which I highly approve, but I will not be accountable for every expression. Much less will I father eight pages of I know not what which a shameless man has picked out of that work, tacked together in the manner he thought good, and then published in my name. He puts me in mind of what occurred some years since. A man was stretching his throat near Moorfields and screaming out, ‘A full and true Account of the Death of the Rev. George Whitefield!’ One took hold of him, and said, ‘Sirrah! what do you mean Mr. Whitefield is yonder before you.’ He shrugged up his shoulders, and said, ‘Why, sir, an honest man must do something to turn a penny.’ — I am, sir, Your humble servant. To Miss March LONDON, April 7, 1763. The true gospel touches the very edge both of Calvinism and Antinomianism; so that nothing but the mighty power of God can prevent our sliding either into the one or the other. The nicest point of all which relates to Christian perfection is that which you inquire of. Thus much is certain: they that love God with all their heart and all men as themselves are scripturally perfect. And surely such there are; otherwise the promise of God would be a mere mockery of human weakness. Hold fast this. But then remember, on the other hand, you have this treasure in an earthen vessel; you dwell in a poor, shattered house of clay, which presses down the immortal spirit. Hence all your thoughts, words, and actions are so imperfect, so far from coming up to the standard (that law of love which, but for the corruptible body, your soul would answer in all instances), that you may well say till you go to Him you love: Every moment, Lord, I need The merit of Thy death. To a Friend [LONDON, May] 1763. At your instance I undertake the irksome task of looking back upon things which I wish to forget for ever. I have had innumerable proofs (though such as it would now be an endless task to collect together) of all the facts which I recite. And I recite them as briefly as possible, because I do not desire to aggravate anything, but barely to place it in a true light. 1. Mr. Maxfield was justified while I was praying with him in Baldwin Street, Bristol. [For his conversion, see letter of May 28, 1739.] 2. Not long after, he was employed by me as a preacher in London. 3. Hereby he had access to Mrs. Maxfield, [Miss Elizabeth Branford, one of the firstfruits of Whitefield’s ministry in London. She died on Nov. 23, 1777.] whom otherwise he was never likely to see, much less to marry; from whence all his outward prosperity had its rise. 4. He was by me (by those who did it at my instance) recommended to the Bishop of Derry to be ordained priest, who told him then (I had it from his own mouth), ‘Mr. Maxfield, I ordain you to assist that good man, that he may not work himself to death.’ 5. When a few years ago many censured him much, I continually and strenuously defended him; though to the disgusting several of the preachers and a great number of the people. 6. I disgusted them, not barely by defending him, but by commending him in strong terms from time to time, both in public and private, with regard to his uprightness as well as usefulness. 7. All this time Mr. Maxfield was complaining (of which I was frequently informed by those to whom he spoke) that he was never so ill persecuted by the rabble in Cornwall as by me and my brother. 8. Four or five years since, a few persons were appointed to meet weekly at the Foundry. When I left London, I left these under Mr. Maxfield’s care, desiring them to regard him just as they did me. 9. Not long after I was gone some of these had dreams, visions, or impressions, as they thought from God. Mr. Maxfield did not put a stop to these; rather he encouraged them. 10. When I returned, I opposed them with my might, and in a short time heard no more of them. Meanwhile I defended and commended Mr. Maxfield as before, and, when I left the town again, left them under his care. 11. Presently visions and revelations returned: Mr. Maxfield did not discourage them. Herewith was now joined a contempt of such as had them not, with a belief that they were proofs of the highest grace. 12. Some of our preachers opposed them roughly. At this they took fire, and refused to hear them preach, but crowded after Mr. Maxfield. He took no pains to quench the fire, but rather availed himself of it to disunite them from other preachers and attach them to himself. He likewise continually told them they were not to be taught by man, especially by those who had less grace than themselves. I was told of this likewise from time to time; but he denied it, and I would not believe evil of my friend. 13. When I returned in October 1762, I found the Society in an uproar and several of Mr. Maxfield’s most intimate friends formed into a detached body. Enthusiasm, pride, and great uncharitableness appeared in many who once had much grace. I very tenderly reproved them. They would not bear it; one of them, Mrs. Coventry, [See letter of Jan. 26.] cried out, ‘We will not be brow-beaten any longer; we will throw off the mask.’ Accordingly, a few days after, she came, and before an hundred persons brought me hers and her husband’s tickets, and said, ‘Sir, we will have no more to do with you; Mr. Maxfield is our teacher.’ Soon after, several more left the Society (one of whom was George Bell), saying, ‘Blind John is not capable of teaching us; we will keep to Mr. Maxfield.’ 14. From the time that I heard of George Bell’s prophecy I explicitly declared against it both in private, in the Society, in preaching, over and over; and at length in the public papers. Mr. Maxfield made no such declaration; I have reason to think he believed it. [Maxfield says in his Vindication, p. 16: ‘At Wapping Mr. Bell mentioned the destruction that was to be on the 28th of February. As soon as he had done speaking, I stood up and set aside all that he had said about it; and went to the Foundery the next morning, and told Mr. Wesley what I had done.] I know many of his friends did, and several of them sat up the last of February at the house of his most intimate friend, Mr. Biggs, [See letter of Feb. 8.] in full expectation of the accomplishment. 15. About this time one of our stewards, [Mr. Arvin. who held the lease.] who at my desire took the chapel in Snowsfields for my use, sent me word the chapel was his, and Mr. Bell should exhort there, whether I would or no. Upon this I desired the next preacher there to inform the congregation that, while things stood thus, neither I nor our preachers could in conscience preach there any more. 16. Nevertheless Mr. Maxfield did preach there. On this I sent him a note desiring him not to do it, and adding, ‘If you do, you thereby renounce connection with me.’ 17. Receiving this, he said, ‘I will preach at Snowsfields.’ He did so, and thereby renounced connection. On this point, and no other, we divided; by this act the knot was cut. Resolving to do this, he told Mr. Clementson, ‘I am to preach at the Foundry no more.’ 18. From this time he has spoke all manner of evil of me, his father, his friend, his greatest earthly benefactor. I cite Mr. Fletcher [See Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon, i. 321-2.] for one witness of this, and Mr. Madan for another. Did he speak evil of me to Mr. Fletcher one day only Nay, but every day for six weeks together. To Mr. Madan he said (among a thousand other things, which he had been twenty years raking together), ‘Mr. Wesley believed and countenanced all which Mr. Bell said; and the reason of our parting was this: he said to me one day, “Tommy, I will tell the people you are the greatest gospel preacher in England; and you shall tell them I am the greatest.” For refusing to do this Mr. Wesley put me away!’ Now, with perfect calmness, and I verily think without the least touch of prejudice, I refer to your own judgment what connection I ought to have with Mr. Maxfield, either till I am satisfied these things are not so or till he is thoroughly sensible of his fault. To Mr. —— May 1763. [Fragment] not so receive the sense they which I have been insisting on And I do not know that [Joseph] Guilford [See Journal, v. 7, 362; vi. 149.] [had any other] objection to them than more or less, than ‘By grace ye are saved through faith.’ And whenever we give up this fundamental truth, the work of God by us will come to an end. It is true saving faith is both the gift and the work of God; yea, and a work of Omnipotence. But, still, this does not exclude any man; because God is ready to work it in every man: there being nothing more sure, taking the words in a sacred sense, than that ‘every man may believe if he will.’ The matters in question between Mr. Maxfield and me [See previous letter.] may sleep till I have the pleasure of seeing you. Wishing you all light and love, I remain, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Mrs. Maitland LONDON, May 12, 1763. DEAR MADAM, — Both in the former and in the Farther Thoughts on Perfection I have said all I have to say on that head. Nevertheless, as you seem to desire it, I will add a few words more. As to the word, it is scriptural; therefore neither you nor I can in conscience object against it, unless we would send the Holy Ghost to school and teach Him to speak who made the tongue. By that word I mean (as I have said again and again) ‘so loving God and our neighbor as to rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks.’ He that experiences this is scripturally perfect. And if you do not yet, you may experience it: you surely will, if you follow hard after it; for the Scripture cannot be broken. What, then, does their arguing prove who object against perfection ‘Absolute and infallible perfection’ I never contended for it. Sinless perfection Neither do I contend for this, seeing the term is not scriptural. A perfection that perfectly fulfils the whole law, and so needs not the merits of Christ I acknowledge none such—I do now, and always did, protest against it. ‘But is there not sin in those that are perfect’ I believe not; but, be that as it may, they feel none, no temper but pure love, while they rejoice, pray, and give thanks continually. And whether sin is suspended or extinguished, I will not dispute; it is enough that they feel nothing but love. This you allow ‘we should daily press after’; and this is all I contend for. O may God give you to taste of it to-day! — I am, dear madam, Your very affectionate servant. To Jenny Lee ABERDEEN, May 26, 1763. MY DEAR SISTER, — If you are likely to fall into a consumption, I believe nothing will save your life but the living two or three months upon buttermilk churned daily in a bottle. Change of air may do something, if you add riding every day. Else it will avail but little. Your conscience will not be clear unless you find fault wherever occasion requires. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy brother, and not suffer sin upon him. Regard none who speak otherwise. You have but one rule, the oracles of God. His Spirit will always guide you, according to His word. Keep close to Him, and pray for, dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Foard NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 3, 1763. MY DEAR SISTER, — I take your writing exceeding kindly, particularly at this time; you have refreshed my bowels in the Lord. Sometimes I thought there was a kind of strangeness in your behavior. I am now persuaded it sprung only from caution, not from want of love. When you believed you had the pure love of God, you was not deceived: you really had a degree of it, and see that you let it not go; hold the beginning of your confidence steadfast till the end. Christ and all He has is yours! Never quit your hold! Woman, remember the faith! The Lord is increasing in you sevenfold! How wonderfully does He often bring to our remembrance what we have read or heard long ago! And all is good which He sanctifies. My dear sister, continue to love and pray for Your affectionate brother. To Henry Venn BIRMINGHAM, June 22, 1763. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, — Having at length a few hours to spare, I sit down to answer your last, which was particularly acceptable to me, because it was wrote with so great openness. I shall write with the same. And herein you and I are just fit to converse together, because we both like to speak blunt and plain, without going a great way round about. I shall likewise take this opportunity of explaining myself on some other heads. I want you to understand me inside and out. Then I say, Sic sum: si placeo, utere. [Terence’s Phormio, iii. ii. 42: ‘Such I am: if you like me, use me.’] Were I allowed to boast myself a little, I would say, I want no man living—I mean, none but those who are now connected with me, and who bless God for that connection. With these I am able to go through every part of the work to which I am called. Yet I have labored after union with all whom I believe to be united with Christ. I have sought it again and again, but in vain. They were resolved to stand aloof. And when one and another sincere minister of Christ has been inclined to come nearer to me, others have diligently kept them off, as though thereby they did God service. To this poor end the doctrine of Perfection has been brought in head and shoulders. And when such concessions were made as would abundantly satisfy any fair and candid man, they were no nearer — rather farther off, for they had no desire to be satisfied. To make this dear breach wider and wider, stories were carefully gleaned up, improved, yea invented and retailed, both concerning me and ‘the perfect ones.’ And when anything very bad has come to hand, some have rejoiced as though they had found great spoils. By this means, chiefly, the distance between you and me has increased ever since you came to Huddersfield, and perhaps it has not been lessened by that honest, well-meaning man Mr. Burnett [G. Burnett, Vicar of Elland.] and by others, who have talked largely of my dogmaticalness, love of power, errors, and irregularities. My dogmaticalness is neither more nor less than a ‘custom of coming to the point at once,’ and telling my mind flat and plain without any preface or ceremony. I could, indeed, premise something of my own imbecility, littleness of judgment, and the like: but (1) I have no time to lose, I must dispatch the matter as soon as possible; (2) I do not think it frank or ingenuous — I think these prefaces are mere artifice. The power I have I never sought. It was the undesired, unexpected result of the work God was pleased to work by me. I have a thousand times sought to devolve it on others; but as yet I cannot. I therefore suffer it till I can find any to ease me of my burthen. If any one will convince me of my errors, I will heartily thank him. I believe all the Bible as far as I understand it, and am ready to be convinced. If I am an heretic, I became such by reading the Bible. All my notions I drew from thence; and with little help from men, unless in the single point of Justification by Faith. But I impose my notions upon none: I will be bold to say there is no man living farther from it. I make no opinion the term of union with any man: I think, and let think. What I want is holiness of heart and life. They who have this are my brother, sister, and mother. ‘But you hold Perfection.’ True — that is, loving God with all our heart, and serving Him with all our strength. I teach nothing more, nothing less than this. And whatever infirmity, defect, anomia, is consistent with this any man may teach, and I shall not contradict him. As to irregularity, I hope none of those who cause it do then complain of it. Will they throw a man into the dirt and beat him because he is dirty Of all men living those clergymen ought not to complain who believe I preach the gospel (as to the substance of it). If they do not ask me to preach in their churches, they are accountable for my preaching in the fields. I come now directly to your letter, in hopes of establishing a good understanding between us. I agreed to suspend for a twelvemonth our stated preaching at Huddersfield, which had been there these many years. If this answered your end, I am glad: my end it did not answer at all. Instead of coming nearer to me, you got farther off. I heard of it from every quarter; though few knew that I did, for I saw no cause to speak against you because you did against me. I wanted you to do more, not less good, and therefore durst not do or say anything to hinder it. And, lest I should hinder it, I will make a farther trial and suspend the preaching at Huddersfield for another year. 1. To clear the case between us a little farther. I must now adopt your words: ‘I, no less than you, preach justification by faith only, the absolute necessity of holiness, the increasing mortification of sin, and rejection of all past experiences and attainments. I abhor, as you do, all Antinomian abuse of the doctrine of Christ, and desire to see my people walking even as He walked. Is it, then, worth while, in order to gratify a few bigoted persons or for the sake of the minute differences between us,’ to encourage ‘all the train of evils which follow contention for opinions in little matters as much as in great’ 2. If I was as strenuous with regard to perfection on one side as you have been on the other, I should deny you to be a sufficient preacher; but this I never did. And yet I assure you I can advance such reasons for all I teach as would puzzle you and all that condemn me to answer; but I am sick of disputing. Let them beat the air and triumph without an opponent. 3. ‘None, you say, preach in your houses who do not hold the very same doctrine with you.’ This is not exactly the case. You are welcome to preach in any of those houses, as I know we agree in the main points; and whereinsoever we differ you would not preach there contrary to me. ‘But would it not give you pain to have any other teacher come among those committed to your charge, so as to have your plan disconcerted, your labors depreciated, and the affections of your flock alienated’ It has given me pain when I had reason to fear this was done, both at Leeds, Birstall, and elsewhere. And I was ‘under a temptation of speaking against you’; but I refrained even among my intimate friends. So far was I from publicly warning my people against one I firmly believed to be much better than myself. 4. Indeed, I trust ‘the bad blood is now taken away.’ Let it return no more. Let us begin such a correspondence as has never been yet; and let us avow it before all mankind. Not content with not weakening each other’s hands, or speaking against each other directly or indirectly (which may be effectually done under the notion of exposing this and that error), let us defend each other’s characters to the uttermost against either ill— or well-meaning evil-speakers. I am not satisfied with ‘Be very civil to the Methodists, but have nothing to do with them.’ No: I desire to have a league offensive and defensive with every soldier of Christ. We have not only one faith, one hope, one Lord, but are directly engaged in one warfare. We are carrying the war into the devil’s own quarters, who therefore summons all his hosts to war. Come, then, ye that love Him, to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty! I am now wellnigh miles emeritus senex, sexagenarius [‘A worn-out old warrior, who has seen his sixtieth year.’]; yet I trust to fight a little longer. Come and strengthen the hands till you supply the place of Your weak but affectionate brother. To Duncan Wright LONDON, July 4, 1763. DEAR DUNCAN,—You have chosen the better part, and will never regret of your choice. Write down the sermon you preached upon that subject, with what additions you see good, and I will correct and print it, if I live to return to London. Perhaps I may likewise print the ‘Advice concerning Children’ in a separate tract. I am glad Rd. Blackwell [Richard Blackwell became a preacher about 1766, and died of fever at Aberdeen on Dec. 27, 1767. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 54.] goes to Colchester. Perhaps he and you by turns may spend the ensuing year in London.—I am Yours affectionately. To Richard Hart LONDON, July 11, 1763. DEAR SIR,—Abundance of business has prevented my writing so soon as I desired and intended; nor have I time now to write so largely as I could wish, and as your openness and frankness would otherwise constrain me to do. But I cannot delay any longer to write a little, lest I should seem to slight your correspondence. What you before observed is of great importance—namely, ‘If it be the professed aim of the gospel to convince us that Jesus is the Christ; if I, a sinner, am convinced of the reality of this fact, am not I, who believe, authorized to expect life, not through any condition, or any act, inward or outward, performed by me, but singly through the name which Jesus assumed, which stands for His whole character or merit’ Here is the hinge on which Mr. Sandeman’s [See letter of Oct. 14, 1757.] whole system turns. This is the strength of his cause, and you have proposed it with all the strength and clearness which he himself could devise. Yet suffer me to offer to your consideration a few queries concerning it: — Is every one who is convinced of the reality of this fact, ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ a gospel believer Is not the devil convinced of the reality of this fact Is, then, the devil a gospel believer I was convinced of the reality of this fact when I was twelve years old, [See sect. 14 of letter in Dec. 1751 to Bishop Lavington.] when I was without God in the world. Was I then a gospel believer Was I then a child of God Was I then in a state of salvation Again, you say, ‘I who believe am authorized to expect life, not through any condition or act, inward or outward, performed by me.’ ‘I who believe.’ But cannot you as well expect it without believing If not, what is believing but a condition For it is something sine qua non. And what else do you, or I, or any one living mean by a condition And is not believing an inward act What is it else But you say, ‘Not performed by me.’ By whom, then God gives me the power to believe. But does He believe for me He works faith in me. But still is it not I that believe And if so, is not believing an inward act performed by me Is not, then, this hypothesis (to waive all other difficulties) contradictory to itself I have just set down a few hints as they occurred. Wishing you an increase of every blessing, I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate brother. To Dorothy Furly LONDON, July 16, 1763. MY DEAR SISTER, — 1. So far as I know what will make me most holy and most useful I know what is the will of God. 2. Certainly it is possible for persons to be as devoted to God in a married as in a single state. 3. I believe John Downes is throughly desirous of being wholly devoted to God, and that (if you alter your condition at all) you cannot choose a more proper person.—I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis PEMBROKE, August 23, 1763. MY DEAR SISTER, — You did well to write. This is one of the means which God generally uses to convey either light or comfort. Even while you are writing you will often find relief; frequently while we propose a doubt it is removed. There is no doubt but what you at first experienced was a real foretaste of the blessing, although you were not properly possessed of it till the Whit Sunday following. But it is very possible to cast away the gift of God, or to lose it by little and little; though I trust this is not the case with you: and yet you may frequently be in heaviness, and may find your love to God not near so warm at some times as it is at others. Many wanderings likewise, and many deficiencies, are consistent with pure love; but the thing you mean is the abiding witness of the Spirit touching this very thing. And this you may boldly claim on the warrant of that word, ‘We have received the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God.’ — I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, September 3, 1763. MY DEAR BROTHER,—I am much inclined to think you will be more useful this year than ever you have been in your life. From the first hour abate nothing of our Rules, whether of Society or bands. Be a Methodist all over. Be exact in everything. Be zealous; be active. Press on to the one thing, and carry all before you. How much may be done before summer is at an end! Their little misunderstandings at Edinburgh you will soon remove by hearing the parties face to face. I hope a preacher is gone northward, and Brother Roberts come southward. [Robert Roberts, of Leeds, is named in the Deed of Declaration,1784. He was a farmer’s son, born at Upton near Chester in 1731. He became a preacher in 1759, and died in 1799, a zealous, judicious man. See letters of Nov. 2.] I hate delay. ‘The King’s business requires haste!’ — I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Yours most affectionately. Take the field everywhere as often as possible. Who goes to the Highlands now quickly To George Merryweather LONDON, October 5, 1763. MY DEAR BROTHER, — Your letter was sent from hence to Bristol. But I had left Bristol before it came. I have no objection to Mr. Jaco’s [See letter of Sept. 3, 1756, to Samuel Walker.] coming to Yarm to open the house; but I suppose he cannot stay long. He will soon be wanted again in his own circuit. It is strange that the number of hearers should decrease if you have regular preaching. I hope the morning preaching is never omitted. If it be, everything will droop. What relates to the account I will give Mr. Franks. [See letters of Jan. 25, 1762 (to Matthew Lowes), and Nov. 18, 1765.] Probably he will find where the mistake lies. O be in earnest! — I am Your affectionate brother. To Lady Frances Gardiner WELLING, November 2, 1763, MY DEAR LADY,—You are again a messenger of glad tidings. Many were formerly of opinion that our preaching would not be received in North Britain, and that we could be of no use there. But they had forgotten that the Lord sendeth by whom He will send and that He hath the hearts of all in His hand. I have never seen the fields more white for the harvest than they were from Edinburgh to Aberdeen last summer; and if I live to take another journey into the North, especially if I should have a little more time to spare, I doubt not but I should find an open door as far as Caithness, and perhaps the Isles of Orkney. The harvest surely has not been more plenteous for many hundred years. But there is the same complaint still — the laborers are few. We found this particularly at our last Conference. We had none to spare, and very hardly enough to supply our stated circuits. Mr. Roberts [Lady Gardiner said in her letter, ‘Mr. Roberts’s preaching has been remarkably blessed to many in Edinburgh.’ see letter of Sept. 3.] was allotted for the Newcastle Circuit, whence I have had complaint upon complaint. He ought to have been there long ago. Several congregations have suffered loss for want of him. All our preachers should be as punctual as the sun, never standing still or moving out of their course. I trust your Ladyship is still pressing on to the mark, expecting and receiving blessing upon blessing. Oh how can we sufficiently praise Him who deals so bountifully with us! — I am, my dear Lady, Your affectionate servant. To the Right Honourable The Lady Frances Gardiner, In Edinburgh. To Christopher Hopper WELLING, November 2, 1763. MY DEAR BROTHER, — ‘Dundee,’ you say, ‘would be thankful for a preacher.’ But who would give him things needful for the body He cannot live upon air; and we now expect that Scotland should bear its own burthen. John Hampson [Hampson was a popular preacher. He remained in Manchester, where the account-book for Dec. 27, 1762, and March 28, 1763, notes payments of 3 3s. to him; in Dec. it is 2 2s. In April and Dec. 1764, 3 3s.; in July 3 13s. 6d.] you must think of no more. But I doubt our Newcastle friends are out of all patience for want of R. Roberts. [See letter of Sept. 3.] In spring you will need a fourth preacher. But what would he have to do Why, then, I think you must get the plat without Cannongate. ‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.’ Sevenpence halfpenny! Pshaw! Let it be eightpence, even money. By-and-by we may give Mr. Trail more work. O let us work in this fruitful season! We join in love to Sister Hopper and you. — I am Yours affectionately. To Dorothy Furly LEWISHAM, December 15, 1763. MY DEAR SISTER, — It has seemed to me for some time that God will not suffer Cornelius Bastable [See letters of Aug. 19, 1759, and Oct. 12, 1778.] to live at Cork. He may starve there, but he cannot live. The people are not worthy of him. Salvation from sin is a deeper and higher work than either you or Sarah Ryan can conceive. But do not imagine (as we are continually prone to do) that it lies in an indivisible point. You experienced a taste of it when you were justified; you since experienced the thing itself, only in a low degree; and God gave you His Spirit that you might know the things which He had freely given you. Hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end. You are continually apt to throw away what you have for what you want. However, you are right in looking for a farther instantaneous change as well as a constant gradual one. But it is not good for you to be quite alone; you should converse frequently as well as freely with Miss Johnson, and any other that is much alive. You have great need of this. — I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] George Bell left Wesley’s Society on February 4. He had prophesied that the end of the world was to come on the 28th. ‘The terror occasioned by that wonderful prophecy spread far and wide,’ Bell and his followers ascended a mound near St. Luke’s Hospital on the 27th to await events; and there he was arrested, taken before a magistrate, and committed to prison. See Journal, v. 9. [2] This letter is without date, but is marked ‘Received at Brighthelmstone, March 21, 1763. S. H.’ The Countess seems to have sent it to William Romaine. He had been at Oxford with the Wesleys, and was at the Leeds Conference of 1762 with Whitefield, Madan, Venn, and the Countess of Huntingdon, to whom he was chaplain. Romaine replies from Lambeth on March 26: ‘Enclosed is poor Mr. John’s letter. The contents of it, as far as I am concerned, surprised me; for no one has spoken more freely of what is now passing among the people than myself. Indeed, I have not preached so much as others whose names he mentions, nor could I.... I pity Mr. John from my heart. His Societies are in great confusion; and the point which brought them into the wilderness of rant and madness is still insisted on as much as ever. I fear the end of this delusion. As the late alarming Providence has not had its proper effect, and Perfection is still the cry, God will certainly give them up to some more dreadful thing. May their eyes be opened before it be too late!’ See Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon, i. 330; and letter of Sept. 9, 1756. [3] The tract against which Wesley is protesting is stated in an old magazine to have been compiled by William Mason. See Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 345; and for Wesley’s published reply, Green’s Bibliography, No. 211. [4] Wesley sent this account of his troubles with Maxfield and Bell to a friend, and gives it in the Journal, v. 10-13. See letters of November 2, 1762, and February 14, 1778, to Maxfield. [5] Penelope Maitland was sister to the Rev. Martin Madan and wife of General Maitland. She wrote on May 2: ‘I hope, sir, that neither myself or any of my family shall ever forget the greatness of our obligations to you, under whose ministerial labors God has graciously imparted a measure of His grace.’ She says: ‘I think, in your Second Thoughts on Perfection, you say you mean by this term “rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks.”‘ But she asks, ‘Would it not be safer to call it a high state of grace than perfection’ Mrs. Maitland, or someone, adds: ‘Remark—what a contradiction is this! He denies sinless perfection, but believes those who are perfect (according to this definition) have no sin!’ See letter of Nov. 9, 1750. [6] Miss Foard was born in Southwark in 1741, joined the Methodist Society in 1761, and in 1770 married John Thornton, an undertaker, of Southwark. She had received a good education, and ‘was a woman of no ordinary mental stature; but, to a strong and reflective intellect, united erudition and accomplishments which, at that period especially, came not within the usual limits of a female education.’ Wesley visited the family, ‘and was the centre of delighted interest to them and to the social circle who were privileged to meet him there and listen to his animating and instructive conversation.’ Mrs. Thornton died at Bath on March 18, 1799. [7] John Pawson says in his An Affectionate Address to the Members of the Methodist Societies, 1795: ‘For some years (and at the hazard of their lives) our preachers had preached in Huddersfield, where they formed a Society, and procured peace. Through the interest of our people the Rev. Mr. Venn got to be vicar of that parish, and for some time was made very useful. But in a while he petitioned Mr. Wesley to withdraw the preachers from his parish, as he thought himself quite sufficient for the work without them. Mr. Wesley did so for several years, to the unspeakable grief of our Society, till in the year 1765 we began to visit that place again without Mr. Wesley’s knowledge, and by this means a door was opened into that dreadful wilderness beyond Huddersfield, where much good has been done. Mr. Venn’s curate took the pains to go from house to house to entreat the people not to come to hear us, but he lost his bad labor.’ John Riland was curate to Venn in 1763. See letters of August 15, 1761, and April 19, 1764. [8] Wesley stayed in London on account of the ferment caused by Maxfield’s separation. Duncan Wright was born in Perthshire in 1736, enlisted as a soldier, joined the Methodist Society at Limerick in 1756, and began to preach. He ‘walked in darkness’ from 1758 to 1763; but in June of 1763 God ‘restored to me the joy of His salvation.’ At the end of 1764 he became an itinerant. He spent some time in London, as Wesley suggested. He died at Hoxton in May 1791, and was buried in Wesley’s vault. See Wesley’s Veterans, ii. 18-50. [9] Richard Hart was Vicar of St. George’s, Bristol. He had been at Bradford, Wilts. See Journal, iv. 355; and also v. 63-4, where in a genial letter to Wesley he suggests that a book of the New Testament should be studied when the ministers met together. [10] Miss Furly was married to John Downes in June 1764. Her husband died suddenly while preaching in West Street Chapel in 1774. Charles Wesley visited her in her bereavement. ‘She surprised me and all who saw her. So supported, so calm, so resigned! A faithful friend received her into his house. She had one sixpence in the world, and no more! But her Maker is her husband!’ Mrs. Downes died in 1807, at the age of seventy-six. See Methodist Magazine, 1813, pp. 217-22; and letters of November 7, 1751, and May 28, 1764. [11] This is the first of twenty-seven letters to Elizabeth Bennis, who became the first member in Limerick. She saw Robert Swindells pass her door on March 17, 1749, with a great mob shouting and insulting him. She heard such an account of his morning sermon that she went to hear him in the evening, and was much affected. She was asked to spend the evening in company with him, and did not miss a sermon whilst he stayed for three days. When Swindells returned to the town about a month later, she was the first to stand up and give her name as a member. On June 21 at the five-o’clock preaching she says, ‘I found my burden in a moment taken off and my soul set at liberty.’ In 1757, under the preaching of Thomas Olivers, she and two others began to seek for cleansing of the heart from all sin. After Wesley’s visit in 1762, Mrs. Bennis had received special blessing. On Whit Sunday, May 22, ‘whilst she knelt at the Lord’s Table and pleaded in earnest prayer, the question was spoken to her heart, “Believest thou that I am able to do this”‘ Her soul eagerly answered, “Lord, I do believe Thou art able.” And the word came again, “Be it unto thee according to thy faith.” In receiving the memorials of her dying Lord, she was enabled to lay hold of Christ for complete salvation from all sin.’ She found the blessing of entire sanctification on June 2, 1763, and proved ‘a golden spur’ to the preachers In her first letter to Wesley (August 2, 1763) she tells him how she had been laughed at and reasoned out of her earnestness, till his visit had revived her desire after holiness. Her husband, who was a prosperous man, died in 1788. The family emigrated to America, and she passed away at Philadelphia in 1807. Her Correspondence with Wesley and Others was printed by her son in Philadelphia, and reprinted in Cork in 1819. See Crookshank’s Memorable Women of Irish Methodism, pp. 20-30; and letter of March 29, 1766. [12] Hopper was in London in July, where ‘our Conference began and ended in love.’ He and his wife lived in ‘a little dark room at Edinburgh, encompassed round with old black walls, disagreeable enough: but we had a good season; many poor sinners were converted to God. We saw the fruit of our labors, and rejoiced.’ [13] Wesley read Dr. Doddridge’s Account of Colonel Gardiner on October 20, 1747, and asks, in his Journal, iii. 321, ‘What matters it whether his soul was set at liberty by a fever or a Lochaber axe, seeing he has gone to God’ On April 24, 1751, he and Christopher Hopper rode by Preston Field, and saw the place of battle and Colonel Gardiner’s house. In 1769 Wesley speaks of Gardiner’s conversion as an answer to his mother’s prayers. His widow was the daughter of the Earl of Buchan. She wrote to Wesley on July 25, 1763, that she had never been at the preaching-house in a morning, as they preached so early; ‘but I ventured to the High School yard the morning you left Edinburgh; and it pleased God, even after I had got home, to follow part of your sermon with a blessing to me.... I dare venture to say that Christ and all with Christ is mine.’ The sermon was preached on May 29, when the General Assembly was meeting, and many ministers as well as nobles and gentry were present. Christopher Hopper was the Assistant in Edinburgh. He says: ‘My dear Edinburgh friends were very kind, especially Lady Gardiner, that good old saint who is now with Jesus in paradise.’ See Journal, v. 15; Moore’s Wesley, ii. 249; Wesley’s Veterans, i. 144. [14] Hopper labored in Scotland in 1763-5. In the summer of 1764 we laid the foundation of our octagon at Aberdeen ; and in 1765 that of ‘our octagon at Edinburgh.... I collected all I could, gave all I could spare, and borrowed above 300 to carry on and complete that building.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, i. 145. [15] Wesley ‘lodged once more at Elizabeth Johnson’s, a genuine old Methodist,’ in Hillgrove Street, Bristol, in March 1784. Her father, a West Indian merchant, left her nothing because she was a Methodist; but her uncle bequeathed to her 400 a year, and she lived with her gay sister, to whom her father left 1,000 a year. She was subsequently converted, and became a Methodist. See Journal, vi. 484; Sutcliffe’s manuscript History of Methodism, i. 267; and letter of March 4, 1760. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 55: 53. 1764 ======================================================================== 1764 JANUARY 14, 1764, TO FEBRUARY 28, 1766 To Samuel Furly LONDON, January 14, 1764. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I shall never think much of paying postage of a letter from you. We are all here now in great peace; and God is both widening and deepening His work. In that text I generally consider (1) what is implied in ’gaining the whole world’; (2) what in losing men’s own souls; and show (3) what an ill bargain it would be to gain an whole world at that price. [See sermon on The Important Question in Works, vi. 493-505; and letter of March 6.] I hope you are still pressing on to the mark and counting all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ.-- I am Your affectionate brother. To John Valton LONDON, January 31, 1764. It is certainly right with all possible care to abstain from all outward evil: But this profits only a little. The inward change is the one thing needful for you. You must be born again, or you will never gain an uniform and lasting liberty. Your whole soul is diseased, or rather dead--dead to God, dead in sin. Awake, then, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light. To seek for a particular deliverance from one sin only is mere labour lost. If it could be attained, it would be little worth, for another would arise in its place. But, indeed, it cannot before there is a general deliverance from the guilt and power of sin. This is the thing which you want, and which you should be continually seeking for. You want to be justified freely from all things, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. It might be of use if you should read over the first volume of Sermons seriously and with prayer. Indeed, nothing will avail without prayer. Pray, whether you can or not. When you are cheerful, and when you are heavy, still pray; pray with many or with few words, or with none at all: you will surely find an answer of peace, and why not now--I am Your servant for Christ’s sake. To his Brother Charles LONDON, March 1, 1764. DEAR BROTHER,--If the parties require it, I will re-hear the cause of William Warren and Abraham Ore [Evidently some disputed matter in Bristol.]; but I do not apprehend there is anything to be said more than what you have heard already. I read Rollin’s Belles-Lettres [The publication of extracts from the French historian was probably under consideration, but nothing was done.] several years ago. Some things I liked; some I did not. Mark in him what you admire, and I will give it a second reading and a farther consideration. You ’have no thoughts of venturing to London before May’! Then I must indeed ’do the best I can.’ So I will comply with the advice of the Stewards, as well as my own judgement, and insist upon John Jones’s assisting me on Sunday. [He was compelled to ask Jones to assist in the heavy sacramental services. See Journal, v. 47n; and letter of Sept. 3, 1756, to Nicholas Norton] I have delayed all this time purely out of tenderness to you. Adieu! To Mrs. Freeman LONDON, March 2, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--Such love as yours is need not be ashamed. You must make me amends for anything past that looks unkind by altering it for the time to come. You have no reason to doubt of the work of God. It partly shines by its own light. And when that is not sufficient (as in times of temptation), a clear witness shall be superadded. And see that you strengthen your brethren, particularly those who are tempted to give up their confidence. O lift up the hands that hang down! Help those especially who did once taste of pure love. My will has nothing to do in my coming over this spring. If a ship be ready, I shall embark. O Jenny, look up and receive more!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Freeman. To Samuel Furly LEWISHAM, March 6, 1764. DEAR SAMMY,--After showing what is implied in ’gaining the whole world,’ and what in ’losing our own soul,’ [See letter of Jan. 14.] I ask, How is it possible that any man should consent to gain the whole world at the price of losing his own soul How amazing is it that any man living should do this! But, in order to abate this amazement, consider the suppositions on which he proceeds: (1) that a life of sin is a life of happiness; (2) that a life of religion is a life of misery; and (3) that he shall certainly live twenty, forty, or sixty years. Under the second of these articles you have a fair occasion of describing both false and true religion. For eight or ten weeks Mr. Maxfield has been laid up by a lingering illness. This has contributed not a little to the peace of our Society, who in general mind one thing--to save their own souls, and seldom strike first, though they sometimes strike again, especially when they are attacked without fear or wit, which has generally been the case. You have encouragement to go on at Slaithwaite, seeing already your labour is not in vain. I hope you add private to public application, visiting the poor people from house to house, and distributing little books. By this means only that deplorable ignorance will be removed. I doubt you had a dunce for a tutor at Cambridge, and so set out wrong. Did he never tell you that, of all men living, a clergyman should ’talk with the vulgar’ yea, and write, imitating the language of the common people throughout, so far as consists with purity and propriety of speech [See letter of Jan. 14.] Easiness, therefore, is the first, second, and third point; and stiffness, apparent exactness, artificialness of style the main defect to be avoided, next to solecism and impropriety. You point wrong, Sammy: you aim at a wrong mark. If he was a standard for any one (which I cannot possibly allow), yet Dr. Middleton [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749.] is no standard for a preacher--no, not for a preacher before the University. His diction is stiff, formal, affected, unnatural. The art glares, and therefore shocks a man of true taste. Always to talk or write like him would be as absurd as always to walk in minuet step. O tread natural, tread easy, only not careless. Do not blunder or shamble into impropriety. If you will imitate, imitate Mr. Addison or Dr. Swift. You will then both save trouble and do more good.--I am, with love to Nancy, dear Sammy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ryan WEDNESBURY, March 25, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you wrote, and that you write so freely. There needs no reserve between you and me. It is very easy for you to judge concerning what you have heard. Who are they that ’always praise me’ (that is, to my face). I really know none such. You are said to do so. But I think you are clear of the accusation. Certain it is, then, I cleave to none upon this account. For I know not the men. But you ’do not take those to be your real friends who tell you what they think wrong.’ Do I not take Sally Ryan and Mary Bosanquet to be my real friends And certainly they have told me more of this kind than all the world besides. Do you now find an uninterrupted communion with God Is He in all your thoughts In what sense do you pray always and in everything give thanks Are you always happy Is your will wholly subject to the will of God Do you feel no repugnance to any of His dispensations Continue to pray for, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Hartley DERBY March 27, 1764. DEAR SIR,--Your book on the Millennium and the Mystic writers was lately put into my hands. I cannot but thank you for your strong and seasonable confirmation of that comfortable doctrine, of which I cannot entertain the least doubt as long as I believe the Bible. I thank you likewise for your remarks on that bad performance of the Bishop of Gloucester, which undoubtedly tears up by the roots all real, internal religion. Yet at the same time I cannot but bewail your vehement attachment to the Mystic writers; with whom I conversed much for several years, and whom I then admired perhaps more than you do now. But I found at length an absolute necessity of giving up either them or the Bible. So after some time I fixed my choice, to which I hope to adhere to my life’s end. It is only the extreme attachment to these which can account for the following words in your Defence: ’Mr. Wesley does in several parts of his Journals lay down some marks of the new birth, not only doubtful but exceptionable, as particularly where persons appeared agitated or convulsed under the ministry, which might be owing to other causes rather than any regenerating work of God’s Spirit’ (page 385). Is this true In what one part of my Journals do I lay down any doubtful, much less exceptionable, marks of the new birth In no part do I lay down those agitations or convulsions as any marks of it at all; nay, I expressly declare the contrary in those very words which the Bishop himself cites from my Journal. I declare, ’These are of a disputable nature: they may be from God; they may be from nature; they may be from the devil.’ How is it, then, that you tell all the world Mr. Wesley lays them down in his Journals as marks of the new birth Is it kind Would it not have been far more kind, suppose I had spoken wrong, to tell me of it in a private manner How much more unkind was it to accuse me to all the world of a fault which I never committed! Is it wise thus to put a sword into the hands of our common enemy Are we not both fighting the battle of our Lord against the world as well as the flesh and the devil And shall I furnish them with weapons against you, or you against me Fine diversion for the children of the devil! And how much more would they be diverted if I would furnish my quota of the entertainment by falling upon you in return! But I bewail the change in your spirit: you have not gained more lowliness or meekness since I knew you. O beware! You did not use to despise any one. This you have gained from the authors you admire. They do not express anger toward their opponents, but contempt in the highest degree. And this, I am afraid, is far more antichristian, more diabolical, than the other. The God of love deliver you and me from this spirit and fill us with the mind that was in Christ. So prays, dear sir, Your still affectionate brother. To Mr.-- SHEFFIELD, March 29, 1764. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Is it true that you have baptized several children since the Conference If it is, I cannot but interpret it as a clear renunciation of connexion with us. And if this be the case, it will not be proper for you to preach any longer in our Societies. But the land is wide. You have room enough to turn to the right hand or to the left.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Various Clergymen SCARBOROUGH, April 19, 1764. REVEREND SIR,--Near two years and an half ago [Thomas Marriott dates it ’Lewisham, 16-19 Nov. 1761.’] I wrote the following letter. You will please to observe (1) that I propose no more therein than is the bounden duty of every Christian; (2) that you may comply with this proposal, whether any other does or not. I myself have endeavoured so to do for many years, though I have been almost alone therein, and although many, the more earnestly I talk of peace, the more zealously make themselves ready for battle.-- I am, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother.[The letter received by John Newton is in print, dated ’Bristol, Oct. 15, 1766’; and this is crossed out, and ’London, Dec. 10,’ written in.] DEAR SIR,--It has pleased God to give you both the will and the power to do many things for His glory; although you are often ashamed you have done so little, and wish you could do a thousand times more. This induces me to mention to you what has been upon my mind for many years, and what I am persuaded would be much for the glory of God if it could once be effected; and I am in great hopes it will be, if you heartily undertake it, trusting in Him alone. Some years since, God began a great work in England; but the labourers were few. At first those few were of one heart; but it was not so long. First one fell off, then another and another, till no two of us were left together in the work besides my brother and me. This prevented much good, and occasioned much evil. It grieved our spirits and weakened our hands; it gave our common enemies huge occasion to blaspheme. It perplexed and puzzled many sincere Christians; it caused many to draw back to perdition; it grieved the Holy Spirit of God. As labourers increased, disunion increased. Offences were multiplied; and, instead of coming nearer to, they stood farther and farther off from each other; till at length those who were not only brethren in Christ but fellow labourers in His gospel had no more connexion or fellowship with each other than Protestants have with Papists. But ought this to be Ought not those who are united to one common Head and employed by Him in one common work to be united to each other I speak now of those labourers who are ministers of the Church of England. These are chiefly: Mr. Perronet, Romaine, Newton, Shirley; Mr. Downing, Jesse, Adam; Mr. Talbot, Riland, Stillingfleet, Fletcher; Mr. Johnson, Baddiley, Andrews, Jane; Mr. Hart, Symes, Brown, Rouquet; Mr. Sellon, [Cooper, Harmer, Gwen]; Mr. Venn, Richardson, Burnett, Furly; Mr. Conyers, Bentley, King; Mr. Berridge, Hicks, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, John Richardson, Benjamin Colley [The first edition includes Mr. Crook, Mr. Eastwood, and ’G. W.’ Edward Perronet adds, ’Cooper Harmer, Gwen.’ ]: not excluding any other clergyman who agrees in these essentials,-- I. Original Sin. II. Justification by Faith. III. Holiness of Heart and Life, provided their life be answerable to their doctrine. ’But what union would you desire among these’ Not an union in opinions: they might agree or disagree touching absolute decrees on the one hand and perfection on the other. Not an union in expressions: these may still speak of the imputed righteousness and those of the merits of Christ. Not an union with regard to outward order: some may still remain quite regular, some quite irregular, and some partly regular and partly irregular. But, these things being as they are, as each is persuaded in his own mind, is it not a most desirable thing that we should 1. Remove hindrances out of the way not judge one another, not despise one another, not envy one another not be displeased at one another’s gifts or success, even though greater than our own not wait for one another’s halting, much less wish for it or rejoice therein Never speak disrespectfully, slightly, coldly, or unkindly of each other never repeat each other’s faults, mistakes, or infirmities, much less listen for and gather them up never say or do anything to hinder each other’s usefulness either directly or indirectly Is it not a most desirable thing that we should 2. Love as brethren think well of and honour one another wish all good, all grace, all gifts, all success, yea greater than our own, to each other expect God will answer our wish, rejoice in every appearance thereof, and praise Him for it readily believe good of each other, as readily as we once believed evil Speak respectfully, honourably, kindly of each other defend each other’s character speak all the good we can of each other recommend one another where we have influence each help the other on in his work, and enlarge his influence by all the honest means he can This is the union which I have long sought after; and is it not the duty of every one of us so to do Would it not be far better for ourselves a means of promoting both our holiness and happiness Would it not remove much guilt from those who have been faulty in any of these instances and much pain from those who have kept themselves pure Would it not be far better for the people, who suffer severely from the clashings and contentions of their leaders, which seldom fail to occasion many unprofitable, yea hurtful, disputes among them Would it not be better even for the poor, blind world, robbing them of their sport, ’Oh they cannot agree among themselves’ Would it not be better for the whole work of God, which would then deepen and widen on every side ’But it will never be; it is utterly impossible.’ Certainly it is with men. Who imagines we can do this that it can be effected by any human power All nature is against it, every infirmity, every wrong temper and passion; love of honour and praise, of power, of pre-eminence; anger, resentment, pride; long-contracted habit, and prejudice lurking in ten thousand forms. The devil and all his angels are against it. For if this takes place, how shall his kingdom stand All the world, all that know not God, are against it, though they may seem to favour it for a season. Let us settle this in our hearts, that we may be utterly cut off from all dependence on our own strength or wisdom. But surely ’with God all things are possible’; therefore ’all things are possible to him that believeth’: and this union is proposed only to them that believe, that show their faith by their works. When Mr. Conyers was objecting the impossibility of ever effecting such an union, I went upstairs, and after a little prayer opened Kempis on these words: Expecta Dominum: Viriliter age: Noli diffidere: Noli discedere; sed corpus et animam expone constanter pro gloria Dei. [Imitation, 111. xxxv. 3: ’Wait for the Lord. Quit thyself like a man. Yield not to distrust. Be unwilling to depart (desert); but constantly expose body and soul for the glory of God.’] -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To the Countess of Huntingdon WHITBY, April 20, 1764. MY LADY,--Since I had the pleasure of seeing your Ladyship, I have had many thoughts upon the subject of our conversation; the result I here send to your Ladyship, which I have as yet communicated to none but my Lord Dartmouth. Who knows but it may please God to make your Ladyship an instrument in this glorious work in effecting an union among the labourers in His vineyard That He may direct and bless you in all your steps is the prayer of, my Lady, Your Ladyship’s affectionate and obedient servant. To Mrs. Ryan HUTTON RUDBY, April 23, 1764. Do you always find a direct witness that you are saved from sin How long have you had this Have you as clear and strong an evidence of eternal as of temporal things Do you never find what they call ’lowness of spirits’ How far do you find wandering thoughts To Mrs. Woodhouse HUTTON RUDBY, April 23, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--I have often thought of you since I saw you. Your openness gave me much pleasure, and I found I could speak as freely to you as if we had been acquainted for many years. You seem to me to have suffered loss for want of Christian conversation. Your mind was open to instruction or advice. You did not shun it; rather you panted after it. But, alas, how few had you to advise with! how few to lead you on in the royal way! I believe I do not wrong you when I say your heart is panting after Christ. You desire all that He has purchased for you: A pardon written in His blood, The favour and the peace of God; . . . The speechless awe that dares not move, And all the silent heaven of love. [From Hymns and Sacred Poems. See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, v. 64] And all things are ready! Behold the Lamb of God! Is He not at your right hand Look unto Jesus! Take the blessing! Do not delay! Now is the accepted time! Believe, and all is yours!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. I shall stay two or three weeks at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To George Merryweather NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 7, 1764. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I thank you for the receipts. There is nothing more sure than that God is able and willing to give always what He gives once. And it is most certainly His design that whatever He has given you should abide with you for ever. But this can only be by simple faith. In this, reasoning is good for nothing. See that both of you be as little children! Your help is all laid up above in the hand of Him that loves you. Look unto Him, and receive what you want! Believe yourselves to heaven!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Newall NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 7, 1764. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Pray tell Brother Johnson [John or Thomas Johnson. See notes in letters of Sept. 3, 1756 (to Samuel Walker), and June 23, 1760.] I am satisfied about the horse. I don’t know what rules they are which he speaks of. I suppose the Conference will begin at Bristol the second week in August. [The Conference began on Aug. 6.] I have often complained that most of our preachers were unfaithful to each other, not [saying] freely to each other what they thought amiss. I doubt that has been the case between you and John Atlay. [Atlay was afterwards Wesley’s Book Steward. See letter of May 6, 1774, to him.] ’Tis well if you have spoke freely to him. You don’t know what good you might do thereby. An hint or two will do nothing. Take the opportunity when you give him my letter, and your labour will not be in vain. Press all our believers strongly and explicitly to go on to perfection.--I am Your affectionate brother. For the present you must act as an Assistant. To Mr. Newall, At Mr. John Hall’s In Newgate Street, London. To Cradock Glascott NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 13, 1764. DEAR SIR,--It is an unspeakable blessing that God has given you to taste of the powers of the world to come. And He is willing to give always what He gives once. You need lose nothing of what you have received; rather expect to receive more every moment, grace upon grace. And be not content till you are a Christian altogether, till your soul is all love, till you can rejoice evermore and pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks. If you are not already, it might be of use to you to be acquainted with Mr. Crosse, of Edmund Hall. He has a sound judgement and an excellent temper; and you have need of every help, that you may not lose what God hath wrought, but may have a full reward. A little tract wrote by Bishop Bull, entitled A Companion for Candidates for Holy Orders, [Wesley’s father says in his Advice to a Young Clergyman: ’Bishop Bull comes next for their subject and way of thinking and arguing: a strong end nervous writer, whose discourses and addresses to his clergy can scarce be too often read’ See letter of Feb. 19, 1755.] was of much service to me. In order to be well acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity you need but one book (beside the New Testament)--Bishop Pearson On the Creed. This I advise you to read and master throughly: it is a library in one volume. But above all be much in prayer, and God will withhold no manner of thing that is good!--I am Your affectionate servant. To Mr. Cradock Glascott, Jesus College, Oxon. To the Countess of Huntingdon NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 16, 1764. MY DEAR LADY,--I am much obliged to your Ladyship for your encouraging answer, which plainly speaks an heart devoted to God and longing for the furtherance of His kingdom. I have likewise received an exceeding friendly letter from Mr. Hart, [See Journal, v. 63-4; and letter of July 11, 1763.] testifying a great desire of union between the preachers of the gospel. Only he carries the point considerably farther than I do, proposing a free debate concerning our several opinions. Now this, I fear, we are not yet able to bear: I fear it might occasion some sharpness of expression, if not of spirit too, which might tear open the wounds before they are fully closed. I am far from being assured that I could bear it myself, and perhaps others might be as weak as me. To me, therefore, it still seems most expedient to avoid disputings of every kind--at least, for a season, till we have tasted each other’s spirits and confirmed our love to each other. I own freely I am sick of disputing; I am weary to bear it. My whole soul cries out ’Peace! Peace!’ --at least, with the children of God, that we may all unite our strength to carry on the war against the ’rulers of the darkness of this world.’ Still, I ask but one thing; I can require no more,--’Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thine If it be, give me thy hand, let us take sweet counsel together and strengthen each other in the Lord.’ If it should be (God forbid) that I should find none to join with me therein, I will (by God’s help) comply with it myself. None can hinder this. And I think my brother will be likeminded--yea, and all who act in connexion with us. Probably it might contribute much to this end, if those of our brethren who have opportunity would be at Bristol on Thursday, the 9th of August. We might then spend a few hours in free conversation, either apart from or in conjunction with the other preachers. I apprehend, if your Ladyship could then be near, it might be of excellent service in confirming any kind and friendly disposition which our Lord might plant in the hearts of His servants. Surely, if this can be effectually done, we shall again see Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Then The children of thy faith and prayer Thy joyful eyes shall see, Shall see the prosperous Church, and share In her prosperity! [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, viii. 245.] --I am, my dear Lady, Your Ladyship’s most affectionate and obedient servant. To his Brother Charles HADDINGTON, May 25, 1764. DEAR BROTHER,--Is there any reason why you and I should have no farther intercourse with each other I know none; although possibly there are persons in the world who would not be sorry for it. I hope you find peace and unity in the South, as we do in the North. Only the Seceders and Mr. Sandeman’s friends are ready to eat us up. And no wonder; for these, as well as Deists and Socinians, I oppose ex professo. But how do Thomas Maxfield and his friends go on Quietly, or gladiatorio animo And how are John Jones, Downes, and Richardson and my best friend, [His wife.] and yours The frightful stories wrote from London had made all our preachers in the North afraid even to mutter about perfection; and, of course, the people on all sides were grown good Calvinists in that point. ’Tis what I foresaw from the beginning --that the devil would strive by T. Maxfield and company to drive perfection out of the kingdom. O let you and I hold fast whereunto we have attained, and let our yea be yea and our nay be nay! I feel the want of some about me that are all faith and love. No man was more profitable to me than George Bell while he was simple of heart. Oh for heat and light united! My love to Sally. Adieu. To Dorothy Furly EDINBURGH, May 28, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--Certainly it would be right to spend some time in setting down both the outward providences of God and the inward leadings and workings of His Spirit as far as you can remember them. But observe withal you are called to be a good steward of the mammon of unrighteousness. You must therefore think of this too in its place, only without anxiety. Otherwise that neglect of your calling will hinder the work of God in your heart. You are not serving mammon by this, but serving Christ: it is part of the task which He has assigned you. Yet it is true your heart is to be free all the time; and see that you stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. I thought your name had been altered before now. [See letter of July 16, 1763, about her marriage to John Downes.] In a new station you will have need of new watchfulness. Still redeem the time, be steadily serious, and follow your own conscience in all things.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. In my return from the Highlands, I expect to spend a day at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the 18th or 19th of June. To Matthew Errington EDINBURGH, May 30, 1764. O Matthew, how is this There is not one Milton here, nor one set of the Philosophy. Pray send immediately twelve sets of the Philosophy and twenty Miltons [Wesley’s Extract from Milton’s ’Paradise Lost,’ 18mo, 322 pp., printed in 1763. Errington has written a figure 8 over the word Miltons.] (if you have more than twenty at Newcastle, for you must not be left without some); and see that they be here before I return, which I expect will be on Saturday fortnight. So on Tuesday fortnight, June 19, you will (if God permit) see me at Newcastle. The word of God has free course in North Britain, even among honourable and right honourable sinners.--I am, with love to all, dear Matthew, Your affectionate brother. I hope to spend two days with you and to preach at the Fell at three on Thursday, 21st. Send also 24 Plain Accounts. [None.] 50 Character of a Methodist. 100 Rules of Society. [60.] 30 Primitive Physick (if you have them). 12 Earnest Appeals. [None.] 30 Answer to Bp. Warburton. [20.] 20 Kempis. Lose not a day. 40 Short Hymns. To Mr. Matthew Errington, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Answered.[Errington’s note.] To Margaret Lewen [June 1764.] 1. You Want to know God, in order to enjoy Him in time and in eternity. 2. All that you Want to know of Him is contained in one book, the Bible. Therefore your one point is to understand this. And all you learn is to be referred to this, as either directly or remotely conducive to it. 3. Might it not be well, then, to spend at least two hours every day in reading and meditating upon the Bible reading every morning (if not every evening too) a portion of the Old and then of the New Testament If you would save yourself the trouble of thinking, add Mr. Henry’s Comment: if you would only be assisted in thinking, add the Explanatory Notes. 4. But I find a difficulty already. Can you help me over it Have you more candour than almost any one in the world Will you not blame me for recommending, as they come in the way, tracts published by myself I think you will not. So I will set down these (in their place) as freely as other books. 5. Your studying hours (if your constitution will bear it) might be five or six hours a day; perhaps from nine to twelve in the morning, and from two to four or five in the afternoon. And whenever you begin to be tired with books that require a strong and deep attention, relax your mind by interposing history or poetry or something of a lighter nature. 6. The first thing you should understand a little of is Grammar; in order to which it will suffice to read first the Kingswood English Grammar (which is exceeding short), and then Bishop Lowth’s Introduction. 7. Next it would be worth your while to acquire a little knowledge in Arithmetic; and Dilworth’s Arithmetic would give you full as much as you want. 8. You might proceed to Geography. But in this I would not advise you to encumber yourself with many books. You need only master one, Randal’s Geographical Grammar; and then betake yourself to the Globes. I believe those of Mr. Adams are the best; to which you may add his little book of Instructions. 9. Logic naturally follows; and I really think it is worth all the rest put together. But here I am at a full stop; for I know no good treatise on the subject in English, except Aldrich’s Logic, and that I am afraid you cannot understand without an instructor. I shall be glad to give you a little assistance in the short time we have together. 10. As to Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) there is full as much of it as you want in Langbain’s Compendium. 11. In Natural Philosophy you have a larger field. You may begin with a Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation. This contains the substance of Ray, Derham, Niewentyt, Nature Displayed, and all the other celebrated books on the subject. You may add that fine book, Mr. Jones’s Principles of Natural Philosophy. Thence you will easily pass to the Glasgow [Edinburgh] abridgement of Mr. Hutchinson’s Works. [See letter of Nov. 26, 1756.] The abridgers give not only all his sense, but all his spirit. You may add to these the beautiful tracts of Lord Forbes; and, if you would go a little farther, Mr. Baker’s ingenious Treatise on the Microscope. 12. With any or all of the foregoing studies you may intermix that of History. Geography and Chronology are termed the two eyes of history. Geography has been mentioned before; and I think all you want of Chronology may be learned from Marshall’s Chronological Tables. 13. You may begin with Rollin’s Ancient History; and afterwards read in order, Puffendorf’s Introduction to the History of Europe, the Concise Church History, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, the Concise History of England, Clarendon’s History of the Great Rebellion, Neal’s History of the Puritans, his History of New England, and Solis’s History of the Conquest of Mexico. 14. Whitby’s Compendium of Metaphysics will introduce you to that science. You may go on with Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding; Bishop Browne on the Nature, Procedure, and Limits of Human Understanding; and Malebranche’s Search after Truth. 15. For Poetry you may read Spenser’s Faery Queen; Fairfax’s or Hoole’s Godfrey of Bulloigne; select parts of Shakespeare; Paradise Lost; the Night Thoughts; and Moral and Sacred Poems. 16. You are glad to begin and end with Divinity. But I must not expatiate here. I will only recommend to your careful perusal Bishop Pearson On the Creed, Mr. Nelson’s Sermons, and the Christian Library. This course of study, if you have the resolution to go through it, will, I apprehend, take you up three, four, or five years, according to the degree of your health and of your application. And you will then have knowledge enough for any reasonable Christian. But remember, before all, in all, and above all, your great point is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.--I am, dear Miss Lewen, Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE June 20, 1764. Will it be agreeable to my dear Lady Maxwell that I trouble her with a letter so soon and that I write with so little ceremony that I use no compliment, but all plainness of speech If it be not, you must tell me so, and I shall know better how to speak for the time to come. Indeed, it would be unpleasing to me to use reserve: the regard I feel for you strongly inclines me to ’think aloud,’ to tell you every thought which rises in my heart. I think God has taken unusual pains, so to speak, to make you a Christian;-- a Christian indeed, not in name, worshipping God in spirit and in truth; having in you the mind that was in Christ, and walking as Christ also walked. He has given you affliction upon affliction; He has used every possible means to unhinge your soul from things of earth, that it might fix on Him alone. How far the design of His love has succeeded I could not well judge from a short conversation. Your Ladyship will therefore give me leave to inquire, Is the heaviness you frequently feel merely owing to weakness of body and the loss of near relations I will hope it is not. It might, indeed, at first spring from these outward pressures. But did not the gracious Spirit of God strike in, and take occasion from these to convince you of sin, of unbelief, of the want of Christ And is not the sense of this one great cause, if not the greatest, of your present distress If so, the greatest danger is, either that you should stifle that conviction, not suffering yourself to be convinced that you are all sin, the chief of sinners; or that you should heal the wound slightly, that you should rest before you know Christ is yours, before His Spirit witnesses with your spirit that you are a child of God. My dear Lady, be not afraid to know yourself--yea, to know yourself as you are known. How soon, then, will you know your Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous! And why not this day why not this hour If you feel your want, I beseech the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to look upon you now! O give Thy servant power to believe! to see and feel how Thou hast loved her! Now let her sink down into the arms of Thy love; and say unto her soul, ’I am thy salvation.’ With regard to particular advices, I know not how far your Ladyship would have me to proceed. I would not be backward to do anything in my power; and yet I would not obtrude. But in any respect you may command, my dear Lady, Your Ladyship’s affectionate servant. To Miss J. C. March WHITEHAVEN, June 24, 1764. You give me an agreeable account of the state of things in London, and such as calls for much thankfulness. From different letters I find that there is at length a calm season, God having rebuked the wind and the seas. But I am concerned for you. I cannot doubt a moment but you was saved from sin. Your every act, word, thought was love, whatever it be now. You was in a measure a living witness of the perfection I believe and preach--the only perfection of which we are capable while we remain in the body. To carry perfection higher is to sap the foundation of it and destroy it from the face of the earth. I am jealous over you: I am afraid lest, by grasping at a shadow, you should have let go the substance--lest, by aiming at a perfection which we cannot have till hereafter, you should cast away that which now belongs to the children of God. This is love filling the heart. Surely it did fill yours, and it may do now, by simple faith. O cast not away your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward! Converse much with those who are all alive, who strive not to pull you down but to build you up. Accursed be that humility by which shipwreck is made of the faith. Look up and receive power from on high. Receive all you had once, and more than all. Give no place to evil reasoning. You have need to be guarded by a steady and yet tender hand. Be as a little child. The Lord is at hand. He is yours; therefore shall you lack nothing.--I am, &c.[See letter of March 4, 1760.] To Sarah Moore LEEDS, July 5, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am fully convinced that T. Bryant’s staying another year in the Sheffield Circuit would neither be good for him nor for the people. I know his strength, and I know his weakness. But he shall go no farther than the Leeds Circuit, from whence he may now and then step over to Sheffield, and the Sheffield preacher to Leeds. Sally, see that you walk circumspectfully. The eyes of many are upon you; and, above all, the eye of God!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell MANCHESTER, July IO, 1764. MY DEAR LADY,--Till I had the pleasure of receiving yours, I was almost in doubt whether you would think it worth your while to write or not. So much the more I rejoiced when that doubt was removed, and removed in so agreeable a manner. I cannot but think of you often: I seem to see you just by me, panting after God, under the heavy pressure of bodily weakness and faintness, bereaved of your dearest relatives, convinced that you are a sinner, a debtor that has nothing to pay, and just ready to cry out, Jesu, now I have lost my all, Let me upon Thy bosom fall. Amen, Lord Jesus! Speak; for Thy servant heareth! Speak Thyself into her heart! Lift up the hands that hang down and the feeble knees. Let her see Thee full of grace and truth, and make her glad with the light of Thy countenance. Do not stop, my dear Lady, one moment ’because you have not felt sorrow enough.’ Your Friend above has felt enough of it for you. O Lamb of God, was ever pain, Was ever love like Thine! Look, look unto Him, and be thou saved! He is not a God afar off; He is now hovering over you with eyes of tenderness and love! Only believe! Then He turns your heaviness into joy. Do not think you are not humble enough, not contrite enough, not earnest enough. You are nothing; but Christ is all, and He is yours. The Lord God write it upon your heart, and take you for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Oh that you may be ever as dead to the world as you are now! I apprehend the greatest danger from that quarter. If you should be induced to seek happiness out of Christ, how soon would your good desires vanish! especially if you should give way to the temptation to which your person, your youth, and your fortune will not fail to expose you. If you escape this snare, I trust you will be a real Christian, having the power as well as the form of religion. I expect you will then have likewise better health and spirits; perhaps to-morrow. But O, take Christ to-day! I long to have you happy in Him! Surely few have a more earnest desire of your happiness than, my very dear Lady, Your Ladyship’s most affectionate servant. To a Gentleman WIGAN, July 13, 1764. DEAR SIR,--There was one thing when I was with you that gave me pain: you are not in the Society. But why not Are there not sufficient arguments for it to move any reasonable man Do you not hereby make an open confession of Christ, of what you really believe to be His work, and of those whom you judge to be in a proper sense His people and His messengers By this means do not you encourage His people and strengthen the hands of His messengers And is not this the way to enter into the spirit and share the blessing of a Christian community Hereby, likewise, you may have the benefit of the advices and exhortations at the meeting of the Society, and also of provoking one another at the private meetings to love and to good works. The ordinary objections to such an union are of little weight with you. You are not afraid of the expense. You already give unto the Lord as much as you need do then; and you are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, even in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. Perhaps you will say, ’I am joined in affection.’ True; but not to so good effect. This joining half-way, this being a friend to but not a member of the Society is by no means so open a confession of the work and servants of God. Many go thus far who dare not go farther, who are ashamed to bear the reproach of an entire union. Either you are ashamed or you are not. If you are, break through at once; if you are not, come into the light and do what those well-meaning cowards dare not do. This imperfect union is not so encouraging to the people, not so strengthening to the preachers. Rather it is weakening their hands, hindering their work, and laying a stumblingblock in the way of others; for what can any man think who knows you are so well acquainted with them and yet do not join in their Society What can he think but that you know them too well to come any nearer to them, that you know that kind of union to be useless, if not hurtful And yet by this very union is the whole (external) work of God upheld throughout the nation, besides all the spiritual good which accrues to each member. O delay no longer, for the sake of the work, for the sake of the world, for the sake of your brethren! Join them inwardly and outwardly, heart and hand, for the sake of your own soul. There is something not easily explained in the fellowship of the Spirit which we enjoy with a society of living Christians. You have no need to give up your share therein and in the various blessings that result from it. You have no need to exclude yourself from the benefit of the advice and exhortations given from time to time. These are by no means to be despised, even supposing you have yourself more understanding than him that gives them. You need not lose the benefit of those prayers which experience shows are attended with a peculiar blessing. ’But I do not care to meet a class; I find no good in it.’ Suppose you find even a dislike, a loathing of it; may not this be natural, or even diabolical In spite of this, break through, make a fair trial. It is but a lion in the way. Meet only six times (with previous prayer), and see if it do not vanish away. But if it be a cross, still bear it for the sake of your brethren. ’But I want to gain my friends and relations.’ If so, stand firm. If you give way, you hurt them and they will press upon you the more. If you do not, you will probably gain them; otherwise you confirm both their wrong notions and wrong tempers. Because I love you I have spoken fully and freely; to know that I have not spoken in vain will be a great satisfaction to Your affectionate brother. To Ebenezer Blackwell LIVERPOOL, July 14, 1764. DEAR SIR,--My brother informs me that you have been so extremely ill that your life was hardly expected. [Blackwell lived till 1782.] I really am under apprehensions lest that chariot should cost you your life. If, after having been accustomed to ride on horseback for many years, you should now exchange an horse for a carriage, it cannot be that you should have good health. It is a vain thing to expect it. I judge of your case by my own. I must be on horseback for life, if I would be healthy. Now and then, indeed, if I could afford it, I should rest myself for fifty miles in a chaise; but without riding near as much as I do now, I must never look for health. [In 1772 Wesley’s friends bought him a carriage ’to prevent my riding on horseback, which I cannot do quite so well since an hurt which I got some months ago.’ See Journal, v. 447.] In the meantime I trust both Mrs. Blackwell and you are looking for health of a nobler kind. You look to be filled with the spirit of love and of an healthful mind. What avails everything else everything that passes away as an arrow through the air The arrow is flown! The moment is gone! The millennial year Rushes on to the view, and eternity’s here! [Hymns for New Year’s Day. See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, vi. 14.] You want nothing more of this world. You have enough, and (by the peculiar blessing of God) know you have. But you want a thousand times more faith. You want love; you want holiness. The Lord God supply all your wants from the riches of His mercy in Christ Jesus!--I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. Next week I shall set my face toward Bristol. To Samuel Furly LIVERPOOL, July 15, 1764. DEAR SAMMY,--I have had many thoughts, since we parted, on the subject of our late conversation. I send you them just as they occur. ’What is it that constitutes a good style’ Perspicuity and purity, propriety, strength, and easiness, joined together. Where any one of these is wanting, it is not a good style. Dr. Middleton’s style wants easiness: it is stiff to an high degree. And stiffness in writing is full as great a fault as stiffness in behaviour. It is a blemish hardly to be excused, much less to be imitated. He is pedantic. ’It is pedantry,’ says the great Lord Boyle, ’to use an hard word where an easier will serve.’ Now, this the Doctor continually does, and that of set purpose. It is abundantly too artificial. Artis est celare artem [’It is the perfection of art to conceal itself.’]; but his art glares in every sentence. He continually says, ’Observe how fine I speak!’ Whereas a good speaker seems to forget he speaks at all. His full round curls naturally put one in mind of Sir Cloudesley Shovel’s peruke, that ’eternal buckle takes in Parian stone.’ [Pope’s Moral Essays, iii. 295-6: ’That life-long wig which Gorgon’s self might own, Eternal buckle takes in Parian stone.’] Yet this very fault may appear a beauty to you, because you are apt to halt on the same foot. There is a stiffness both in your carriage and speech and something of it in your very familiarity. But for this very reason you should be jealous of yourself and guard against your natural infirmity. If you imitate any writer, let it be South, Atterbury, or Swift, in whom all the properties of a good writer meet. I was myself once much fonder of Prior than Pope; as I did not then know that stiffness was a fault. But what in all Prior can equal for beauty of style some of the first lines that Pope [Elegy to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady.] ever published-- Poets themselves must die, [Fall] like those they sung, Deaf the praised ear, and mute the tuneful tongue; E’en he whose heart now melts in tender [Mournful] lays, Shall shortly want the generous tear he pays. Then from his eyes thy much-loved form [Closing eyes thy form] shall part; And the last pang shall tear thee from his heart: Life’s idle business at one gasp be o’er, The Muse forgot, and thou beloved [Be loved] no more. Here is style! How clear, how pure, proper, strong! and yet how amazingly easy! This crowns all; no stiffness, no hard words; no apparent art, no affectation; all is natural, and therefore consummately beautiful. Go thou and write likewise. As for me, I never think of my style at all; but just set down the words that come first. Only when I transcribe anything for the press, then I think it my duty to see every phrase be clear, pure, and proper. Conciseness (which is now, as it were, natural to me) brings quantum sufficit of strength. If, after all, I observe any stiff expression, I throw it out, neck and shoulders. Clearness in particular is necessary for you and me, because we are to instruct people of the lowest understanding. Therefore we, above all, if we think with the wise, yet must speak with the vulgar. We should constantly use the most common, little, easy words (so they are pure and proper) which our language affords. When I had been a member of the University about ten years, I wrote and talked much as you do now. But when I talked to plain people in the Castle or the town, I observed they gaped and stared. This quickly obliged me to alter my style and adopt the language of those I spoke to. And yet there is a dignity in this simplicity, which is not disagreeable to those of the highest rank. I advise you, Sammy, sacredly to abstain from reading any stiff writer. A bystander sees more than those that play the game. Your style is much hurt already. Indeed, something might be said if you was a learned infidel writing for money or reputation. But that is not the case: you are a Christian minister, speaking and writing to save souls. Have this end always in your eye, and you will never designedly use an hard word. Use all the sense, learning, and fire you have; forgetting yourself, and remembering only these are the souls for whom Christ died; heirs of an happy or miserable eternity!--I am, with love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. The Rev. Mr. Furly, At the Rev. Mr. Venn’s, In Huddersfield, Yorks. To the Earl of Dartmouth LAMPETER, July 26, 1764. MY LORD,--Upon an attentive consideration, it will appear to every impartial person that the uniting of the serious clergy in the manner I proposed in a former letter [See letter of April 19.] is not a matter of indifferency, but what none can reject unless at the peril of his own soul. For every article therein mentioned is undeniably contained in the royal law, the law of love; and consequently the observance thereof is bound upon every man as indispensably necessary to salvation. It will appear, farther, that every single person may observe it, whether the other will or no. For many years I, for instance, have observed this rule in every article. I labour to do so now; and will by God’s help, whatever others do, observe it to the end. I rejoice that your Lordship so heartily concurs in doing what is in your power to promote a general observance of it. Certainly this is not possible to be effected by merely human means; but it seems your Lordship has taken one good step towards it by communicating it to several. I am persuaded, at the same time, your Lordship’s wish is that it might take place everywhere. The same step I purpose to take, by sending to each of those gentlemen the substance of what I wrote to your Lordship, and desiring them to tell me freely whatever objections they have against such an union. As many of those as are grounded on reason, I doubt not will be easily answered. Those only which spring from some wrong temper must remain till that temper is subdued. For instance: First, ’We cannot unite,’ says one, ’because we cannot trust one another.’ I answer to your reason or understanding, No matter whether we can or no. Thus far we must unite, trust or not; otherwise we sin against God. Secondly, I can trust you; why cannot you trust me I can have no private end herein. I have neither personal hopes nor fears from you. I want nothing which you can give me; and I am not afraid of your doing me any hurt, though you may hurt yourself and the cause of God. But I cannot answer your envy, jealousy, pride, or credulity. As long as those remain, objections, however cut off, will spring up again like Hydra’s heads. If your Lordship has heard any objections, I should be glad to know them. May I be permitted to ask, Have not the objections you have heard made some impression upon your Lordship Have they not occasioned (if I may speak freely) your Lordship’s standing aloof from me Have they not set your Lordship farther and farther off, ever since I waited upon you at [Blackheath] Why do I ask Indeed, not upon my own account. Quid mea Ego in portu navigo. [Terence’s Andria, 111. i. 22. ’But now all is at your peril. I ride safe in the harbour.’ Wesley adds Quid mea] I can truly say, I neither fear nor desire anything from your Lordship. To speak a rough truth, I do not desire any intercourse with any persons of quality in England. I mean for my own sake. They do me no good; and I fear I can do none to them. If it be desired, I will readily leave all those to the care of my fellow labourers. I will article with them so to do rather than this shall be any bone of contention. Were I not afraid of giving your Lordship pain, I would speak yet still farther. Methinks you desire I should--that is, to tell you once for all every thought that rises in my heart. I will then. At present I do not want you, but I really think you want me. For have you a person in all England who speaks to your Lordship so plain and downright as I do who considers not the peer, but the man not the earl, but the immortal spirit who rarely commends, but often blames, and perhaps would do it oftener if you desired it who is jealous over you with a godly jealousy, lest you should be less a Christian by being a nobleman lest, after having made a fair advance towards heaven, you should Measure back your steps to earth again O my Lord, is not such a person as this needful for you in the highest degree If you have any such, I have no more to say, but that I pray God to bless him to your soul. If you have not, despise not even the assistance which it may please God to give you by, my Lord, Your Lordship’s ready servant. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, August 17, 1764. MY DEAR LADY,--Since I had the pleasure of yours, I have hardly had an hour that I could call my own; otherwise I should not have delayed writing so long, as I have a very tender regard for you and an earnest desire that you should be altogether a Christian. I cannot be content with your being ever so harmless or regular in your behaviour, or even exemplary in all externals; nay, more than all this you have received already, for you have the fear of God. But shall you stop here God forbid! This is only the beginning of wisdom. You are not to end here: fear shall ripen into love. You shall know (perhaps very soon) that love of God which passeth knowledge. You shall witness the kingdom of God within you, even righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. It is no small instance of the goodness of God towards you that you are conscious of your want, your ’want of living faith divine.’ And His goodness herein is more remarkable, because almost all your neighbours would set you down for a right good believer. O beware of those flatterers! Hold fast the conviction which God hath given you! Faith, living, conquering, loving faith, is undoubtedly the thing you want. And of this you have frequently a taste to encourage you in pressing forward: such is the tender mercy of Him that loves you; such His desire that you should receive all His precious promises! Do not think they are afar off. Do not imagine you must stay long (years or months) before you receive them. Do not put them off a day, an hour! Why not now Why should you not look up this instant, and see, as it were, Jesus Christ set forth, evidently set forth, crucified before your eyes O hear His voice!--’Daughter, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven thee!’ ’Say not in thy heart, Who shall go up into heaven, or who shall go down into the deep ’ No; ’the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart.’ ’Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.’ Joy in the Holy Ghost is a precious gift of God, but yet tenderness of conscience is a still greater gift; and all this is for you. Just ready, The speechless awe which dares not move, And all the silent heaven of love. I am no great friend to solitary Christianity; nevertheless, in so peculiar a case as yours, I think an exception may be admitted. It does seem most expedient for you to retire from Edinburgh, at least for a season, till God has increased your strength. For the company of those who know not God, who are strangers to the religion of the heart, especially if they are sensible, agreeable persons, might quite damp the grace of God in your soul. You cannot oblige me more than by telling me all that is in your heart; there is no danger of your tiring me. I do not often write so long letters myself; but when I write to you, I am full of matter. I seem to see you just before me, a poor, feeble, helpless creature, but just upon the point of salvation; upright of heart (in a measure), full of real desires for God, and emerging into light. The Lord take you whole! So prays, my dear Lady, Your affectionate servant. To Thomas Rankin BRISTOL, September 21, 1764. DEAR TOMMY,--I sometimes wonder that all our preachers are not convinced of this--that it is of unspeakable use to spread our practical tracts in every Society. Billy Penington in one year sold more of these in Cornwall than had been sold for seven years before. So may you, if you take the same method. Carry one sort of books with you the first time you go the round, another sort the second time, and so on. Preach on the subject at each place; and, after preaching, encourage the congregation to buy and read the tract. Neither James Mitchell nor William Thomas was without blame. We must make allowance when they tell their own story; but if they now behave well, it is all we desire. Some years since, there was something done in the way you mention concerning Brother Triggs. I remember two or three of our brethren from the West coming to London, recommended by Billy Roberts. The particulars he can best inform you of, as well as what success they had. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Lady Maxwell BRISTOL, September 22, 1764. MY DEAR LADY,--You need be under no manner of apprehension of writing too often to me. The more frequent your letters are the more welcome they will be. When I have not heard from you for some time, I begin to be full of fears; I am afraid either that your bodily weakness increases or that your desires after God grow cold. I consider you are at present but a tender, sickly plant, easily hurt by any rough blast. But I trust this will not be so long; for you have a strong Helper. And the Lord, whom you serve, though feebly and imperfectly, will suddenly come to His temple. When, Lord Are all things ready now Here is the sinner; one whose mouth is stopped, who has nothing to pay, who pleads neither her own harmlessness, nor works, nor good desires, nor sincerity, but can adopt that strange word I give up every plea beside, Lord, I am damned; but Thou hast died. He has died; therefore you shall live. O do not reason against Him! Let Him take you now! Let Him take you just as you are and make you what is acceptable in His sight. It gives me pleasure indeed to hear that God has given you resolution to join the Society. Undoubtedly you will suffer reproach on the account; but it is the reproach of Christ. And you will have large amends when the Spirit of glory and of God shall rest upon you. Yet I foresee a danger: at first you will be inclined to think that all the members of the Society are in earnest. And when you find that some are otherwise (which will always be the case in so large a body of people), then prejudice may easily steal in and exceedingly weaken your soul. O beware of this rock of offence! When you see anything amiss (upon hearsay you will not readily receive it), remember our Lord’s word, ’What is that to thee Follow thou Me.’ And I entreat you do not regard the half-Methodists--if we must use the name. Do not mind them who endeavour to hold Christ in one hand and the world in the other. I want you to be all a Christian;--such a Christian as the Marquis De Renty or Gregory Lopez was; such an one as that saint of God, Jane Cooper, [See letter of Sept. 11, 1765.] all sweetness, all gentleness, all love. Methinks you are just what she was when I saw her first. I shrink at the thought of seeing you what she was when I saw her last. But why should I What is all the pain of one that is glorifying God in the fires with ’Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit’ May I not take upon me to give you one advice more Be very wary how you contract new acquaintance. All, even sincere people, will not profit you. I should be pained at your conversing frequently with any but those who are of a deeply serious spirit and who speak closely to the point. You need not condemn them, and yet you may say, ’This will not do for me.’ May He that loves you richly supply all your wants and answer your enlarged desires! So prays, my very dear Lady, Your affectionate servant. To Ann Foard BRISTOL, September 29, I 764. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you wrote. You should do it oftener, and the more freely the better. None shall see your letters, so that you need be under no apprehension of any inconvenience following. In the Thoughts upon Perfection and in the Farther Thoughts you have a clear, consistent account of it. Did you never hear any one speak of it in the manner I do there Or does -- speak in the same manner with -- Wherein do they differ And does not -- -- Nancy, do not start, but speak freely. It may be of more service than you are aware of; and be assured you will bring no inconvenience upon yourself. I was likewise grieved at the danger you was in of stopping short. Certainly you may attain that blessing soon. And I am throughly persuaded you did taste of it; though how you lost it I know not. It will be eternally true, ’If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.’ Meanwhile faith is the voice of God in the heart proclaiming Himself. Have this faith, and you have salvation. And this is the very thing you want. When this is joined with a strong understanding, it is well; but it may exist with a very weak understanding. This is the case with Mrs. W., whose understanding is extremely weak. And yet she has strong faith, and such as exceedingly profits me; though I take knowledge the treasure is in an earthen vessel. I see all that is of nature; and this does not hinder my rejoicing in all that is of God. This is one branch of simplicity. While reason, assisted-- from above, enables me to discern the precious from the vile, I make my full use of the former without losing one moment in thinking upon the latter. Perhaps reason (enlightened) makes me simple. If I knew less of human nature (forgive me for talking so much of myself), I should be more apt to stumble at the weakness of it, and if I had not (by nature or by grace) some clearness of apprehension. It is owing to this (under God) that I never staggered at the reveries of George Bell. I saw it instantly, at the beginning and from the beginning, what was right and what was wrong. But I saw withal, ’I have many things to speak, but you cannot bear them now.’ Hence many imagined I was imposed upon, and applauded themselves in their greater perspicacity; as they do at this day. ’But if you knew it, says his friend to Gregory Lopez, why did not you tell me’ I answer with him, ’I do not speak all I know, but what I judge needful.’ Still, I am persuaded there is no state under heaven from which it is not possible to fall. But I wish you was all love, and then you would not need to take any thought for the morrow. The usual preaching may be at Combe on Saturday evening, and at the Grove on Sunday morning. I bear the rich, and love the poor; therefore I spend almost--all my time with them!--My dear sister, adieu! Write to me at London, and write freely. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, September 29, 1764. MY DEAR BROTHER,--My judgement is this,--that it is best for you to be at Edinburgh (but in a more airy lodging, if it can be had for love or money) before the end of next month, James Kershaw at Dundee, and Tommy Hanby at Aberdeen. If you have either love or pity for him, let him not stay too long at Dundee. His mind is by no means strong enough to bear that weight of applause. At any rate, take him out of the furnace, or he will be consumed. And you well know a change is best for the people as well as best for him. Is it not easiest for him and you to change at a day appointed, and then for you to stay at Dundee till you are relieved by James Kershaw Peace be with your spirits!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. I hope you have been at Sir Archibald’s. [Sir Archibald Grant. See Journal, iv. 451.] To Samuel Furly YARMOUTH, October II, 1764. DEAR SAMMY,--I have delayed writing thus long, [See letter of July 15. ] because I was not inclined to draw the saw of controversy, particularly on a subject not very important and with a person not very easy to be convinced. I simply told you my thoughts concerning style and concerning yourself. If you can profit by them, well; if not, there is no harm done. I wanted to have you write in the most excellent way; if you prefer any other, you may. I have no prejudice for or against any writer: but I may say, without much vanity, I know a good style from a bad one; and it would be a shame if I did not, after having spent five-and-forty years (with some natural understanding, much attention, and a free acquaintance with many eminent men) in reading the most celebrated writers in the English tongue. Observing you to want one of the things essential to a good style, namely, easiness, I warned you of it, and (to make the reason of my caution more clear) enlarged a little upon the head. You reply, ’Harmony is essential to a good style.’ It may be so; I have nothing to say to the contrary. In the very lines I quoted there is admirable harmony; nihil supra; the soul of music breathes in them: but there is no stiffness. The lines are as easy as harmonious. This is the perfection of writing. Whether long periods or short are to be chosen is quite another question. Some of those you transcribe from Swift are long; but they are easy too, entirely easy, void of all stiffness, and therefore just such as I advise you to copy after. The paragraphs cited from Hawksworth are far inferior to them, not more harmonious, but more stiff and artificial. That from Wharton is worst of all, stiff as a stake, all art and no nature. I know not what taste they can have who admire his style; certainly they must prefer Statius to Virgil. That ’poor people understand long sentences better than short’ is an entire mistake. I have carefully tried the experiment for thirty years, and I find the very reverse to be true. Long sentences utterly confound their intellects; they know not where they are. If you would be understood by them, you should seldom use a word of many syllables or a sentence of many words. Short sentences are likewise infinitely best for the careless and indolent. They strike them through and through. I have seen instances of it an hundred times. Neither are the dull and stupid enlightened nor the careless affected by long and laboured periods half so much as by such short ones as these, ’The work is great; the day is short; and long is the night wherein no man can work.’ But the main thing is, let us be all alive to God. Let Christ reign alone in our hearts; let all that mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus; and let us walk as Christ also walked. Peace be with you and yours!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Foard NORWICH, October 12, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--That great truth, ’that we are saved by faith,’ will never be worn out; and that sanctifying as well as justifying faith is the free gift of God. Now, with God one day is as a thousand years. It plainly follows that the quantity of time is nothing to Him: centuries, years, months, days, hours, and moments are exactly the same. Consequently He can as well sanctify in a day after we are justified as an hundred years. There is no difference at all, unless we suppose Him to be such an one as ourselves. Accordingly we see, in fact, that some of the most unquestionable witnesses of sanctifying grace were sanctified within a few days after they were justified. I have seldom known so devoted a soul as Sister Hooley, [Ann Hooley’s conversion as a girl under John Oldham is described in Smith’s Methodism in Macclesfield,pp. 70-1. He says she was probably ’the first Methodist child who went from the Macclesfield Society to the Church in heaven.’] at Macclesfield, who was sanctified within nine days after she was convinced of sin. She was then twelve years old, and I believe was never afterwards heard to speak an improper word or known to do an improper thing. Her look struck an awe into all that saw her. She is now in Abraham’s bosom. Although, therefore, it usually pleases God to interpose some time between justification and sanctification, yet, as it is expressly observed in the Farther Thoughts, we must not fancy this to be an invariable rule. All who think this must think we are sanctified by works, or (which comes to the same) by sufferings; for, otherwise, what is time necessary for It must be either to do or to suffer. Whereas, if nothing be required but simple faith, a moment is as good as an age. The truth is, we are continually forming general rules from our own particular experience. Thus Sarah Ryan, [See letter of April 23.] having gone about and about herself, which took up a considerable time, might very naturally suppose all who are sanctified must stay for it near as long a time as she did. Again: if God has so rooted and grounded her in love (which I neither affirm nor deny) that she cannot now fall from Him, she very naturally thinks this is the case with all that are sanctified. Formerly Sarah Crosby [See letter of Oct. 5, 1765.] drew the same inference from her own experience, and was as positive that she could not fall from that state or sin as Sarah Ryan can be now. But ’none can be sanctified without a deep knowledge of themselves and of the devices of Satan.’ They may without the latter, which God will give them in due time. And the former He can give in a moment, and frequently does, of which we have fresh instances almost every day. In the Thoughts on Perfection it is observed that, before any can be assured they are saved from sin, they must not only feel no sin but ’have a direct witness’ of that salvation. And this several have had as clear as Sarah Ryan has, who afterwards fell from that salvation: although Sarah Ryan, to be consistent with her scheme, must deny they ever had it; yea, and must affirm that witness was either from nature or from the devil. If it was really from God, is He well pleased with this I know not how to reconcile speaking sharply or roughly, or even a seeming want of meekness, with perfection. And yet I am fearful of condemning whom God has not condemned. What I cannot understand I leave to Him. How is it that you make me write longer letters to you than I do almost to any one else I know not how, I find a greater concern for your welfare. I want you to be exactly right. This occasions my not thinking much of any pains that may give you help or satisfaction. The Lord touch your heart now, that all your tempers, thoughts, words, and works may be holiness unto our God.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Miss March NORWICH, October 13, 1764. I do not see that you can speak otherwise than you do in your band. If you sought their approbation, that would be wrong; but you may suffer it without blame. Indeed, in these circumstances you must; since it is undeniably plain that the doing otherwise would hurt rather than help their souls. I believe Miss Foard thought she felt evil before she did, and by that very thought gave occasion to its re-entrance. You ought not to speak explicitly to many: very few would understand or know how to advise you. For some time I thought Maxfield did, and was therefore glad of your acquaintance with him, hoping he would lead you by the hand in a more profitable manner than I was able to do. But I afterwards doubted. The Lord send you help by whom He will send! From what not only you but many others likewise have experienced, we find there is very frequently a kind of wilderness state, not only after justification, but even after deliverance from sin; and I doubt whether the sermon [See the sermon on The Wilderness State in Works, vi. 77-91.] upon that state might not give you light in this case also. But the most frequent cause of this second darkness or distress, I believe, is evil reasoning: by this, three in four of those who cast away their confidence are gradually induced so to do. And if this be the cause, is there any way to regain that deliverance but by resuming your confidence And can you receive it unless you receive it freely, not of works, but by mere grace This is the way: walk thou in it. Dare to believe! Look up and see thy Saviour near! When to-morrow, or to-day Nay, to-day hear His voice! At this time; at this place! Lord, speak; Thy servant heareth! To the Printer of the ’St. James’s Chronicle’ LONDON, October 29, 1764. SIR,--The words inserted as mine in your last paper I absolutely disclaim. I never said, ’If any of you have any money in the Public Funds, it would be less sin to take it out and cast it into the depth of the sea than to let it continue there.’ I believe a man may let money continue there without any sin at all. Whoever desires to see my full deliberate thoughts on this subject may read the sermon on the Mammon of Unrighteousness. [The Use of Money. See Works, vi. 124-36.] And this I am ready to defend against any that will set his name; but I do not love fighting in the dark.--I am Your humble servant. PS.--The farther Remarks of the ’Presbyterian Doctor of Physic’ I may perhaps have leisure to read by-and-by. To the Societies at Bristol [October 1764.] MY DEAR BRETHREN,--I was much comforted among you when I was with you last, finding my labour had not been in vain. Many of you I found rejoicing in God your Saviour, walking in the light of His countenance, and studying to have a conscience void of offence towards God and man. In order to assist you therein, suffer me to remind you of a few things, which I think are of no small concern, in order to your retaining the life of faith and the testimony of a good conscience towards God. And,-- 1. For God’s sake, for the honour of the gospel, for your country’s sake, and for the sake of your own souls, beware of bribery. Before you see me again the trial will come at the General Election for Members of Parliament. On no account take money or money’s worth. Keep yourselves pure. Give, not sell, your vote. Touch not the accursed thing, lest it bring a blast upon you and your household. 2. Have nothing to do with stolen goods. Neither sell nor buy anything that has not paid the duty--no, not if you could have it at half price. Defraud not the King any more than your fellow subject. Never think of being religious unless you are honest. What has a thief to do with religion Herein mind not men but the Word of God; and, whatever others do, keep yourselves pure. 3. Lose no opportunity of receiving the sacrament. All who have neglected this have suffered loss; most of them are as dead as stones: therefore be you constant herein, not only for example, but for the sake of your own souls. 4. To the public, constantly add the private means of grace, particularly prayer and reading. Most of you have been greatly wanting in this; and without this you can never grow in grace. You may as well expect a child to grow without food as a soul without private prayer; and reading is an excellent help to this. I advise you to read in particular, constantly and carefully, the New Testament; Lessons for Children, which are all the choicest parts of the Old Testament, with short notes; Instructions for Children, which are a body of divinity for plain people; and that golden treatise The Christian Pattern; the Plain Account of the Methodists. No Methodist ought to be without these, nor the Primitive Physick, which (if you have any regard for your bodies or your children) ought to be in every house. To all that can understand it, I recommend one book more, A Preservative Against Unsettled Notions; a book which, by the blessing of God, may help you from being tossed about with divers winds of doctrines. Permit me to give you one advice more under this head: do not encourage young raw men to exhort among you. It does little good either to you or them. Rather, in every Society, where you have not an experienced preacher, let one of the leaders read the Notes [His Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament] or the Christian Library. By this the wisest among you may profit much, a thousand times more than by listening to forward youths who neither speak English nor common sense. 5. Let all of you who have faith meet in band without excuse and without delay. There has been a shameful neglect of this. Remove this scandal. As soon as the Assistant has fixed your band make it a point of conscience never to miss without an absolute necessity; and the preacher’s meeting you all together one night out of two will be an additional blessing. 6. If you constantly meet your band, I make no doubt that you will constantly meet your class; indeed, otherwise you are not of our Society. Whoever misses his class thrice together thereby excludes himself, and the preacher that comes next ought to put out his name. I wish you would consider this. Halt not between two. Meet the brethren, or leave them. It is not honest to profess yourself of a Society and not observe the rules of it. Be therefore consistent with yourself. Never miss your class till you miss it for good and all. And when you meet it, be merciful after your power; give as God enables you. If you are not in pressing want, give something, and you will be no poorer for it. Grudge not, fear not; lend unto the Lord, and He will surely repay. If you earn but three shillings a week and give a penny out of it, you will never want. But I do not say this to you who have ten or fifteen shillings a week and give only a penny! To see this has often grieved my spirit. I have been ashamed for you, if you have not been ashamed for yourself. Why, by the same rule that you give a penny, that poor man should give a peppercorn! O be ashamed before God and man! Be not straitened in your own bowels. Give in proportion to your substance. You can better afford a shilling than he a penny. This is more to him than that to you. Open your eyes, your heart, your hand. If this one rule was observed throughout England, we should need no other collection. It would soon form a stock sufficient to relieve all that want and to answer all occasions. Many of these occasions are now exceeding pressing, and we are nowise able to answer them; so that the cause of God suffers and the children of God, and that without remedy. 7. This is in great measure owing to our not considering ourselves (all the Methodists) as one body. Such undoubtedly they are throughout Great Britain and Ireland; and as such they were considered at our last Conference. We then seriously considered the heavy burthen which now lies on our brethren in various parts. When we could hire no place that could contain the congregation, they were constrained to build; but hereby they were unavoidably involved in debt, some of them to the amount of several hundred pounds. The Assistants were desired to lay this case before all our brethren in England, and to receive what each of them were willing to give, either at that time or at Easter or Midsummer. But the greater part of them thought no more about it. Four or five of them did, and brought in all about £200 at our last Conference. This was divided among our Societies who were most distressed; and all the Assistants were desired, when they visit the classes at Christmas, to ask each particular person, poor or rich, ’What will you give towards the relief of the brethren Give either now, or at Easter, or at Midsummer; it is all one.’ If this be done in good earnest, I trust in two or three years all our Societies may be out of debt. And by this shall all men know whose disciples we are, because we love one another. 8. I mention but one thing more. Let all who are able constantly attend the morning preaching. Whenever the Methodist preachers or people leave off this, they will soon sink into nothing.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, November 2, 1764. MY DEAR BROTHER,--At the request of several of our preachers I have at length abridged Goodwin’s Treatise on Justification. I trust it will stop the mouths of gainsayers concerning imputed righteousness, and teach them (at least the most candid) to speak as the oracles of God. I desire you to read the proposal and preface in every Society within your circuit; then enforce it, as you see best, both in public and private conversation. Spare no pains. Exert yourself. See what you can do. Give this proof of your love for the truth, for the people, and for Your affectionate friend and brother. N.B.--Be careful to keep an exact list of all the subscribers’ names in each Society, and also to leave a copy thereof with the person who takes care of the books. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, November 6, 1764. DEAR TOMMY,--If the Crowan or Buryan Society are able to bear the expense of building themselves, we have no objection; but we must not increase our debt this year. This is what we determined. If you do build, build large enough. In general, we do not pay rent out of the public stock, but get help from friends in the circuit. For once we may allow forty shillings. I shall write to Plymouth Dock this post. I hope John Catermole (a sound man) will come and help you. I shall either mend William Darney or end him. He must not go on in this manner. Spread the little tracts wherever you go. You know the solid good which results therefrom. Go on; spend and be spent for a good Master.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, December 7, 1764. DEAR BROTHER,--Be so kind as to show this to T. Lewis and M. Davis: so I may answer theirs and yours together. What need of a formal petition Would it not be just as effectual for me to write a letter to the Corporation, in the name of all the Bristol Methodists, urging, first, Mr. Witherspoon’s argument against the English theatre; secondly, the matter of fact, the actual mischief done thereby; and then gently and respectfully making the application What think you Ecquid novisti rectius [’Do you know any better way’] Send me word without delay. Sister Suky was in huge agonies for five days, and then died in the full assurance of faith. Some of her last words (after she had been speechless for some time) were, ’Jesus is come! Heaven is here!’ I am like Simonides. The more I think, the less able I am to answer the King’s question: to prove the necessity, expediency, or propriety of an atonement to an unconvinced sinner. [See letter of Dec. 31.] Indeed, you ought to have said something to Thomas Maxfield’s letter, had it been only what you say now. He is Thomas Maxfield still. Cerebrum non habet. [’He has no brains.’] Mr. Richardson is better and better. James Wheatley (the jewel!) has given me warning to quit the Tabernacle in spring: so I am preparing to build at Norwich; for no place already built can be procured for love or money. I think verily there is no need that you and I should be such strangers to each other. Surely we are old enough to be wiser. Come, I will give you a little work. Translate for me into good English the Latin verses that occur in the Earnest Appeal; and why not those three Greek ones-- ’H, kai kuanehsin ep ofrusi neuse Kroviwnhr &c. [The three lines are given in A Farther Appeal, Part II., Works, viii. 150. Homer’s Iliad, i. 528-30: ’Jove spake, and nodded his sable brow, &c.’] I have answered poor Mr. Hervey’s last tract so far as it is personal. My love to Sally. Vivamus! Adieu! You should send Charles Perronet’s book immediately. [An Extract of the ’Life of Armelle Nicholas,’1763.] The tax of the Apostolic Chamber. To Sarah Moore LONDON, December 8, 1764. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your business is by every possible means to calm the intemperate spirits on both sides. [See letters of July 5 and Dec.15.] There has been much ill blood, and many unkind sayings, which had been better let alone. Now, at least, let there be by general agreement an entire cessation of arms. Our God is a God of peace; and all His children should with all their might labour after it. I have heard something of the kind you mention, but not in the same manner you relate it. However, let it die and be forgotten.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, December 15, 1764. DEAR TOMMY,--I will send a man down to W. Darney [See letter of Nov. 6.] that is as rough as himself--namely, T. Bryant. But he is much changed for the better, and I think will not now jar with you. You need not, indeed, be very near one another: Cornwall is wide enough. Otherwise let T. Bryant stay in Devonshire and Peter Price move westward. [Price was admitted on trial as a preacher in Aug. 1765.] John Catermole sticks fast at Kingswood, and can get no farther. I wish you could conquer J. Paynter too. And who knows Love may do the deed. Want of sleep will occasion hoarseness. You should sleep at least six hours in twenty-four, either at once or at twice. For hoarseness look into the Primitive Physick; and try, one after another if need be, the garlic, the apple, the conserve, and the balsam. I know not how you will procure subscribers to Goodwin [See letters of Nov. 2and Dec. 31.] while you are pressing the general subscription.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend. To the Mayor and Corporation of Bristol LONDON, December 20, 1764. GENTLEMEN,--Both my brother and I and all who have any connexion with us are extremely sensible of our obligations to you for the civility which you have shown us on all occasions; and we cannot but feel ourselves deeply interested in whatever we apprehend in any degree to concern your honour or the general good and prosperity of the City of Bristol. This occasions my giving you the present trouble, which (whether it has any farther effect or no) you will please to receive as a testimony of the high regard we shall ever retain for you. The endeavours lately used to procure subscriptions for building a new playhouse in Bristol have given us not a little concern; and that on various accounts: not barely as most of the present stage entertainments sap the foundation of all religion, as they naturally tend to efface all traces of piety and seriousness out of the minds of men; but as they are peculiarly hurtful to a trading city, giving a wrong turn to youth especially, gay, trifling, and directly opposite to the spirit of industry and close application to business; and, as drinking and debauchery of every kind are constant attendants on these entertainments, with indolence, effeminacy, and idleness, which affect trade in an high degree. It was on these very considerations that the Corporation at Nottingham lately withstood all solicitations, and absolutely forbade the building a new theatre there, being determined to encourage nothing of the kind. And I doubt not but thousands will reap the benefit of their wise and generous resolution. It does not become me, gentlemen, to press anything upon you; but I could not avoid saying this much, both in behalf of myself and all my friends. Wishing you the continuance and increase of every blessing, I remain, gentlemen, Your obliged and obedient servant. To his Brother Charles DEAR BROTHER,--I suppose it is of little consequence in whose hand this [The previous letter.] is transcribed. Let it be accompanied by prayer, and good must follow, one way or the other. Let us work while the day is. Adieu. To his Brother Charles LONDON, December, 31, 1764. DEAR BROTHER,--Pray tell T. Lewis [See letter of Dec. 7.] I believe one I spoke to yesterday will make us a good housekeeper. She is selling off her things, and can come in two or three weeks. John Matthews [See letter of April 24, 1757.] sent for me between two and three on Friday morning. One had a little before asked him how he found himself; and he answered, ’The Lord protects, for ever near.’ When I came, he was perfectly sensible. I began to pray at three, and before I had spoken many words his soul was set at liberty without a groan. Here is a subject for your pen. He has had ’the witness’ in my sense for several months--that is, he knew he was in the favour of God, and had no doubt of going to heaven. I hope Goodwin is above three-quarters printed. [See letter of Dec. 15.] You know doctors differ. I could trust Dr. Turner as well as any. I shall say a word to the preachers in Ireland. I really thought Mark Davis had had more wit and more modesty. I do not yet find anything on the Atonement fit for a Deist. Pray inquire of your learned friends. My love to Sally. I have sent you by Miss Billo the Preface to Goodwin and the Appeals. You will English the Latin verses, and produce the neatest and correctest edition of them which has ever appeared. To the Editor of the ’London Magazine’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 56: 54. 1765 ======================================================================== 1765 LONDON, January 1, 1765. SIR,--If you please to insert in your Magazine my answer to a letter directed to me in November last, you will oblige Your humble servant. SIR,--I am obliged to you for your queries and remarks; and so I shall be to any who will point out anything wherein they think I have been mistaken. It would not be strange if there should be many mistakes in the Compendium of Natural Philosophy, as philosophy is what for many years I have only looked into at leisure hours. Accordingly in the Preface of that treatise I said, ’I am throughly sensible there are many who have more ability as well as leisure for such a work than me; but as none of them undertakes it, I have myself made some little attempt in the following volumes.’ Q. 1. ’You say the Sun revolves upon his axis once in twenty-seven hours. Should it not be once in twenty-seven days nearly’ Yes, it should. This was an error of the press. Q. 2. ’You say he is supposed to be abundantly larger than the Earth. Is it not demonstrable that he is so’ I do not know whether it is or no. Q. 3. ’You tell us the Moon turns always the same side to the Earth. Should it not be nearly the same’ Yes. Q. 4. ’You say it does not appear that she moves round her own axis. How, then, do you account for her turning always the same side to the Earth’ I think, full as well without the supposition as with it. But I do not undertake to account for anything. Q. 5. ’Why do you say the Moon is supposed to be forty-five times smaller than the Earth when the Moon’s bulk is nicely known’ It is not known by me, nor, I doubt, by any man else. Q. 6. ’You say Jupiter is supposed to be twenty-five times larger than the Earth, and in the next page that his diameter is supposed to be 130,655 miles. If so, is he not 4,096 times larger than the Earth’ Undoubtedly. But I do not undertake to defend either one supposition or the other. Q. 7. ’You inform us that even a good eye seldom sees more than an hundred stars at a time. Do you mean at one look’ Yes. Remark 1. ’You say (page 148), " Even with respect to the distance of the Sun, it is wisest to confess our ignorance, and to acknowledge we have nothing to rest upon here but mere uncertain conjecture."’ I did not say this of the distance of the Sun in particular. My words are: ’With regard to their distance from the Earth (the distance of all the bodies in the solar system), there is such an immense difference in the calculations of astronomers, even with respect to the distance of the Sun, that it is wisest to confess our ignorance’--namely, with regard to their distance (page 146). To prove that we are not ignorant hereof you say: ’The knowledge of the Sun’s distance depends on finding its parallax, or the angle that the semi-diameter of the Earth appears under at the Sun; which angle is so very minute that an error of a single second will give the distance very considerably greater or less than the true distance.’ It will; and therefore I doubt whether the distance of any heavenly body can ever be known by this means. ’But Mr. Keil says: " We are assured, by various methods made use of to obtain the Sun’s parallax, that his distance from us is more than twenty-eight millions of miles."’ He may be assured; but I am not. ’He says farther: " Two eminent astronomers have since determined the Sun’s distance to be about seventy-six millions of miles." Now, if the least distance possible is absolutely determined, how can it be wisest to confess our ignorance’ If it be: but I doubt it cannot be determined at all--at least, not by the Sun’s parallax, ’seeing this is so very minute that an error of a single second will give the distance very considerably greater or less than the true.’ Remark 2. ’In page 143 you tell us’--the whole paragraph runs thus: ’It is now almost universally supposed that the Moon is just like the Earth, having mountains and valleys, seas with islands, peninsulas and promontories, with a changeable atmosphere, wherein vapours and exhalations rise and fall; and hence it is generally inferred that she is inhabited like the Earth, and, by parity of reason, that all the other planets, as well as the Earth and Moon, have their respective inhabitants.’ (I take this to be the very strength of the cause. It was this consideration chiefly which induced me to think for many years that all the planets were inhabited.) ’But after all comes the celebrated Mr. Huygens, and brings strong reasons why the Moon is not, and cannot be, inhabited at all, nor any secondary planet whatever. Then’ (if the first supposition sinks, on which all the rest are built) ’I doubt that we shall never prove that the primary are. And so the whole hypothesis of innumerable suns and worlds moving round them vanishes into air.’ In order to prove that there are innumerable suns you say,-- (1) ’It is found by observations on the parallax of the Earth’s orbit that a fixed star is ten thousand times farther from the Sun than we are.’ I can build nothing on these observations, till parallaxes can be taken with greater certainty than they are at present. Therefore I shall want proof that any one fixed star is one thousand times farther from the Sun than we are. (2) ’They are fiery bodies.’ I suppose they are; but this cannot be proved from their distance till that distance itself is proved. (3) ’It is demonstrable that Sirius is as big as the Sun.’ Demonstrate it who can. (4) ’Seeing the fixed stars are not much less than the Sun, they are to be esteemed so many suns.’ ’Not much less’! How is this proved To argue from the distance is to prove ignotum per aeque ignotum. [’A thing unknown by one equally unknown.’] ’You see, sir, the hypothesis of innumerable suns is so far from vanishing into air that it is almost altogether founded on demonstration.’ Indeed, I do not see one tittle of demonstration yet from the beginning to the end. In order to prove that the planets are inhabited you say,-- (1) ’The Earth is spherical, opaque, enlightened by the Sun, casting a shadow opposite thereto, and revolving round it in a time exactly proportioned to its distance. The other planets resemble the Earth in all these particulars. Therefore they likewise are inhabited.’ I cannot allow the consequence. (2) ’The Earth has a regular succession of day and night, summer and winter. So probably have all the planets. Therefore they are inhabited.’ I am not sure of the antecedent. But, however that be, I deny the consequence. (3) ’Jupiter and Saturn are much bigger than the Earth.’ Does this prove that they are inhabited (4) ’The Earth has a moon, Jupiter has four, Saturn five, each of these larger than ours. They eclipse their respective planets, and are eclipsed by them.’ All this does not prove that they are inhabited. (5) ’Saturn’s ring reflects the light of the Sun upon him.’ I am not sure of that. And, till the fact is ascertained, no certain inference can be drawn from it. (6) ’But is it probable God should have created planets like our own and furnished them with such amazing apparatus, and yet have placed no inhabitants therein’ Of their apparatus I know nothing. However, if all you assert be the probability of their being inhabited, I contend not. (7) ’They who affirm that God created those bodies, the fixed stars, only to give us a small, dim light, must have a very mean opinion of the divine wisdom.’ I do not affirm this; neither can I tell for what other end He created them: He that created them knows. But I have so high an opinion of the divine wisdom that I believe no child of man can fathom it. It is our wisdom to be very wary how we pronounce concerning things which we have not seen. Remark 3. ’Suppose some intelligent beings in one of the planets, who were Slaves to no sect, who sought no private road, But looked through nature up to nature’s God, [Pope’s Essay on Man, iv. 331-2.] viewed the Earth from thence; they would argue it must be inhabited, as we argue the other planets are. But the superstitious would oppose this doctrine, and call it mere uncertain conjecture.’ I see no argument in this; but perhaps I do not understand it. Are you applauding the supposed inhabitants of Venus for not being slaves to the Christian sect Otherwise what has superstition to do in the case Why is this dragged in by head and shoulders If there be superstition here, it is on your side, who believe because you will believe; who assent to what you have no evidence for, and maintain what you cannot prove. At present you are the volunteer in faith; you swallow what chokes my belief. Remark 4. ’You quote Dr. Rogers.’ But I do not undertake to defend his hypothesis or any other. ’Our best observators could never find the parallax of the Sun to be above eleven seconds.’ But I cannot depend on their observations; especially when I find one of the chief of them, in computing the distance of the Sun, to stride from twenty eight millions to seventy-six; near fifty millions of miles at once! After this, let any impartial man judge what stress is to be laid on parallaxes. ’But Dr. Rogers supposes the parallax of the Sun to be five minutes, which others cannot find to be above eleven seconds. Why, doctor, if this be true’ (namely, that the parallax which lately was but eleven seconds is now increased to five minutes), ’the Earth has approximated thirty times nearer’ (a little harmless tautology) ’to the Sun.’ That is, if both the computation of Mr. Keil and that of Dr. Rogers be true. But who ever supposed this If the one be true, the other is undoubtedly false. ’To conclude: since there is no arguing against facts, and since the Sun’s parallax is not found to exceed eleven seconds, ought you not to give up that hypothesis as absurd and ridiculous’ Yes; as soon as any of those facts appear. Till then, I neither espouse nor give it up. But I still look upon it as ingenious, and as probable as any other. Before I conclude, permit me, sir, to give you one piece of advice. Be not so positive, especially with regard to things which are neither easy nor necessary to be determined. I ground this advice on my own experience. When I was young, I was sure of everything; in a few years, having been mistaken a thousand times, I was not half so sure of most things as I was before; at present I am hardly sure of anything but what God has revealed to man. Upon the whole, an ingenious man may easily flourish on this head: ’How much more glorious is it for the great God to have created innumerable worlds than this little globe only!’ But, after all, I would only ask this one plain question: Suppose there are more worlds than there are sands on the seashore, is not the universe finite still It must be, unless it be God. And if it be finite, it can still bear no proportion to Him that is infinite--no more than this ball of earth does. How large soever it be, still, compared to Him, it is as nothing, as the small dust of the balance. Do you ask, then, ’What is this spot to the great God’ Why, as much as millions of systems. Great and little have place with regard to us; but before Him they vanish away. Enlarge the bounds of creation as much as you please; still it is as but a drop to the Creator; And still the power of His almighty hand Can form another world from every sand! [Broome’s Ecclesiasticus, in Moral and Sacred Poems, ii. 99.] Yet, were this done, there would be no more proportion than there is now between Him and His creatures. In this respect, one world and millions of worlds are just the same thing. Is the Earth a cypher, a nothing, to the infinitely great, glorious, wise, and powerful God So is any number of worlds which can be conceived: so is all finite being to the infinite. To his Brother Charles LONDON, January 11, 1765. DEAR BROTHER,--I believe Thomas Goodwin wrote that book. Pray hasten John’s [Wesley’s Extract of John Goodwin’s Treatise on Justification, which William Pine, of Bristol, was printing. See letter of Dec. 31, 1764.] tract, and give Pine the Preface. Mr. Tooth [Samuel Tooth. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 476; and letter of Sept. 27, 1778, to him.] is not a Calvinist yet, nor Mr. Downing half an one. I have a letter from him to-day, and hope to be with him at Ovington to-morrow. I have no objection to Mr. Trail’s preaching in Weavers’ Hall; but I am not rightly satisfied as to his preaching at all. On Monday morning I desired the preachers and the stewards to meet me. It was then inquired,-- 1. Can James Thwayte, B. Russen, Rd. Perry, James Satles, John Oliver, and T. Bryant, [Oliver was stationed in Lancashire at the next Conference. For Bryant’s ordination, see letters of July 5 and Dec. 15, 1764.] who have bought an ordination in an unknown tongue, be received by us as clergymen No. 2. Can we receive them any longer as preachers No. 3. Can we receive them as members of our Society No. And this I ordered to be signified to each of them immediately. Adieu. To the Rev. Mr. C. Wesley, In Bristol. To Thomas Rankin OVINGTON, January 13, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--I will give you a month from this day to make a fair trial of William Darney whether he will walk according to our Rules or no; if not, we must part. But if he had rather, he may go into the Wiltshire Round, [Darney went to the London Circuit in September.] where a preacher is now wanting. T. Bryant is not now in connexion with us. [See previous letter.] I am glad you give me warning concerning Richard Austen. I trust that you will soon set them right at the Dock. Gentleness, added to plainness of speech, will have influence upon honest Brother Jones. [See letter of June 9.] I advise you gradually to remove all such leaders and stewards as do not cordially love the Methodist doctrine and discipline.--Dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. Pray give my love to Brother Mallon, of Mary Week Society. I thank him for his letter, and exhort him to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made him free. To Mr. Rankin, At Mr. John Andrews’, In Redruth, Cornwall. Per Gloucester, To the Printer of the ’St. James’s Chronicle’ LONDON, February 5, I 765. SIR,--To the four questions proposed to me in your last week’s paper, I answer: 1. None of those six persons lately ordained by a Greek bishop were ordained with my consent or knowledge. 2. I will not, cannot, own or receive them as clergymen. 3. I think an ordination performed in a language not understood by the persons ordained is not valid. 4. I think it is absolutely unlawful for any one to give money to the Bishop (or to any one for him) for ordaining him.--I am, sir, Your humble servant. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, February 9, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--I have little more to add to my last but that I have wrote to Brother Jane and the leaders at the Dock to the same effect as I wrote to James Stevens and to you at St. Austell. You have only to go on steadily, and lovingly, and to overcome evil with good.--I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Rankin, At Mr. Wood’s, Shopkeeper, In Port Isaac, Near Camelford, Cornwall. To the Printer of the ’St. James’s Chronicle’ [LONDON, February 10, 1765.] SIR,--In the St. James’s Chronicle published on Saturday last there was an innocent thing wrote by an hat-maker in Southwark. It may be proper to take a little more notice of it than it deserves, lest silence should appear to be an acknowledgement of the charge. I insert nothing in the public papers without my name. I know not the authors of what has been lately inserted; part of which I have not seen yet, nor did I see any part before it was printed. A year or two ago I found a stranger perishing for want and expecting daily to be thrown in prison. He told me he was a Greek bishop. I examined his credentials,, and was fully satisfied. After much conversation (in Latin and Greek, for he spoke no English at all) I determined to relieve him effectively; which I did without delay, and promised to send him back to Amsterdam, where he had several friends of his own nation. And this I did, without any farther view, merely upon motives of humanity. After this he ordained Mr. John Jones, a man well versed both in the languages and other parts of learning. When I was gone out of town, Bishop Erasmus was prevailed upon to ordain Lawrence Coughlan, a person who had no learning at all. Some time after, Mr. Maxfield, or his friends, sent for him from Amsterdam, to ordain Mr. S--t and three other persons, as unlearned as any of the Apostles, but I believe not so much inspired. In December last he was sent for again, and ordained six other persons, members of our Society, but every way, I think, unqualified for that office. These I judged it my duty to disclaim (to waive all other considerations) for a fault which I know not who can excuse, buying an ordination in an unknown tongue. As to the other tale, ’The Bishop told me himself’ (I pray in what tongue for he speaks no English, and you no Greek, any more than your interpreter so called) ’that Mr. Wesley desired Mr. Jones to know of him if he would consecrate him bishop’ Mr. Jones solemnly declares that he never told the Bishop any such thing. But, be that as it may, the point does not turn on the validity of ordination by a Greek bishop, but on the validity of ordination procured by money and performed in an unknown tongue. My advice to you is either be silent or procure a better defender of your cause. To Six Preachers NORWICH, February 27, 1765. Mr. Madan, Mr. Romaine, and the good-natured Mr. Shirley are almost out of patience with me for not disowning you on the house-top. In this situation of things it would be utter madness in me to do anything which they would call contumacy. I am every way bound to my good behaviour, and obliged to move with all possible circumspection. Were I to allow your preaching now, I should be in a hotter fire than ever. That you will preach again by-and-by I doubt not; but it is certain the time is not come yet. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, March 9, 1765. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Nothing can hurt you, if you are calm, mild, and gentle to all men, especially to the froward. I think you have done all you could do at present for poor brother Jane. [See letter of Feb. 9.] I will send to William Atkinson [See letter of Jan. 7, 1756.] and ask him how the house is settled. I know nothing about it; for I never saw the writings. I suppose the Bill intended to be brought into Parliament will never see the light. The great ones find other work for one another. They are all at daggers’ drawing among themselves. Our business is to go straight forward.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rankin, At Mr. John Andrews’, In Redruth, Cornwall. To John Newton LIVERPOOL, April 9, 1765. DEAR SIR,--I have just finished your Narrative, a remarkable proof, as you observe, that with God all things are possible. The objection current here, that you talk too much of Mrs. Newton, seems to me of no force at all. I cannot apprehend that you could well have spoken less or any otherwise than you do. And as to what you speak concerning Particular Redemption and the points connected therewith, you speak in so calm and dispassionate a manner as cannot give offence to any reasonable man. Nothing of this kind gives any offence to me; for I think, and let think. I believe every one has a right to think for himself and (in some sense) to speak for himself: I mean, to use any mode of expression which appears to him most agreeable to Scripture. You yourself in time past was in the same sentiment. You did not so much inquire, ’Is a man of this or that opinion’ or ’Does he make use of this or the other mode of expression’ but ’Is he a believer in Jesus Christ’ and ’Is his life suitable to his profession’ Upon this ground commenced the acquaintance (perhaps I might say more, the friendship) between you and me. We both knew there was a difference in our opinions, and consequently in our expressions. But, notwithstanding this, we tasted each other’s spirits, and often took sweet counsel together. And what hinders it now I do not know that our opinions differ a jot more now than formerly. But a dying man has drawn a sword, and wounded, if not me, yet many others, and you among the rest. Poor Mr. Hervey (or Mr. Cudworth rather), painting me like an hideous monster, with exquisite art both disfiguring my character and distorting my sentiments, has made even Mr. Newton afraid of me, who once thought me at least an harmless animal. A quarrel he could not make between us; neither can any one else. For two must go to a quarrel, and I declare to you I will not be one. But I do not think it is enough for us not to quarrel: I am persuaded we may help each other. Why not O beware of bigotry! of an undue attachment to opinions or phrases! You of all men ought to fly from this; as you appear to be designed by Divine Providence for an healer of breaches, a reconciler of honest but prejudiced men, and an uniter (happy work!) of the children of God that are needlessly divided from each other. Perhaps your very opinion and way of speaking may enable you to do this among those to whom I have no access; as my opinion and way of speaking enable me to calm those who would not give you so favourable an hearing. In the name of Him that has shown you mercy, I beseech you show this mercy to your brethren! Soften and sweeten as far as in you lies their rugged or bitter spirits! Incite them everywhere to insist upon the one point--Faith that worketh by love, or (in other words) Christ enlightning, justifying, sanctifying, reigning in the believing soul. ’Oh, but Mr. Hervey says you are half a Papist.’ What if he had proved it too What if he had proved I was a whole Papist (though he might as easily have proved me a Mahometan). Is not a Papist a child of God Is Thomas a Kempis, Mr. De Renty, Gregory Lopez gone to hell Believe it who can. Yet still of such (though Papists) the same is my brother and sister and mother. I have waited a fortnight for a passage to Dublin, but am now determined to move toward Scotland first. If you should favour me with a few lines, please to send direct to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Peace be with you both.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To the Rev. Mr. Newton, At Oulney, Bucks. To Dr. Erskine EDINBURGH, April 24, 1765. REVEREND SIR,--Between thirty and forty years I have had the world upon me, speaking all manner of evil. And I expected no less, as God had called me to testify that its deeds were evil. But the children of God were not upon me; nor did I expect they would. I rather hoped they would take knowledge that all my designs, and thought, and care, and labour were directed to this one point--to advance the kingdom of Christ upon earth. And so many of them did, however differing from me both in opinions and modes of worship. I have the pleasure to mention Dr. Doddridge, Dr. Watts, and Mr. Wardrobe [Minister of Hexham, and then of Bathgate. See Journal, iv. 116, 164.] in particular. How, then, was I surprised as well as concerned that a child of the same Father, a servant of the same Lord, a member of the same family, and (as to the essence of it) a preacher of the same gospel, should, without any provocation that I know of, declare open war against me! I was the more surprised, because you had told me, some months since, that you would favour me with a letter. And had this been done, I make no doubt but you would have received full satisfaction. Instead of this, you ushered into this part of the world one of the most bitter libels that was ever written against me;--written by a dying man (so far as it was written by poor, well-meaning Mr. Hervey), with a trembling hand, just as he was tottering on the margin of the grave. A great warrior resigned his crown, because ’there should be some interval,’ he said, ’between fighting and death.’ But Mr. Hervey, who had been a man of peace all his life, began a war not six months before he died. He drew his sword when he was just putting off his body. He then fell on one to whom he had the deepest obligations (as his own letters, which I have now in my hands, testify), on one who had never intentionally wronged him, who had never spoken an unkind word of him or to him, and who loved him as his own child. O tell it not in Gath! The good Mr. Hervey (if these Letters were his) died cursing his spiritual father. And these Letters another good man, Mr. Erskine, has introduced into Scotland, and warmly recommended. Why have you done this ’Because you have concealed your principles, which is palpable dishonesty.’ When I was first invited into Scotland (about fourteen years ago), Mr. Whitefield told me: ’You have no business there; for your principles are so well known, that if you spoke like an angel none would hear you. And if they did, you would have nothing to do but to dispute with one and another from morning to night.’ I answered: ’If God sends me, people will hear. And I will give them no provocation to dispute; for I will studiously avoid controverted points, and keep to the fundamental truths of Christianity. And if any still begin to dispute, they may; but I will not dispute with them.’ I came: hundreds and thousands flocked to hear. But I was enabled to keep my word. I avoided whatever might engender strife, and insisted upon the grand points--the religion of the heart and salvation by faith--at all times and in all places. And by this means I have cut off all occasion of dispute from the first day to this very hour. And this you amazingly improve into a fault, construe into a proof of dishonesty. You likewise charge me with holding unsound principles, and with saying, ’Right opinions are (sometimes) no part of religion.’ The last charge I have answered over and over, and very lately to Bishop Warburton. [See letter of Nov. 26, 1762.] Certainly, had you read that single tract, you would never have repeated that stale objection. As to my principles, every one knows, or may know, that I believe the Thirty-first Article of the Church of England. But can none be saved who believe this I know you will not say so. Meantime, in the main point (Justification by Faith) I have not wavered a moment for these seven-and-twenty years. And I allow all which Mr. Hervey himself contends for in his entrance upon the subject,--’Come to Jesus as a needy beggar; hang upon Him as a devoted pensioner.’ And whoever does this, I will be bold to say shall not perish everlastingly. As to your main objection, convince me that it is my duty to preach on controverted subjects, Predestination in particular, and I will do it. At present I think it would be a sin. I think it would create still more divisions. And are there not enough already I have seen a book written by one who styles himself Ecclesiae direptae et gementis Presbyter. [’A Presbyter of a torn-asunder and groaning Church.’] Shall I tear ecclesiam direptam et gementem [’A Church torn asunder and groaning.’] God forbid! No: I will so far as I can, heal her breaches. And if you really love her (as I doubt not you do), why should you hinder me from so doing Has she so many friends and helpers left, that you should strive to lessen their number Would you wish to turn any of her friends, even though weak and mistaken, into enemies If you must contend, have you not Arians, Socinians, Seceders, infidels to contend with; to say nothing of whoremongers, adulterers, Sabbath-breakers, drunkards, common swearers O ecclesia gemens! And will you pass by all these, and single out me to fight with Nay, but I will not. I do and will fight with all these, but not with you. I cannot; I dare not. You are the son of my Father, my fellow labourer in the gospel of His dear Son. I love your person; I love your character; I love the work wherein you are engaged. And if you will still shoot at me (because Mr. Hervey has painted me as a monster), even with arrows drawn from Bishop Warburton’s quiver (how unfit for Mr. Erskine’s hand!), I can only say, as I always did before, the Lord Jesus bless you in your soul, in your body, in your relations, in your work, in whatever tends to His own glory!--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To John Newton LONDONDERRY, May 14, 1765. DEAR SIR,--Your manner of writing needs no excuse. I hope you will always write in the same manner. Love is the plainest thing in the world: I know this dictates what you write; and then what need of ceremony You have admirably well expressed what I mean by an opinion contradistinguished from an essential doctrine. Whatever is ’compatible with a love to Christ and a work of grace’ I term an opinion. And certainly the holding Particular Election and Final Perseverance is compatible with these. ’Yet what fundamental error,’ you ask, ’have you opposed with half that frequency and vehemence as you have these opinions’ So doubtless you have heard. But it is not true. I have printed near fifty sermons, and only one of these opposes them at all. I preach about eight hundred sermons in a year; and, taking one year with another, for twenty years past I have not preached eight sermons in a year upon the subject. But, ’How many of your best preachers have been thrust out because they dissented from you in these particulars’ Not one, best or worst, good or bad, was ever thrust out on this account. There has been not a single instance of the kind. Two or three (but far from the best of our preachers) voluntarily left us after they had embraced those opinions. But it was of their own mere motion: and two I should have expelled for immoral behaviour; but they withdrew, and pretended ’they did not hold our doctrine.’ Set a mark, therefore, on him who told you that tale, and let his word for the future go for nothing. ’Is a man a believer in Jesus Christ and is his life suitable to his profession’ are not only the main but the sole inquiries I make in order to his admission into our Society. If he is a Dissenter, he may be a Dissenter still: but if he is a Church-man, I advise him to continue so; and that for many reasons, some of which are mentioned in the tract upon that subject. When you have read what I have wrote on occasion of the Letters lately published, I may say something more on that head. And it will then be time enough to show you why some part of those Letters could not be wrote by Mr. Hervey. I think on Justification just as I have done any time these seven-and-twenty years, and just as Mr. Calvin does. In this respect I do not differ from him an hair’s breadth. But the main point between you and me is Perfection. ’This,’ you say, ’has no prevalence in these parts; otherwise I should think it my duty to oppose it with my whole strength-- not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience, and which has, in fact, given occasion to the most grievous offences.’ Just so my brother and I reasoned thirty years ago. ’We think it our duty to oppose Predestination with our whole strength--not as an opinion, but as a dangerous mistake, which appears to be subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience, and which has, in fact, given occasion, to the most grievous offences.’ That it has given occasion to such offences I know; I can name time, place, and persons. But still another fact stares me in the face. Mr. Haweis and Mr. Newton hold this, and yet I believe these have real Christian experience. But if so, this is only an opinion; it is not subversive (here is clear proof to the contrary) ’of the very foundations of Christian experience.’ It is ’compatible with a love to Christ and a genuine work of grace.’ Yea, many hold it at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If, then, I ’oppose this with my whole strength,’ I am a mere bigot still. I leave you in your calm and retired moments to make the application. But how came this opinion into my mind I will tell you with all simplicity. In 1725 I met with Bishop Taylor’s Rules of Holy Living and Dying. I was struck particularly with the chapter upon Intention, and felt a fixed intention to give myself up to God. In this I was much confirmed soon after by the Christian Pattern, and longed to give God all my heart. This is just what I mean by Perfection now: I sought after it from that hour. In 1727 I read Mr. Law’s Christian Perfection and Serious Call, and more explicitly resolved to be all devoted to God in body, soul, and spirit. In 1730 I began to be homo unius libri, [’A man of one book.’ In Preface to Sermons, vol. i. (1746). See Works, v. 3; W.H.S. v. 50.] to study (comparatively) no book but the Bible. I then saw in a stronger light than ever before that only one thing is needful, even faith that worketh by the love of God and man, all inward and outward holiness; and I groaned to love God with all my heart and to serve Him with all my strength. January 1, 1733, I preached the sermon on the Circumcision of the Heart, which contains all that I now teach concerning salvation from all sin and loving God with an undivided heart. In the same year I printed (the first time I ventured to print anything) for the use of my pupils A Collection of Forms of Prayer; and in this I spoke explicitly of giving ’the whole heart and the whole life to God.’ This was then, as it is now, my idea of Perfection, though I should have started at the word. In 1735 I preached my farewell sermon at Epworth, in Lincolnshire. In this likewise I spoke with the utmost clearness of having one design, one desire, one love, and of pursuing the one end of our life in all our words and actions. In January 1738 I expressed my desire in these words: O grant that nothing in my soul May dwell but Thy pure love alone O may Thy love possess me whole, My joy, my treasure, and my crown! Strange flames far from my heart remove! My every act, word, thought, be love! [Gerhardt’s hymn, translated by Wesley (Hymns and Sacred Poems, 1739). In his Plain Account of Christian Perfection he says: ’In the beginning of the year 1738, as I was returning from Savannah, the cry of my heart was, O grant that nothing in my soul May dwell but Thy pure love alone!’ See Works, xi. 369.] And I am still persuaded this is what the Lord Jesus hath bought for me with His own blood. Now, whether you desire and expect this blessing or not, is it not an astonishing thing that you or any man living should be disgusted at me for expecting it Is it not more astonishing still ’that wellnigh all the religious world should be up in arms concerning it,’ and that they should persuade one another that this hope is ’subversive of the very foundations of Christian experience’ Why, then whoever retains it cannot possibly have any Christian experience at all I then my brother, Mr. Fletcher, and I, and twenty thousand more, who seem both to fear and to love God, are in reality children of the devil and in the road to eternal damnation! In God’s name I entreat you make me sensible of this! Show me by plain, strong reasons what dishonour this hope does to Christ, wherein it opposes Justification by Faith or any fundamental truth of religion. But do not wrest and wiredraw and colour my words as Mr. Hervey (or Cudworth) has done in such a manner that when I look in that glass I do not know my own face I ’Shall I call you,’ says Mr. Hervey, ’my father or my friend For you have been both to me.’ So I was, and you have as well requited me! It is well my reward is with the Most High. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To the Rev. Mr. Newton, At Mr. Clunies’, Harp Lane, Thames Street, London. To Lady Maxwell LONDONDERRY, May 25, 1765. MY DEAR LADY,--It is not easy for me to express the satisfaction I received in the few hours I lately spent with you. Before I saw you I had many fears concerning you, lest your concern for the one thing should be abated, lest your desires should be cooled or your mind a little hurt by any of the things which have lately occurred. So much the greater was my joy, when all those fears were removed, when I found the same openness and sweetness as before both in your spirit and conversation, and the same earnestness of desire after the only thing which deserves the whole strength of our affection. I believe tenderness and steadiness are seldom planted by nature in one spirit. But what is too hard for almighty grace This can give strength and softness together. This is able to fill your soul with all firmness as well as with all gentleness. And hereunto are you called, for nothing less than all the mind which was in Christ Jesus. It was with great pleasure that I observed your fixed resolution not to rest in anything short of this. I know not why you should--why you should be content with being half a Christian, devoted partly to God and partly to the world, or more properly to the devil. Nay, but let us be all for God. He has created the whole, our whole body, soul, and spirit. He that bought us hath redeemed the whole; and let Him take the purchase of His blood. Let Him sanctify the whole, that all we have and are may be a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving! I am not afraid of your being satisfied with less than this; but I am afraid of your seeking it the wrong way. Here is the danger, that you should seek it, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. See how exactly the Apostle speaks: you do not seek it directly, but as it were by works. I fear lest this should be your case, which might retard your receiving the blessing. Christ has died for you; He has bought pardon for you. Why should not you receive it now while you have this paper in your hand Because you have not done thus or thus See your own works. Because you are not thus and thus more contrite more earnest more sincere See your own righteousness. O let it all go! None but Christ! None but Christ! And if He alone is sufficient, if what He has suffered and done, if His blood and righteousness are enough, they are nigh thee! in thy mouth, and in thy heart! See, all things are ready! Do not wait for this or that preparation! for something to bring to God! Bring Christ! Rather, let Him bring you, bring you home to God! Lord Jesus, take her! Take her and all her sins! Take her as she is! Take her now! Arise, why tarriest thou Wash away her sins! Sprinkle her with Thy blood! Let her sink down into the arms of Thy love and cry out, ’My Lord and my God!’ Let me hear from you as soon as you can. You do not know how great a satisfaction this is to, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. Be pleased to direct to the New Room in Dublin. To James Knox SLIGO, May 30, 1765. DEAR SIR,--Probably this is the last trouble of the kind which you will receive from me. If you receive it in the same spirit wherein it is wrote, I shall be glad. If not, my record is with the Most High. I did not choose it should be delivered till I was gone, lest you should think I wanted anything from you. By the blessing of God I want nothing, only that you should be happy in time and in eternity. Still, I cannot but remember the clear light you had with regard to the nature of real scriptural Christianity. You saw what heart-religion meant, and the gate of it--Justification. You had earnest desires to be a partaker of the whole gospel blessing. And you evidenced the sincerity of those desires by the steps you took in your family. So that in everything you was hastening to be not almost but altogether a Christian. Where is that light now Do you now see that true religion is not a negative or an external thing, but the life of God in the soul of man, the image of God stamped upon the heart Do you now see that, in order to this, we are justified freely through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Where are the desires after this which you once felt, the hungering and thirsting after righteousness And where are the outward marks of a soul groaning after God and refusing to be comforted with anything less than His love Will you say, ’But if I had gone on in that way, I should have lost my friends and my reputation’ This is partly true. You would have lost most of those friends who neither love nor fear God. Happy loss! These are the men who do you more hurt than all the world besides. These are the men whom, if ever you would be a real Christian, you must avoid as you would avoid hell-fire. ’But then they will censure me.’ So they will. They will say you are a fool, a madman, and what not. But what are you the worse for this Why, the Spirit of glory and of Christ shall rest upon you. ’But it will hurt me in my business.’ Suppose it should, the favour of God would make large amends. But very probably it would not. For the winds and the seas are in God’s hands as well as the hearts of men. ’But it is inconsistent with my duty to the Church.’ Can a man of understanding talk so and talk so in earnest Is it not rather a copy of his countenance Indeed, if you can mean ’inconsistent with my pleasing this or that clergyman,’ I allow it. But let him be pleased or displeased, please thou God! But are these clergymen the Church Unless they are holy men, earnestly loving and serving God, they are not even members of the Church; they are no part of it. And unless they preach the doctrines of the Church contained in her Articles and Liturgy, they are no true ministers of the Church, but are eating her bread and tearing out her bowels. ’But you will not leave the Church.’ You never will by my advice. I advise just the contrary. I advise you to lose no opportunity of attending the services of the Church, of receiving the Lord’s supper, and of showing your regard to all her appointments. I advise you steadily to adhere to her doctrine in every branch of it; particularly with respect to the two fundamental points, Justification by Faith and Holiness. But, above all, I cannot but earnestly entreat you not to rest till you experience what she teaches; till (to sum up all in one word) God ’cleanses the thoughts of your heart by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit, that you may perfectly love Him and worthily magnify His holy name.’ Unless this be done, what will it profit you to increase your fortune, to preserve the fairest reputation, and to gain the favour of the most learned, the most ingenious, the most honourable clergymen in the kingdom What shall it profit a man to gain all these and to lose his own soul I know to God all things are possible. Therefore it is possible you may take this kindly. If so, I shall hope to receive a line from you directed to Mr. Beauchamp’s in Limerick. If not, let it be forgotten, till we meet at the judgement-seat of Christ.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Mr. James Knox. He came to nothing! To Peggy Dale CASTLEBAR, June 1, 1765. MY DEAR MISS PEGGY,--Certainly you not only need not sin, but you need not doubt any more. Christ is yours. All is yours. You can give Him all your heart; and will He not freely give you all things But you can only return what He has given by continually receiving more. You have reason to bless Him who has cast your lot in a fair ground. Even in this world He does not withhold from you any manner of thing that is good. Let your heart be always open to receive His whole blessing! How far do you find power over your thoughts Does not your imagination sometimes wander Do those imaginations continue for any time or have you power to check them immediately Do you find continually the spirit of prayer and are you always happy I trust you will be happier every day; and that you will not forget, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Miss Dale, At the Orphan House, In Newcastle-upon-Tyne. By Portpatrick. Pd. two pence. To the Leaders and Stewards LIMERICK, June 9, 1765. MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Yours of March evening, 28th, I received yesterday. I shall have little time to spare this autumn; yet I will endeavour (with God’s leave) to spend a few days in Cornwall. I hope to be at Tiverton on Tuesday, September 3; on Wednesday, 4th, at Bideford; on Thursday evening, 5th, at Millhouse; on Friday at Port Isaac; on Saturday the 7th at St. Cuthbert’s; on Sunday morning and afternoon at St. Agnes; on Monday, 9th, St. Just; Tuesday, 10th, St. Ives; Friday, 13th, St. Just; Saturday, 21st, Bristol. [The Journal, v. 141-8, shows how closely he kept to his plan.] Let Mr. Rankin fix the time and place of the Quarterly Meetings. Peace be multiplied upon you.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LIMERICK, June 9, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--You see my plan on the other side. [The previous letter.] Tell me of any alteration or addition which you think proper, and fix your Quarterly Meetings as you please, only let full notice be given. Brother Roberts [See letter of Sept. 3, 1763.] has reunited them at the Dock; and I have a mild, loving letter from Brother Jones. [See letter of Jan. 13.] Nevertheless it is a doubt whether I ought to go to the Dock at all before the house is settled. ’Tis pity, if a ready passage should offer, but one could exchange with Geo. Story. You know the man. If it cannot be, we must be content. Peace be with your spirit.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peggy Dale KILKENNY, July 5, 1765. MY DEAR SISTER,--Although it is certain the kind of wandering thoughts which you mention are consistent with pure love, yet it is highly desirable to be delivered from them, because (as you observe) they hinder profitable thoughts. And why should not you be delivered Indeed, in what manner this will be done we do not know. Sometimes it pleases our Lord to work a great deliverance even of this kind in a moment. Sometimes He gives the victory by degrees. And I believe this is more common. Expect this and every good gift from Him. How wise and gracious are all His ways! Do you commonly find in yourself the witness that you are saved from sin And is it usually clear Or do you frequently lose it I do not know why you should ever lose any good gift. For is not He the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever And yet you have known but a little of Him. You are to sink a thousand times deeper into Him: That sea of light and love unknown, Without a bottom or a shore. I hope Miss Lewen and you speak to each other, not only without disguise, but without reserve. How is your lot cast in a fair ground! How well are you situated for making the best of a short life! Secluded from the world and all its care, Hast thou to joy or grieve, to hope or fear That is, with regard to present things No: God has given you a nobler portion. You have nothing to care for but how you may most entirely and effectually present yourself a living sacrifice to God. When I reflect upon your earnest desire to do this and upon your simplicity of heart, it gives an unspeakable pleasure to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at Dublin till the end of this month. I send Miss Lewen’s letter by Portpatrick to try which comes soonest. [The letter to Miss Lewen is missing.] To Miss Peggy Dale, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Lady Maxwell KILKENNY, July 5, 1765. MY DEAR LADY,--As yours was sent from Dublin to Cork, and then back again hither, I did not receive it till yesterday. I am now setting my face again towards England; but I expect to be in Dublin till the beginning of next month, and then to cross over, so as to be at Manchester (if it please God) about the middle of August. Either at Dublin or at Manchester I hope to have the pleasure of hearing from you. This is indeed a pleasure, as it is, to write to you; though sometimes I do this with fear--a fear lest I should give you any pain, as I know the tenderness of your spirit. I wish I could be of some service to you; that I could encourage you to cast yourself on Him that loves you, that is now waiting to pour His peace into your heart, to give you an entrance into the holiest by His blood. See Him, see Him! full of grace and truth! full of grace and truth for thee! I do not doubt but He is gradually working in you; but I want you to experience likewise an instantaneous work. Then shall the gradual go on swiftly. Lord, speak! Thy servant heareth! Say Thou, ’Let there be light’; and there shall be light, Now let it spring up in your heart! It may be He that does all things well has wise reasons, though not apparent to us, for working more gradually in you than He has done of late years in most others. It may please Him to give you the consciousness of His favour, the conviction that you are accepted through the Beloved, by almost insensible degrees, like the dawning of the day. And it is all one how it began, so you do but walk in the light. Be this given in an instant or by degrees, hold it fast. Christ is yours; He hath loved you; He hath given Himself for you. Therefore you shall be holy as He is holy, both in heart and in all manner of conversation. Give me leave, my dear friend, to add a word likewise concerning your bodily health. You should in any wise give yourself all the air and exercise that you can. And I should advise you (even though long custom made it difficult, if that were the case) to sleep as early as possible; never later than ten, in order to rise as early as health will permit. The having good spirits, so called, or the contrary, very much depends on this. I believe medicines will do you little service: you need only proper diet, exact regularity, and constant exercise, with the blessing of God. Your speaking or writing was never tedious to me yet; and I am persuaded never will be. Your letters are more and more agreeable to, my very dear Lady, Your most affectionate servant. To Thomas Rankin KILKENNY, July 15, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--I received yours yesterday. I suppose you have now my answer to your last. The Conference is to begin at Manchester on Thursday, August 20. I have no objection to what you proposed to Mr. Hoskins, only my age. If he had left that gentleman trustee, I would not have given a groat for all his legacies. I wish he would not delay. A day ought not to be lost. Yours affectionately. I hope to set out for Cornwall (as I said before) immediately after the Conference. If possible, let the will be finished before I come. This would prevent much reproach. You will carry Mr. Hoskins’s letter directly. To Mr. Rankin, At Mr. John Andrews’, In Redruth. Per Gloucester. To Miss March NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, August 9, 1765. I have many fears concerning you, lest you should sink beneath the dignity of your calling, or be moved to the right hand or the left from the simplicity of the gospel. Is your heart still whole with God Do you still desire and seek no happiness but in Him Are you always or generally sensible of His presence Do you generally, at least, find communion with Him And do you expect all that you enjoyed once, and more; to be sanctified throughout before you go hence I hope no inward or outward reasonings are able to move you from walking exactly according to the gospel. O beware of voluntary humility; of thinking, ’Such an one is better than me, and why should I pretend to be more strict than her’ ’What is that to thee follow thou Me!’ You have but one pattern: follow Him inwardly and outwardly. If other believers will go step for step with you, well; but if not, follow Him! Peace be with your spirit. To Miss March BRISTOL, August 31, 1765. You may be assured it is not a small degree of satisfaction to me to hear that your soul prospers. I cannot be indifferent to anything which concerns either your present or future welfare. As you covet, so I want you to enjoy, the most excellent gifts. To your outward walking I have no objection. But I want you to walk inwardly in the fullness of love, and in the broad light of God’s countenance. What is requisite to this but to believe always now to believe with your whole heart, and to hold fast the beginning of this confidence steadfast unto the end And yet a self-complaisant thought, yea, or a blasphemous one, may steal across your spirit; but I will not say that is your own thought. Perhaps an enemy hath done this. Neither will I blame you for ’feeling deeply the perverseness of others,’ or for ’feeling your spirit tried with it.’ I do not wish that you should not feel it (while it remains), or that you should feel it otherwise than as a trial. But this does not prove that there is sin in your heart or that you are not a sacrifice to love. O my friend, do justice to the grace of God! Hold fast whereunto you have attained; and if you have not yet uninterrupted communion with Him, why not this moment, and from this moment If you have not, I incline to think it is occasioned by reasoning or by some inward or outward omission. To Richard Walsh REDRUTH, September 9, 1765. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I doubt very much whether either Jeremy Coombs or Sister Weyworth spoke any such thing. I advise you to go to Mr. Henderson and relate to him what you mentioned to me. I have no objection to your speaking at those times and places which he shall think proper. On the 23rd and 24th of next month (Wednesday and Thursday) I expect, God willing, to be at Salisbury myself.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin ST. JOHN’S, September 11, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--There is a good work in Cornwall. But where the great work goes on well we should take care to be exact in little things. I will tell you several of these just as they occur to my mind. Grace Paddy at Redruth met in the select society, though she wore a large glittering necklace and met no band. They sing all over Cornwall a tune so full of repetitions and flourishes that it can scarce be sung with devotion. It is to those words, Praise the Lord, ye blessed ones. Away with it! Let it be heard no more. They cannot sing our old common tunes. Teach these everywhere. Take pains herein. The Societies are not half supplied with books; not even with Jane Cooper’s Letters, or the two or three Sermons which I printed last year; no, not with the shilling Hymn--Book or Primitive Physick. They almost universally neglect fasting. The preaching-houses are miserable, even the new ones. They have neither light nor air sufficient; and they are far, far too low and too small. Look at Yarm house. Recommend the Notes on the Old Testament in good earnest. Every Society as a Society should subscribe. Remind them everywhere that two, four, or six might join together for a copy, and bring the money to their leader weekly. We have need to use all the common sense God has given us as well as all the grace.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Crosby KINGSWOOD, October 5, 1765. MY DEAR SISTER,--You oblige me much by speaking so freely. What an admirable teacher is experience! You have great reason to praise God for what He has taught you hereby, and to expect that He will teach you all things. But, whatever you find now, beware you do not deny what you had once received: I do not say ’a divine assurance that you should never sin or sustain any spiritual loss.’ I know not that ever you received this. But you certainly were saved from sin, and that as clearly and in as high a degree as ever Sally Ryan [See letter of Oct. 12, 1764.] was. And if you have sustained any loss in this, believe and be made whole. I never doubted but [Miss Dale] would recover her strength, though she has long walked in a thorny way. A general temptation now is the denying what God had wrought. Guard all whom you converse with from this, and from fancying great grace can be preserved without great watchfulness and self-denial.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Miss March BRISTOL, October 13, 1765. A year or two ago you was pretty clear of enthusiasm: I hope you are so still. But nothing under heaven is more catching, especially when it is found in those we love; and, above all, when it is in those whom we cannot but believe to be sound of understanding in most instances, and to have received larger measures of the grace of God than we have ourselves. There are now about twenty persons here who believe they are saved from sin (1) because they always love, pray, rejoice, and give thanks; and (2) because they have the witness of it in themselves. But if these lose what they have received, nothing will be more easy than to think they never had it. There were four hundred (to speak at the lowest) in London who (unless they told me lies) had the same experience. If near half of these have lost what they had received, I do not wonder if they think they never had it: it is so ready a way of excusing themselves for throwing away the blessed gift of God. I no more doubt of Miss Dale’s having this once than I doubt of her sister’s [Miss Peggy. See letter of June 4, 1767.] having it now. Whether God will restore her suddenly as well as freely I know not; whether by many steps, or in one moment. But here again you halt, as Sarah Crosby did, and Sarah Ryan does. You seem to think pain, yea much pain, must go before an entire cure. In Sarah Ryan it did, and in a very few others. [See previous letter.] But it need not: pain is no more salutary than pleasure. Saving grace is essentially such, saving pain but accidentally. When God saves us by pain rather than pleasure, I can resolve it only into His justice or sovereign will. To use the grace we have, and now to expect all we want, is the grand secret. He whom you love will teach you this continually. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, October 16, 1765. MY DEAR BROTHER,--So honest Sander [Alexander Coates. See letter of July 7, 1761.] has outrode all the storms and got safe into the haven! The Lord does all things well. I should not wish to stay here any longer than I could be useful. You and James Kershaw are considerate men. You must set your wits to work to find out ways and means. I will venture to answer for one fifty pounds, payable next August. Let our brethren pray in good earnest, and God will provide the rest.--I am Yours affectionately. I am returning to London. To Peggy Dale LONDON, November, 6, 1765. MY DEAR SISTER,--By our intercourse with a beloved friend it often pleases God to enlighten our understanding. But this is only the second point: to warm the heart is a greater blessing than light itself. And this effect I frequently find from your letters. The Lord repay it sevenfold into your own bosom! Do you still remain in the persuasion that you shall not live beyond three-and-twenty [See letter of Dec. 31. She died at the age of thirty-three.] Do you remember when or how it began Does it continue the same, whether your health is worse or better What a mercy is it that death has lost its sting! Will this hinder any real or substantial happiness Will it prevent our loving one another Can Death’s interposing tide Spirits one in Christ divide Surely no! Whatever comes from Him is eternal as Himself. --My dear sister, adieu! To Miss Dale, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne . To William Orpe LONDON, November 13, 1765. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You must in no wise return to your father’s; it would be at the price of your soul. You have already made the experiment, and you made it long enough, till you had wellnigh quenched the Spirit. If you should leap into the furnace again, how would you expect that God would bring you out As to your temptation concerning preaching, it is nothing uncommon. Many have had it as well as you, and some of them for a time gave place to the devil and departed from the work. So did John Catermole; so did James Morgan: but God scourged them back again. Do not reason with the devil, but pray, wrestle with God, and He will give you light. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Will. Orpe, At Mr. Dickenson’s, Near the Dolphin, In Birmingham. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, November 18, 1765. DEAR TOMMY,--You have satisfied me with regard to the particulars which I mentioned in my letter from Cornwall. Only one thing I desire you to remember: never sit up later than ten o’clock--no, not for any reason (except a watch-night), not on any presence whatsoever. In general, I desire you would go to bed about a quarter after nine. Likewise be temperate in speaking--never too loud, never too long: else Satan will befool you; and, on presence of being more useful, quite disable you from being useful at all. Rd. Henderson [See letter of Sept. 9.] desired that he might be the book-keeper this year in Wiltshire, and save me two shillings in the pound. But whoever you approve of, so do I. Write to Mr. Franks [See letters of Oct. 5, 1763, and July 9, 1766 (to his brother).] accordingly.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Thomas Rankin, At Mr. Joseph Garnet’s, In Barnard Castle, County of Durham. To George Gidley LONDON, November 25, 1765. DEAR GEORGE,--I have well considered the case of Nath. Fenton. It is certain we can have justice by moving the Court of King’s Bench. But it would probably cost forty or fifty pounds. Now, I doubt whether this would be worth while, whether you had not better leave them to themselves for the present. Only pray send Mr. Hale (as I promised) my Answers to the Bishop of Exeter. If the Justice at Exeter will grant you warrants, take them by all means; and inform him (what probably he does not know) that I have tried already with the whole Bench of Justices whether the Conventicle Act affects the Methodists, and have cast them in Westminster Hall. And if any, high or low, has a mind to fight with me again, let them begin as soon as they please.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, December 1, 1765. MY DEAR LADY,--Perhaps there is scarce any child of man that is not at some time a little touched by prejudice, so far at least as to be troubled, though not wounded. But it does not hurt unless it fixes upon the mind. It is not strength of understanding which can prevent this. The heart, which otherwise suffers most by it, makes the resistance which only is effectual. I cannot easily be prejudiced against any person whom I tenderly love till that love declines. So long, therefore, as our affection is preserved by watchfulness and prayer to Him that gave it, prejudice must stand at a distance. Another excellent defence against it is openness. I admire you upon this account. You dare (in spite of that strange reserve which so prevails in North Britain) speak the naked sentiments of your heart. I hope my dear friend will never do otherwise. In simplicity and godly sincerity, the very reverse of worldly wisdom, have all your conversation in the world. Have you received a gleam of light from above, a spark of faith O let it not go! Hold fast, by His grace, that token of His love, that earnest of your inheritance. Come just as you are, and come boldly to the throne of grace. You need not delay! Even now the bowels of Jesus Christ yearn over you. What have you to do with to-morrow I love you to-day. And how much more does He love you! He Pities still His wandering sheep, Longs to bring you to His fold! To-day hear His voice--the voice of Him that speaks as never man spake, the voice that raises the dead, that calls the things which are not as though they were. Hark! What says He now ’Fear not; only believe! Woman, thy sins are forgiven thee! Go in peace; thy faith hath made thee whole.’ Indeed, I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To William Orpe LONDON, December 14, 1765. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have a clear call to go home for a short season. But let it be as short as you can. ’Let the dead bury their dead. But follow thou Me.’ I do not know that either getting a licence or taking the oaths would signify a rush. These are things which the mob has little regard to. [Orpe was second of the three preachers in Staffordshire, where Methodists had to suffer much from the mob.] Not that there is anything in those oaths that at all entangles your conscience. The Very same thing which you thereby engage to do every honest man must do without that engagement. We in particular shall ’bear true allegiance to our Sovereign Lord King George,’ whether we swear so to do or no. The main point is to be all devoted to God. You might begin the Sunday service at Birmingham as soon as the Church service ends.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Will. Orpe, At Mr. Ezekiel King’s, In Stroud, Gloucestershire. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, December 17, 1765. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you have been at Edinburgh, especially on so good an errand. But I wonder T. Olivers [Olivers had been appointed to Glasgow in August.] ever disappointed them at Musselburgh. It is bad husbandry to neglect old places in order to preach at new. Yet I am informed he has been useful in Scotland. Whether he should now go to Glasgow or delay it a little longer I have left to T. Taylor’s [Taylor was Assistant in Edinburgh. See Wesley’s Veterans, vii. 43-4; and letter of July 8, 1766.] choice. If you can spare Moseley Cheek six or eight days, let him visit poor Dunbar. If Brother Williams’s affairs are not made up, he should not stay at so public a place as Edinburgh. On one condition--that Michael [Michael Fenwick. See letter of Sept. 12, 1755, to Ebenezer Blackwell.] will make it a point of conscience to follow your directions in all things, great and small--I consent to his staying at Newcastle. If he is guideable, he may do well. O cure him of being a coxcomb!--I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. Hopper, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Peggy Dale LONDON, December 31, 1765. MY DEAR PEGGY,--Whether that persuasion [See letter of Nov. 6.] was from nature or from God a little time will show. It will be matter of great joy to me if God gives you many years to glorify Him in the body before He removes you to the world of spirits. The comfort is, that life or death, all is yours, seeing you are Christ’s: all is good, all is blessing! You have only to rest upon Him with the whole weight of your soul. Temptations to pride you may have, or to anything; but these do not sully your soul. Amidst a thousand temptations you may retain unspotted purity. Abide in Him by simple faith this moment! Live, walk in love! The Lord increase it in you a thousandfold! Take out of His fullness grace upon grace. Tell me from time [to time] just what you feel. I cannot tell you how tenderly I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 57: 55. 1766 ======================================================================== 1766 To Mrs. Wyndowe LONDON, January 7, 1766. MY DEAR SALLY,--From the time that I first took acquaintance with you at Earl’s Bridge, [Wesley spent an hour at Byford on March 16, 1789. The Diary note is, ’11 Byford, tea, within; 12 chaise’ (Journal, vii. 478d).] I have still retained the same regard for you. Therefore I am always well pleased with hearing from you, especially when you inform me that you are pursuing the best things. And you will not pursue them in vain if you still resolutely continue to spend some time in private every day. It is true you cannot fix any determinate measure of time because of numberless avocations. And it is likewise true that you will often find yourself so dead and cold that it will seem to be mere labour lost. No; it is not. It is the way wherein He that raises the dead has appointed to meet you. And we know not how soon He may meet you, and say, ’Woman! I say unto thee, Arise!’ Then the fear of [death] which has so long triumphed over you shall be put under your feet. Look up! my friend! Expect that He who loves you will soon come and will not tarry! To His care I commit you; and am, my dear Sally, Yours most affectionately. Mrs. Wyndowe, Byford, Near Stroud, Gloucestershire. To Thomas Rankin COLCHESTER, January 23, 1766. DEAR TOMMY,--Suppose the numbers swell to an hundred (as probably they will), consider what it would amount to to give seventy persons 50s. apiece before I am reimbursed for the expense of the edition! [Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament, vol. i. (4to, 852 pp.), had been published in 1765. See letter of June 20.] Indeed, I did not think of this till my brother mentioned it. But all the preachers shall, if they desire it, have them at half price. I am glad John Ellis takes care of the books while you are in Newcastle Circuit. When Matthew Lowes returns, let Moseley Cheek go into the Barnard Castle Circuit. At Lady Day, or within a few days after, you should return thither yourself. Speak quite freely to John Fenwick. You may trust him.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Thomas Rankin, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To George Merryweather LONDON, February 8, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Where Christian perfection is not strongly and explicitly preached there is seldom any remarkable blessing from God, and consequently little addition to the Society and little life in the members of it. Therefore, if Jacob Rowell is grown faint and says but little about it, do you supply his lack of service. Speak, and spare not. Let not regard for any man induce you to betray the truth of God. Till you press the believers to expect full salvation now you must not look for any revival. It is certain God does at some times, without any cause known to us, shower down His grace in an extraordinary manner. And He does in some instances delay to give either justifying or sanctifying grace for reasons which are not discovered to us. These are some of those secrets of His government, which it hath pleased Him to reserve in His own breast. I hope you and your wife keep all you have and gasp for more.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Peggy Dale February 8, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER,--Away with those doubts! They did not come from Him that calleth you. O let nothing induce you to cast away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward! Beware, my dear friend, of the Reasoning Devil, whose way is first to tempt, and then to accuse. There is a right temper, a sorrow for our little improvements, which exceedingly resembles envy. But the anointing of the Holy One will teach you to distinguish one from the other. You are saved of the Lord. Distrust Him not. Much less deny what He has done for you and in you. If you did, how could [you] be thankful for it Look unto Jesus and stand fast!-- I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LEWISHAM, February 28, 1766. DEAR BROTHER,--We must, we must, you and I at least, be all devoted to God! Then wives and sons and daughters and everything else will be real, invaluable blessings. Eia, age; rumpe moras! [Virgil’s Aeneid, iv. 569: ’Come on, act; break off delay.’] Let us this day use all the power we have! If we have enough, well; if not, let us this day expect a fresh supply. How long shall we drag on thus heavily, though God has called us to be the chief conductors of such a work Alas! what conductors! If I am (in some sense) the head and you the heart of the work, may it not be said, ’The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint’ Come, in the name of God, let us arise and shake ourselves from the dust! Let us strengthen each other’s hands in God, and that without delay. Have senes sexagenarii (who would have thought we should live to be such!) time to lose Let you and I and our house serve the Lord in good earnest! May His peace rest on you and yours! Adieu! I desire all the Society to meet me on Tuesday evening (March 11) after preaching. [He met the Bristol Society at this time, See Journal, v. 159.] CONTROVERSIAL I. TO JOHN DOWNES, Rector of St. Michael’s, Wood Street, author of Methodism Examined and Exposed. II. TO DR. WARBURTON, Bishop of Gloucester, ’occasioned by his tract on The Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit.’ CONTROVERSIAL - I TO JOHN DOWNES, RECTOR OF ST. MICHAEL’S, WOOD STREET LONDON, November 17, 1759. REVEREND SIR,--1. In the tract which you have just published concerning the people called Methodists you very properly say: ’Our first care should be candidly and fairly to examine their doctrines. For, as to censure them unexamined would be unjust, so to do the same without a fair and impartial examination would be ungenerous.’ And again: ’We should in the first place carefully and candidly examine their doctrines.’ (Page 68.) This is undoubtedly true. But have you done it Have you ever examined their doctrines yet Have you examined them fairly fairly and candidly candidly and carefully Have you read over so much as the Sermons they have published or the Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion I hope you have not; for I would fain make some little excuse for your uttering so many senseless, shameless falsehoods. I hope you know nothing about the Methodists, no more than I do about the Cham of Tartary; that you are ignorant of the whole affair, and are so bold only because you are blind. Bold enough! Throughout your whole tract you speak satis pro imperio, [Terence’s Phormio, 1. iv. 19: ’With authority enough.’]--as authoritatively as if you was, not an archbishop only, but Apostolic Vicar also; as if you had the full papal power in your hands, and fire and faggot at your beck! And blind enough; so that you blunder on through thick and thin, bespattering all that come in your way, according to the old, laudable maxim, ’Throw dirt enough, and some will stick.’ 2. I hope, I say, that this is the case, and that you do not knowingly assert so many palpable falsehoods. You say: ’If I am mistaken, I shall always be ready and desirous to retract my error’ (page 56). A little candour and care might have prevented those mistakes; this is the first thing one would have desired. The next is that they may be removed; that you may see wherein you have been mistaken, and be more wary for the time to come. 3. You undertake to give an account, first, of the rise and principles, then of the practices, of the Methodists. On the former head you say: ’Our Church has long been infested with these grievous wolves, who, though no more than two when they entered in, and they so young they might rather be called wolflings’ (that is lively and pretty!), ’have yet spread their ravenous kind through every part of this kingdom. Where, what havoc they have made, how many of the sheep they have torn, I need not say.’ (Pages 4-5.) ’About twenty-five years ago these two bold though beardless divines’ (pity, sir, that you had not taught me twenty-five years ago sapientem pascere barbam, [Horace’s Satires, II. iii. 35: ’What time, by his instructions cheered. He bade me train his sapient beard.’] and thereby to avoid some part of your displeasure), ’being lifted up with spiritual pride, were presumptuous enough to become founders of the sect called Methodists’ (page 6). ’A couple of young, raw, aspiring twigs of the ministry dreamed of a special and supernatural call to this’ (page 25). No, sir; it was you dreamed of this, not we. We dreamed of nothing twenty-five years ago but instructing our pupils in religion and learning and a few prisoners in the common principles of Christianity. You go on: ’They were ambitious of being accounted missionaries, immediately delegated by Heaven to correct the errors of bishops and archbishops and reform their abuses, to instruct the clergy in the true nature of Christianity, and to caution the laity not to venture their souls in any such unhallowed hands as refused to be initiated in all the mysteries of Methodism’ (pages 20-1). Well asserted indeed; but where is the proof of any one of these propositions I must insist upon this--clear, cogent proof; else they must be set down for so many glaring falsehoods. 4. ’The Church of Rome (to which on so many accounts they were much obliged, and as gratefully returned the obligation) taught them to set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture’ (page 54). Pray on what accounts are we ’obliged to the Church of Rome’ and how have we ’returned the obligation’ I beg you would please (1) to explain this; and (2) to prove that we ever yet (whoever taught us) ’set up for infallible interpreters of Scripture.’ So far from it, that we have over and over declared, in print as well as in public preaching, ’We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible than to be omniscient.’[Works, vi. 4.] 5. ’As to other extraordinary gifts, influences, and operations of the Holy Ghost, no man who has but once dipped into their Journals and other ostentatious trash of the same kind can doubt their looking upon themselves as not coming one whit behind the greatest of the Apostles’ (page 21). I acquit you, sir, of ever having ’once dipped into that ostentatious trash.’ I do not accuse you of having read so much as the titles of my Journals. I say my Journals; for (as little as you seem to know it) my brother has published none. [Extracts were published in 1793 in Whitehead’s Life of John and Charles Wesley, and in Jackson’s Charles Wesley in 1841. The Journal itself did not appear till 1849.] I therefore look upon this as simple ignorance. You talk thus because you know no better. You do not know that in these very Journals I utterly disclaim the ’extraordinary gifts of the Spirit,’ and all other ’influences and operations of the Holy Ghost’ than those that are common to all real Christians. And yet I will not say this ignorance is blameless. For ought you not to have known better Ought you not to have taken the pains of procuring better information when it might so easily have been had Ought you to have publicly advanced so heavy charges as these without knowing whether they were true or no 6. You proceed to give as punctual an account of us tanquam intus et in cute nosses [Persius’ Satires, iii. 30 (adapted): ’As if you had the most intimate knowledge of us.’]: ’They outstripped, if possible, even Montanus for external sanctity and severity of discipline’ (page 22). ’They condemned all regard for temporal concerns; they encouraged their devotees to take no thought for any one thing upon earth, the consequence of which was a total neglect of their affairs and an impoverishment of their families’ (page 23). Blunder all over! We had no room for any discipline, severe or not, five-and-twenty years ago, unless college discipline; my brother then residing at Christ Church and I at Lincoln College. And as to our ’sanctity’ (were it more or less), how do you know it was only external Was you intimately acquainted with us I do not remember where I had the honour of conversing with you. Or could you (as the legend says of St. Pachomius [Pachomius founded seven monasteries in the Theban desert.]) ’smell an heretic ten miles’ off And how came you to dream, again, that we ’condemned all regard for temporal concerns, and encouraged men to take no thought for any one thing upon earth’ Vain dream! We, on the contrary, severely condemn all who neglect their temporal concerns and who do not take care of everything on earth wherewith God hath entrusted them. The consequence of this is that the Methodists (so called) do not ’neglect their affairs and impoverish their families,’ but by diligence in business ’provide things honest in the sight of all men’: insomuch that multitudes of them, who in time past had scarce food to eat or raiment to put on, have now ’all things needful for life and godliness,’ and that for their families as well as themselves. 7. Hitherto you have been giving an account of two wolflings only; but now they are grown into perfect wolves. Let us see what a picture you draw of them in this state, both as to their principles and practice. You begin with a home-stroke: ’In the Montanist you may behold the bold lineaments and bloated countenance of the Methodist’ (page 17). I wish you do not squint at the honest countenance of Mr. Venn, who is indeed as far from fear as he is from guile. But if it is somewhat ’bloated,’ that is not his fault; sickness may have the same effect on yours or mine. But to come closer to the point: ’They have darkened religion with many ridiculous fancies, tending to confound the head and to corrupt the heart’ (page 13). ’A thorough knowledge of them would work in every rightly-disposed mind an abhorrence of those doctrines which directly tend to distract the head and to debauch the heart by turning faith into frenzy and the grace of God into wantonness’ (pages 101-2). ’These doctrines are unreasonable and ridiculous, clashing with our natural ideas of the divine perfections, with the end of religion, with the honour of God, and man’s both present and future happiness. Therefore we pronounce them " filthy dreamers," turning faith into fancy, the gospel into farce; thus adding blasphemy to enthusiasm.’ (Pages 66-8.) Take breath, sir; there is a long paragraph behind. ’The abettors of these wild and whimsical notions are (1) close friends to the Church of Rome, agreeing with her in almost everything but the doctrine of Merit; (2) they are no less kind to infidelity, by making the Christian religion a mere creature of the imagination; (3) they cut up Christianity by the roots, frustrating the very end for which Christ died, which was that by holiness we might be " made meet for the inheritance of the saints "; (4) they are enemies not only to Christianity but to " every religion whatsoever," by labouring to subvert or overturn the whole system of morality; (5) consequently they must be enemies of society, dissolving the band by which it is united and knit together.’ In a word: ’All ancient heresies have in a manner concentred in the Methodists; particularly those of the Simonians, Gnostics, Antinomians’ (as widely distant from each other as Predestinarians from Calvinists!), ’Valentinians, Donatists, and Montanists.’ (Pages 101-2.) While your hand was in, you might as well have added Carpocratians, Eutychians, Nestorians, Sabellians. If you say, ’I never heard of them,’ no matter for that; you may find them, as well as the rest, in Bishop Pearson’s index. Well, all this is mere flourish, raising a dust to blind the eyes of the spectators. Generals, you know, prove nothing. So, leaving this as it is, let us come to particulars. But first give me leave to transcribe a few words from a tract published some years ago. ’Your Lordship premises, " It is not at all needful to charge the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them." Indeed, it is needful in the highest degree. . . . Just as needful as it is not to put a stumbling-block in the way of our brethren; not to lay them under an almost insuperable temptation of condemning the innocent with the guilty. [See letter of June 11, 1747, sects. 4, 6, to Bishop Gibson.] And it is now far more needful than it was then; as that title of reproach, Methodist, is now affixed to many people who are not under my care nor ever had any connexion with me. And what have I to do with these If you give me a nickname, and then give it to others whom I know not, does this make me accountable for them either for their principles or practice In no wise. I am to answer for myself and for those that are in connexion with me. This is all that a man of common sense can undertake or a man of common humanity require. Let us begin, then, upon even ground; and if you can prove upon me, John Wesley, any one of the charges which you have advanced, call me not only a wolf, but an otter if you please. 8. Your first particular charge (which, indeed, runs through your book, and is repeated in twenty different places) is that we make the way to heaven too broad, teaching men may be saved by faith without works. Some of your words are,--’They set out with forming a fair and tempting model of religion, so flattering the follies of degenerate man that it could not fail to gain the hearts of multitudes, especially of the loose and vicious, the lazy and indolent. They want to get to heaven the shortest way and with the least trouble. Now, a reliance on Christ and a disclaiming of good works are terms as easy as the merest libertine can ask. They persuade their people that they may be saved by the righteousness of Christ without any holiness of their own-- nay, that good works are not only unnecessary, but also dangerous; that we may be saved by faith without any other requisite, such as gospel obedience and an holy life. Lastly: The Valentinians pretended that, if good works were necessary to salvation, it was only to animal men--that is, to all who were not of their clan; and that, although sin might damn others, it could not hurt them. In consequence of which they lived in all lust and impurity, and wallowed in the most unheard-of bestialities. The Methodists distinguish much after the same manner.’ (Pages 52, 31, 38, 14.) Sir, you are not awake yet. You are dreaming still, and fighting with shadows of your own raising. The ’model of religion with which the Methodists set out’ is perfectly well known; if not to you, yet to many thousands in England who are no Methodists. I laid it before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on January 1, 1733. You may read it when you are at leisure; for it is in print, entitled The Circumcision of the Heart. And whoever reads only that one discourse with any tolerable share of attention will easily judge whether that ’model of religion flatters the follies of degenerate man’ or is likely to ’gain the hearts of multitudes, especially of the loose and vicious, the lazy and indolent’! Will a man choose this as ’the shortest way to heaven and with the least trouble’ Are these ’as easy terms as any libertine’ or infidel ’can desire’ The truth is, we have been these thirty years continually reproached for just the contrary to what you dream of: with making the way to heaven too strait, with being ourselves ’righteous overmuch,’ and teaching others they could not be saved without so many works as it was impossible for them to perform. [see letter of June 11, 1731, to his mother.] And to this day, instead of teaching men that they may be saved by a faith which is without good works, without ’gospel obedience and holiness of life,’ we teach exactly the reverse, continually insisting on all outward as well as all inward holiness. For the notorious truth of this we appeal to the whole tenor of our sermons, printed and unprinted--in particular to those upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, [Discourses I.-XIII. See Works, v. 246-433.] wherein every branch of gospel obedience is both asserted and proved to be indispensably necessary to eternal salvation. Therefore, as to the rest of the ’Antinomian trash’ which you have so carefully gathered up--as ’that the regenerate are as pure as Christ Himself, that it would be criminal for them to pray for pardon, that the greatest crimes are no crimes in the saints,’ &c. &c. (page 17)--I have no concern therewith at all, no more than with any that teach it. Indeed, I have confuted it over and over in tracts published many years ago. 9. A second charge which you advance is that ’we suppose every man’s final doom to depend on God’s sovereign will and pleasure’ (I presume you mean on His absolute, unconditional decree), that we ’consider man as a mere machine,’ that we suppose believers ’cannot fall from grace’ (page 31). Nay, I suppose none of these things. Let those who do answer for themselves. I suppose just the contrary in Predestination Calmly Considered, a tract published ten years ago.[See Works, x. 204-59.] 10. A third charge is: ’They represent faith as a supernatural principle, altogether precluding the judgement and understanding, and discerned by some internal signs; not as a firm persuasion founded on the evidence of reason, and discernible only by a conformity of life and manners to such a persuasion’ (page 11). We do not represent faith ’as altogether precluding,’ or at all ’precluding, the judgement and understanding’; rather as enlightening and strengthening the understanding, as clearing and improving the judgement. But we do represent it as the gift of God--yea, and a ’supernatural gift’: yet it does not preclude ’the evidence of reason’; though neither is this its whole foundation. ’A conformity of life and manners’ to that persuasion ’Christ loved me and gave Himself for me’ is doubtless one mark by which it is discerned, but not the only one. It is likewise discerned by internal signs: both by the witness of the Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit--namely, ’love, peace, joy, meekness, gentleness,’ by all ’the mind which was in Christ Jesus.’ 11. You assert, fourthly: ’They speak of grace, that it is as perceptible to the heart as sensible objects are to the senses; whereas the Scriptures speak of grace, that it is conveyed imperceptibly; and that the only way to be satisfied whether we have it or no is to appeal not to our inward feelings but our outward actions’ (page 32). We do speak of grace (meaning thereby that power of God which worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure), that it is ’as perceptible to the heart’ (while it comforts, refreshes, purifies, and sheds the love of God abroad therein) ’as sensible objects are to the senses.’ And yet we do not doubt but it may frequently be ’conveyed to us imperceptibly.’ But we know no scripture which speaks of it as always conveyed and always working in an imperceptible manner. We likewise allow that outward actions are one way of satisfying us that we have grace in our hearts. But we cannot possibly allow that ’the only way to be satisfied of this is to appeal to our outward actions and not our inward feelings.’ On the contrary, we believe that love, joy, peace are inwardly felt, or they have no being; and that men are satisfied they have grace, first by feeling these, and afterward by their outward actions. 12. You assert, fifthly: ’They talk of regeneration in every Christian as if it was as sudden and miraculous a conversion as that of St. Paul and the first converts to Christianity, and as if the signs of it were frightful tremors of body and convulsive agonies of mind; not as a work graciously begun and gradually carried on by the blessed Spirit in conjunction with our rational powers and faculties, the signs of which are sincere and universal obedience’ (page 33). This is part true, part false. We do believe regeneration (or, in plain English, the new birth) to be as miraculous or supernatural a work now as it was seventeen hundred years ago. We likewise believe that the spiritual life, which commences when we are born again, must in the nature of the thing have a first moment as well as the natural. But we say again and again we are concerned for the substance of the work, not the circumstance. Let it be wrought at all, and we will not contend whether it be wrought gradually or instantaneously. ’But what are the signs that it is wrought’ We never said or thought that they were either ’frightful tremors of body’ or ’convulsive agonies of mind’ (I presume you mean agonies of mind attended with bodily convulsions); although we know many persons who, before this change was wrought, felt much fear and sorrow of mind, which in some of these had such an effect on the body as to make all their bones to shake. Neither did we ever deny that it is ’a work graciously begun by the Holy Spirit,’ enlightening our understanding (which, I suppose, you call ’our rational powers and faculties’) as well as influencing our affections. And it is certain He ’gradually carries on this work’ by continuing to influence all the powers of the soul, and that the outward sign of this inward work is ’sincere and universal obedience.’ 13. A sixth charge is: ’They treat Christianity as a wild, enthusiastic scheme, which will bear no examination’ (page 30). Where or when In what sermon In what tract, practical or polemical I wholly deny the charge. I have myself closely and carefully examined every part of it, every verse of the New Testament, in the original, as well as in our own and other translations. 14. Nearly allied to this is the threadbare charge of enthusiasm, with which you frequently and largely compliment us. But as this also is asserted only, and not proved, it falls to the ground of itself. Meantime your asserting it is a plain proof that you know nothing of the men you talk of. Because you know them not, you so boldly say, ’One advantage we have over them, and that is reason.’ Nay, that is the very question. I appeal to all mankind whether you have it or no. However, you are sure we have it not, and are never likely to have. For ’reason,’ you say, ’cannot do much with an enthusiast, whose first principle is to have nothing to do with reason, but resolve all his religious opinions and notions into immediate inspiration.’ Then, by your own account, I am no enthusiast; for I resolve none of my notions into immediate inspiration. I have something to do with reason; perhaps as much as many of those who make no account of my labours. And I am ready to give up every opinion which I cannot by calm, clear reason defend. Whenever, therefore, you will try what you can do by argument, which you have not done yet, I wait your leisure, and will follow you step by step which way soever you lead. 15. ’But is not this plain proof of the enthusiasm of the Methodists, that they despise human learning and make a loud and terrible outcry against it’ Pray, sir, when and where was this done Be so good as to point out the time and place; for I am quite a stranger to it. I believe, indeed, and so do you, that many men make an ill use of their learning. But so they do of their Bibles; therefore this is no reason for despising or crying out against it. I would use it just as far as it will go; how far I apprehend it may be of use, how far I judge it to be expedient at least, if not necessary, for a clergyman, you might have seen in the Earnest Address to the Clergy. [See letter of Jan. 7, 1756, n.] But in the meantime I bless God that there is a more excellent gift than either the knowledge of languages or philosophy: for tongues and knowledge and learning will vanish away; but love never faileth. 16. I think this is all you have said which is any way material concerning the doctrines of the Methodists. The charges you bring concerning their spirit or practice may be dispatched in fewer words. And, first, you charge them with pride and uncharitableness: ’They talk as proudly as the Donatists of their being the only true preachers of the gospel, and esteem themselves, in contradistinction to others, as the regenerate, the children of God, and as having arrived at sinless perfection’ (page 15). All of a piece. We neither talk nor think so. We doubt not but there are many true preachers of the gospel, both in England and elsewhere, who have no connexion with, no knowledge of us. Neither can we doubt but that there are many thousand children of God who never heard our voice or saw our face. And this may suffice for an answer to all the assertions of the same kind which are scattered up and down your work. Of sinless perfection, here brought in by head and shoulders, I have nothing to say at present. 17. You charge them, secondly, ’with boldness and blasphemy, who, triumphing in their train of credulous and crazy followers, the spurious’ (should it not be rather the genuine) ’offspring of their insidious craft, ascribe the glorious event to divine grace, and in almost every page of their paltry harangues invoke the blessed Spirit to go along with them in their soul-awakening work-- that is, to continue to assist them in seducing the simple and unwary’ (page 41). What we ascribe to divine grace is this: the convincing sinners of the errors of their ways, and the ’turning them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God.’ Do not you yourself ascribe this to grace And do not you too invoke the blessed Spirit to go along with you in every part of your work If you do not, you lose all your labour. Whether we ’seduce men into sin’ or by His grace save them from it is another question. 18. You charge us, thirdly, with ’requiring a blind and implicit trust from our disciples’ (page 10), who accordingly ’trust as implicitly in their preachers as the Papists in their Pope, Councils, or Church’ (page 51). Far from it: neither do we require it; nor do they that hear us place any such trust in any creature. They ’search the Scriptures,’ and hereby try every doctrine whether it be of God; and what is agreeable to Scripture they embrace, what is contrary to it they reject. 19. You charge us, fourthly, with injuring the clergy in various ways: ’They are very industrious to dissolve or break off that spiritual intercourse which the relation wherein we stand requires should be preserved betwixt us and our people.’ But can that spiritual intercourse be either preserved or broke off which never existed What spiritual intercourse exists between you, the Rector of St. Michael, and the people of your parish I suppose you preach to them once a week, and now and then read prayers. Perhaps you visit one in ten of the sick. And is this all the spiritual intercourse which you have with those over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you an overseer In how poor a sense, then, do you watch over the souls for whom you are to give an account to God! Sir, I wish to God there were a truly spiritual intercourse between you and all your people! I wish you ’knew all your flock by name, not excepting the men servants and women servants’! Then you might cherish each, ’as a nurse her own children,’ and ’train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.’ Then might you ’warn every one and exhort every one,’ till you should ’present every one perfect in Christ Jesus.’ ’But they say our sermons contradict the Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy of our own Church--yea, that we contradict ourselves, saying one thing in the desk and another in the pulpit.’ And is there not cause to say so I myself have heard several sermons preached in churches which flatly contradict both the Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy--particularly on the head of Justification. I have likewise heard more than one or two persons who said one thing in the desk and another in the pulpit. In the desk they prayed God to ’cleanse the thoughts of their hearts by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit’: in the pulpit they said there was ’no such thing as inspiration since the time of the Apostles.’ ’But this is not all. You poison the people by the most peevish and spiteful invectives against the clergy, the most rude and rancorous revilings, and the most invidious calumnies.’ (Page 51.) No more than I poison them with arsenic. I make no peevish or spiteful invectives against any man. Rude and rancorous revilings (such as your present tract abounds with) are also far from me. I dare not ’return railing for railing,’ because (whether you know it or no) I fear God. Invidious calumnies likewise I never dealt in; all such weapons I leave to you. 20. One charge remains, which you repeat over and over, and lay a peculiar stress upon. (As to what you talk about perverting Scripture, I pass it by as mere unmeaning commonplace declamation.) It is the poor old worn-out tale of ’getting money by preaching.’ This you only intimate at first: ’Some of their followers had an inward call to sell all that they had and lay it at their feet’ (page 22). Pray, sir, favour us with the name of one, and we will excuse you as to all the rest. In the next page you grow bolder, and roundly affirm: ’With all their heavenly-mindedness, they could not help casting a sheep’s eye at the unrighteous mammon. Nor did they pay their court to it with less cunning and success than Montanus. Under the specious appearance of gifts and offerings, they raised contributions from every quarter. Besides the weekly pensions squeezed out of the poorer and lower part of their community, they were favoured with very large oblations from persons of better figure and fortune; and especially from many believing wives, who had learned to practice pious frauds on their unbelieving husbands.’ I am almost ashamed (having done it twenty times before) to answer this stale calumny again. But the bold, frontless manner wherein you advance it obliges me so to do. Know then, sir, that you have no authority, either from Scripture or reason, to judge of other men by yourself. If your own conscience convicts you of loving money, of ’casting a sheep’s eye at the unrighteous mammon,’ humble yourself before God, if haply the thoughts and desires of your heart may be forgiven you. But, blessed be God, my conscience is clear. My heart does not condemn me in this matter. I know, and God knoweth, that I have no desire to load myself with thick clay; that I love money no more than I love the mire in the streets; that I seek it not. And I have it not, any more than suffices for food and raiment, for the plain conveniences of life. I pay no court to it at all, or to those that have it, either with cunning or without. For myself, for my own use, I raise no contributions, either great or small. The weekly contributions of our community (which are freely given, not squeezed out of any) as well as the gifts and offerings at the Lord’s Table never come into my hands. I have no concern with them, not so much as the beholding them with my eyes. They are received every week by the stewards of the Society, men of well-known character in the world; and by them constantly distributed within the week to those whom they know to be in real necessity. As to the ’very large oblations wherewith I am favoured by persons of better figure and fortune,’ I know nothing of them. Be so kind as to refresh my memory by mentioning a few of their names. I have the happiness of knowing some of great figure and fortune, some right honourable persons. But if I were to say that all of them together had given me seven pounds in seven years I should say more than I could make good. And yet I doubt not but they would freely give me anything I wanted; but, by the blessing of God, I want nothing that they can give. I want only more of the spirit of love and power and of an healthful mind. As to those ’many believing wives who practice pious frauds on their unbelieving husbands,’ I know them not--no, not one of that kind; therefore I doubt the fact. If you know any such, be pleased to give us their names and places of abode. Otherwise you must bear the blame of being the lover if not the maker of a lie. Perhaps you will say, ’Why, a great man said the same thing but a few years ago.’ What if he did Let the frog swell as long as he can, he will not equal the ox. He might say many things, all circumstances considered, which will not come well from you, as you have neither his wit, nor sense, nor learning nor age, nor dignity. Tibi parvula res est: Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est. [Horace’s Epistles, 1. vii. 98. Wesley here gives a free and edged translation: ’You are not upon a level with Bishop Warburton. Let every man know his own size.’ See next letter.] If you fall upon people that meddle not with you, without either fear or wit, you may possibly find they have a little more to say for themselves than you was aware of. I ’follow peace with all men’; but if a man set upon me without either rhyme or reason, I think it my duty to defend myself so far as truth and justice permit. Yet still I am (if a poor enthusiast may not be so bold as to style himself your brother), reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. II -- TO DR. WARBURTON, BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER November 26, 1762. MY LORD,--Your Lordship well observes, ’To employ buffoonery in the service of religion is to violate the majesty of truth and to deprive it of a fair hearing. To examine, men must be serious.’ (Preface, p. 11.) I will endeavour to be so in all the following pages; and the rather, not only because I am writing to a person who is so far and in so many respects my superior, but also because of the importance of the subject: for is the question only, What I am a madman or a man in his senses a knave or an honest man No; this is only brought in by way of illustration. The question is of the office and operation of the Holy Spirit; with which the doctrine of the New Birth, and indeed the whole of real religion, is connected. On a subject of so deep concern I desire to be serious as death. But, at the same time, your Lordship will permit me to use great plainness. And this I am the more emboldened to do because, by naming my name, your Lordship, as it were, condescends to meet me on even ground. I shall consider first what your Lordship advances concerning me, and then what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. 1. First. Concerning me. It is true I am here dealing in crambe repetita, [Juvenal’s Satires, vii. 154: ’Twice-cooked cabbage.’] reciting objections which have been urged and answered an hundred times. But as your Lordship is pleased to repeat them again, I am obliged to repeat the answers. Your Lordship begins: ’If the false prophet pretend to some extraordinary measure of the Spirit, we are directed to try that spirit by James iii. 17’ (page 117). I answer: (1) (as I have done many times before) I do not pretend to any extraordinary measure of the Spirit. I pretend to no other measure of it than may be claimed by every Christian minister. (2) Where are we directed to ’try prophets’ by this text How does it appear that it was given for any such purpose It is certain we may try Christians hereby whether they are real or pretended ones; but I know not that either St. James or any other inspired writer gives us the least hint of trying prophets thereby. Your Lordship adds: ’In this rule or direction for the trial of spirits the marks are to be applied only negatively. The man in whom they are not found hath not the " wisdom from above." But we are not to conclude that he has it in whom any or all of them are found.’ (Page 118.) We are not to conclude that he is a prophet, for the Apostle says nothing about prophets; but may we not conclude the man in whom all these are found has ’the wisdom from above’ Surely we may, for these are the essential parts of that wisdom; and can he have all the parts and not have the whole Is not this enough to show that the Apostle is here giving ’a set of marks,’ not ’to detect impostor prophets,’ but impostor Christians those that impose either upon themselves or others, as if they were Christians when they are not In what follows I shall simply consider the argument without directly addressing your Lordship. ’Apply these marks to the features of modern fanatics, especially Mr. John Wesley. He has laid claim to almost every apostolic gift in as full and ample a manner as they were possessed of old.’ (Page 119.) The miraculous gifts bestowed upon the Apostles are enumerated in two places: (1) Mark xvi. 17-18: ’In My name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ (2) I Corinthians xii. 8-10: ’To one is given the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another faith; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another the discernment of spirits; to another tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.’ Do I lay claim to almost every one of these ’in as full and ample a manner as they were possessed of old’ Five of them are enumerated in the former catalogue; to three of which - speaking with new tongues, taking up serpents, drinking deadly things - it is not even pretended I lay any claim at all. In the latter, nine are enumerated. And as to seven of these, none has yet seen good to call me in question--miraculous wisdom, or knowledge, or faith, prophecy, discernment of spirits, strange tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. What becomes, then, of the assertion that I lay ’claim to almost every one of them in the most full and ample manner’ Do I lay claim to any one of them To prove that I do my own words are produced, extracted from an account of the occurrences of about sixteen years. I shall set them down naked and unadorned: 1 . ’May 13, 1740. The devil stirred up his servants to make all the noise they could.’ 2. ’May 3, 1741. I explained to a vast multitude of people, " What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God " The devil’s children fought valiantly for their master, that his kingdom should not be destroyed; and many stones fell on my right hand and my left.’ 3. ’April 1, 1740. Some or other of the children of Belial had laboured to disturb us several nights before. Now all the street was filled with people shouting, cursing, swearing, and ready to swallow the ground with rage.’ (Page 120.) 4. ’June 27, 1747. I found only one person among them who knew the love of God before my brother came. No wonder the devil was so still; for his goods were in peace.’ 5. ’April 29, 1752. I preached at Durham to a quiet, stupid congregation.’ (Page 121.) 6. ’May 9, 1740. I was a little surprised at some who were buffeted of Satan in an unusual manner by such a spirit of laughter as they could in no wise resist. I could scarce have believed the account they gave me had I not known the same thing ten or eleven years ago, when both my brother and I were seized in the same manner.’ If any man call this hysterics, I am not concerned; I think and let think. 7. ’May 21, 1740. In the evening such a spirit of laughter was among us that many were much offended. But the attention of all was soon fixed on poor Lucretia Smith, whom we all knew to be no dissembler. One so violently and variously torn of the evil one did I never see before. Sometimes she laughed till almost strangled: then broke out into cursing and blaspheming. At last she faintly called on Christ to help her, and the violence of her pangs ceased.’ Let any who please impute this likewise to hysterics; only permit me to think otherwise. 8. ’May 17, 1740. I found more and more undeniable proofs that we have need to watch and pray every moment. Outward trials, indeed, were now removed: but so much the more did inward trials abound; and " if one member suffered, all the members suffered with it." So strange a sympathy did I never observe before: whatever considerable temptation fell on any one, unaccountably spreading itself to the rest, so that exceeding few were able to escape it.’ (Pages 122-3.) I know not what these eight quotations prove, but that I believe the devil still variously tempts and troubles good men, while he ’works with energy in the children of disobedience.’ Certainly they do not prove that I lay claim to any of the preceding gifts. Let us see whether any more is proved by the ten next quotations: 1. ’So many living witnesses hath God given that His hand is still stretched out to heal’ (namely, the souls of sinners, as the whole paragraph fixes the sense) ’and that signs and wonders are even now wrought’ (page 124) (namely, in the conversion of the greatest sinners). 2. ’Among the poor colliers of Placey, Jo. Lane, then nine or ten years old, was one of the first that found peace with God’ (ibid.). 3. ’Mrs. Nowers said her little son appeared to have a continual fear of God and an awful sense of His presence. A few days since, she said he broke out into prayers aloud and said, " I shall go to heaven soon."’ This child, when he began to have the fear of God, was, as his parents said, just three years old. 4. I did receive that ’account of the young woman of Manchester from her own mouth.’ But I pass no judgement on it, good or bad; nor, 5. On ’the trance’ (page 126), as her mother called it, of S--T-- , [See Journal, iii.254-6.] neither denying nor affirming the truth of it. 6. ’You deny that God does work these effects-- at least, that He works them in this manner: I affirm both. I have seen very many persons changed in a moment from the spirit of fear, horror, despair, to the spirit of love, joy, and praise. In several of them this change was wrought in a dream, or during a strong representation to their mind of Christ either on the cross or in glory.’ (Page 127.) ’But here the symptoms of grace and of perdition are interwoven and confounded with one another’ (page 128). No. Though light followed darkness, yet they were not interwoven, much less confounded with each other. 7. ’But some imputed the work to the force of imagination, or even to the delusion of the devil’ (ibid.). They did so; which made me say, 8. ’I fear we have grieved the Spirit of the jealous God by questioning His work’ (ibid.). 9. ’Yet he says himself, " These symptoms I can no more impute to any natural cause than to the Spirit of God. I make no doubt it was Satan tearing them as they were coming to Christ."’ (Page 129.) But these symptoms and the work mentioned before are wholly different things. The work spoken of is the conversion of sinners to God; these symptoms are cries and bodily pain. The very next instance makes this plain. 10. ’I visited a poor old woman. Her trials had been uncommon; inexpressible agonies of mind, joined with all sorts of bodily pain; not, it seemed, from any natural cause, but the direct operation of Satan.’ (Page 130.) Neither do any of those quotations prove that I lay claim to any miraculous gift. ’Such was the evangelic state of things when Mr. Wesley first entered on this ministry; who, seeing himself surrounded with subjects so harmoniously disposed, thus triumphantly exults.’ To illustrate this let us add the date: ’Such was the evangelic state of things, August 9, 1750’ (on that day I preached that sermon), ’when Mr. Wesley first entered on this ministry.’ Nay, that was in the year 1738. So I triumphed because I saw what would be twelve years after! Let us see what the ten next quotations prove. 1. ’In applying these words, " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance," my soul was so enlarged that methought I could have cried out (in another sense than poor vain Archimedes [See letter in Dec. 1751, sect. 3, to Bishop Lavington, vol. iii. p. 296.]), " Give me where to stand, and I will shake the earth "’ (page 130). I meant neither more nor less (though I will not justify the use of so strong an expression) than I was so deeply penetrated with a sense of the love of God to sinners that it seemed, if I could have declared it to all the world, they could not but be moved thereby. ’Here, then, was a scene well prepared for a good actor, and excellently fitted up for the part he was to play’ (page 131). But how came so good an actor to begin playing the part twelve years before the scene was fitted up ’He sets out with declaring his mission. 2. " I cried aloud, All things are ready; come ye to the marriage. I then delivered my message."’ And does not every minister do the same whenever he preaches But how is this ’He sets out with declaring his mission.’ Nay, but this was ten years after my setting out. 3. ’My heart was not wholly resigned; yet I know He heard my voice’ (page 132). 4. ’The longer I spoke the more strength I had, till at twelve I was as one refreshed with wine’ (page 133). 5. ’I explained the nature of inward religion, words flowing upon me faster than I could speak’ (ibid.). 6. ’I intended to have given an exhortation to the Society; but as soon as we met, the Spirit of supplication fell upon us’ (on the congregation as well as me), ’so that I could hardly do anything but pray and give thanks’ (ibid.). I believe every true Christian may experience all that is contained in these three instances. 7. ’The Spirit of prayer was so poured upon us all that we could only speak to God’ (ibid.). 8. ’Many were seated on a wall, which in the middle of the. sermon fell down; but not one was hurt at all: nor was there any interruption either of my speaking or of the attention of the hearers’ (page 134). 9. ’The mob had just broke open the doors, and while they burst in at one door we walked out at the other; nor did one man take any notice of us, though we were within five yards of each other’ (page 135). The fact was just so. I do not attempt to account for it, because I cannot. 10. ’The next miracle was on his friends.’ They were no friends of mine. I had seen few of them before in my life. Neither do I say or think it was any miracle at all that they were all ’silent while I spake,’ or that ’the moment I had done the chain fell off and they all began talking at once.’ Do any or all of these quotations prove that I ’lay claim to almost every miraculous gift’ Will the eight following quotations prove any more 1. ’Some heard perfectly well on the side of the opposite hill, which was sevenscore yards from the place where I stood’ (ibid.). I believe they did, as it was a calm day, and the hill rose gradually like a theatre. 2. ’What I here aver is the naked fact. Let every one account for it as he sees good. My horse was exceeding lame, and my head ached much. I thought, Cannot God heal man or beast by means or without Immediately my weariness and headache ceased, and my horse’s lameness in the same instant.’ (Page 136.) It was so; and I believe thousands of serious Christians have found as plain answers to prayer as this. 3. William Kirkman’s case [See letter in Dec. 1748, sect. XII. 4, to Vincent Perronet.] proves only that God does what pleases Him, not that I make myself either ’a great saint or a great physician’ (page 137). 4. ’R-- A-- [Is this Richard Annesley, Wesley’s uncle See Journal, iv. 101.] was freed at once without any human means from a distemper naturally incurable’ (page 138). He was; but it was before I knew him. So what is that to me 5. ’I found Mr. Lunell in a violent fever. He revived the moment he saw me, and began to recover from that time. Perhaps for this also was I sent.’ (Ibid.) I mean, perhaps this was one end for which the providence of God brought me thither at that time. 6. ’In the evening I called upon Ann Calcut. She had been speechless for some time. But almost as soon as we began to pray, God restored her speech. And from that hour the fever left her.’ 7. ’I visited several ill of the spotted fever, which had been extremely mortal. But God had said, " Hitherto shalt thou come." I believe there was not one with whom we were but he recovered.’ (Page 139.) 8. ’Mr. Meyrick had been speechless and senseless for some time. A few of us joined in prayer. Before we had done his sense and his speech returned. Others may account for this by natural causes. I believe this is the power of God.’ (Ibid.) But what does all this prove Not that I claim any gift above other men, but only that I believe God now hears and answers prayer even beyond the ordinary course of nature; otherwise the clerk was in the right who, in order to prevent the fanaticism of his rector, told him, ’Sir, you should not pray for fair weather yet; for the moon does not change till Saturday.’ While the two accounts (pages 143, 146) which are next recited lay before me, a venerable old clergyman calling upon me, I asked him, ’Sir, would you advise me to publish these strange relations or not’ He answered, ’Are you sure of the facts’ I replied, ’As sure as that I am alive.’ ’Then,’ said he, ’publish them in God’s name, and be not careful about the event.’ The short of the case is this. Two young women were tormented of the devil in an uncommon manner. Several serious persons desired my brother and me to pray with them. We with many others did; and they were delivered. But where meantime were ’the exorcisms in form, according to the Roman fashion’ I never used them; I never saw them; I know nothing about them. ’Such were the blessings which Mr. Wesley distributed among his friends. For his enemies he had in store the judgements of Heaven.’ (Page 144.) Did I then ever distribute or profess to distribute these Do I claim any such power This is the present question. Let us calmly consider the eight quotations brought to prove it. 1, ’I preached at Darlaston, late a den of lions. But the fiercest of them God has called away by a train of surprising strokes.’ (Ibid.) But not by me; I was not there. 2. ’I preached at Roughlee, late a place of furious riot and persecution, but quiet and calm since the bitter rector is gone to give an account of himself to God’ (page 145). 3. ’Hence we rode to Todmorden, where the minister was slowly recovering from a violent fit of the palsy with which he was struck immediately after he had been preaching a virulent sermon against the Methodists’ (page 145). 4. ’The case of Mr. Weston was dreadful indeed, and too notorious to be denied’ (ibid.). 5. ’One of the chief of those who came to make the disturbance on the 1st instant hanged himself’ (page 146). 6. ’I was quite surprised when I heard Mr. Romley [See Journal, iii. 359, 525.] preach; that soft, smooth, tuneful voice, which he so often employed to blaspheme the work of God, was lost, without hope of recovery’ (ibid.). 7. ’Mr. Cowley spoke so much in favour of the rioters that they were all discharged. A few days after, walking over the same field, he dropped down and spoke no more.’ (Page 147.) And what is the utmost that can be inferred from all these passages That I believe these things to have been judgements. What if I did To believe these things to have been judgements is one thing; to claim a power of inflicting judgements is another. If, indeed, I believe things to be judgements which are not, I am to blame. But still this is not ’claiming any miraculous gift.’ But ’you cite one who forbid your speaking to some dying criminals, to answer for their souls at the judgement-seat of Christ’ (ibid.). I do; but, be this right or wrong, it is not ’claiming a power to inflict judgements.’ ’Yes, it is; for these judgements are fulminated with the air of one who had the divine vengeance at his disposal’ (page 147). I think not; and I believe all impartial men will be of the same mind. ’These are some of the extraordinary gifts which Mr. Wesley claims’ (page 149). I claim no ’extraordinary gift’ at all; nor has anything to the contrary been proved yet, so much as in a single instance. ’We come now to the application of this sovereign test, James iii. 17.’ But let us see that we understand it first. I beg leave to consider the whole: ’Who is a wise and knowing man among you Let him show his wisdom,’ as well as his faith, ’by his works,’ not by words only. ’But if ye have bitter zeal and strife in your heart, do not glory and lie against the truth’; as if any such zeal, anything contrary to love, could consist with true wisdom. ’This wisdom descendeth not from above; but is earthly, sensual, devilish: for where bitter zeal and strife are, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom which is from above’ (which every one that hath is a real Christian, and he only) ’is first pure,’ free from all that is earthly, sensual, devilish; ’then peaceable,’ benign, loving, making peace; ’gentle,’ soft, mild, yielding, not morose or sour; ’easy to be entreated,’ to be persuaded or convinced, not stubborn, self-willed, or self-conceited; ’full of mercy,’ of tenderness and compassion; ’and good fruits,’ both in the heart and life. Two of these are immediately specified: ’without partiality,’ loving and doing good to all, without respect of persons; ’and without hypocrisy,’ sincere, frank, open. I desire to be tried by this test. I try myself by it continually; not, indeed, whether I am a prophet (for it has nothing to do with this), but whether I am a Christian. 1. The present question, then, is not What is Mr. Law or What are the Moravians but What is John Wesley And (1) Is he pure or not ’Not pure; for he separates reason from grace’ (page 156). A wonderful proof! But I deny the fact. I never did separate reason from grace. ’Yes, you do; for your own words are, " The points we chiefly insisted on were four: (1) That orthodoxy, or right opinion, [See letter of Sept. 18, 1756, sect. 7.] is at best but a very slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part of it at all "’ (page 157). After premising that it is our bounder duty to labour after a right judgement in all things, as a wrong judgement naturally leads to wrong practice, I say again, Right opinion is at best but a very slender part of religion (which properly and directly consists in right tempers, words, and actions), and frequently it is no part of religion: for it may be where there is no religion at all; in men of the most abandoned lives; yea, in the devil himself. And yet this does not prove that I ’separate reason from grace,’ that I ’discard reason from the service of religion.’ I do continually ’employ it to distinguish between right and wrong opinions.’ I never affirmed ’this distinction to be of little consequence,’ or denied ’the gospel to be a reasonable service’ (page 158). But ’the Apostle Paul considered right opinions as a full third part at least of religion: for he says, " The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth." By goodness is meant the conduct of particulars to the whole, and consists in habits of social virtue; and this refers to Christian practice. By righteousness is meant the conduct of the whole to particulars, and consists in the gentle use of Church authority, and this refers to Christian discipline. By truth is meant the conduct of the whole, and of particulars to one another, and consists in orthodoxy or right opinion; and this refers to Christian doctrine.’ (Page 159.) My objections to this account are, first, it contradicts St. Paul; secondly, it contradicts itself. First. It contradicts St. Paul. It fixes a meaning upon his words foreign both to the text and context. The plain sense of the text, taken in connexion with the context, is no other than this: (Eph. v. 9) ’The fruit of the Spirit’ (rather ’of the light,’ which Bengelius proves to be the true reading--opposite to ’the unfruitful works of darkness’ mentioned verse 11) ’is,’ consists, ’in all goodness, kindness, tenderheartedness’ (iv. 32)--opposite to ’bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil-speaking’ (verse 31); ’in all righteousness,’ rendering unto all their dues--opposite to ’stealing’ (verse 28); ’and in all truth,’ veracity, sincerity--opposite to ’lying’ (verse 25). Secondly. That interpretation contradicts itself; and that in every article. For, 1. If by ’goodness’ be meant ’the conduct of particulars to the whole,’ then it does not consist in habits of social virtue: for social virtue regulates the conduct of particulars not so properly to the whole as to each other. 2. If by ’righteousness’ be meant ’the conduct of the whole to particulars,’ then it cannot consist in the gentleness of Church authority; unless Church governors are the whole Church, or the Parliament the whole Nation. 3. If by ’truth’ be meant ’the conduct of the whole and of particulars to one another,’ then it cannot possibly consist in orthodoxy or right opinion: for opinion, right or wrong, is not conduct; they differ toto genere. If, then, it be orthodoxy, it is not ’the conduct of the governors and governed toward each other.’ If it be their conduct toward each other, it is not orthodoxy. Although, therefore, it be allowed that right opinions are a great help and wrong opinions a great hindrance to religion, yet, till stronger proof be brought against it, that proposition remains unshaken, ’Right opinions are a slender part of religion, if any part if it at all’ (page 160). As to the affair of Abbe Paris, whoever will read over with calmness and impartiality but one volume of Monsieur Montgeron will then be a competent judge. Meantime I would just observe that if these miracles were real they strike at the root of the whole Papal authority, as having been wrought in direct opposition to the famous Bull Unigenitus. (Page 161.) Yet I do not say, ’Errors in faith have little to do with religion,’ or that they ’are no let or impediment to the Holy Spirit’ (page 162). But still it is true that ’God generally speaking begins His work at the heart’ (ibid.). Men usually feel desires to please God before they know how to please Him. Their heart says ’What must I do to be saved’ before they understand the way of salvation. But see ’the character he gives his own saints!" The more I converse with this people the more I am amazed. That God hath wrought a great work is manifest by saving many sinners from their sins. And yet the main of them are not able to give a rational account of the plainest principles of religion."’ They were not able then, as there had not been time to instruct them. But the case is far different now. Again: Did I ’give this character,’ even then, of the people called Methodists in general No, but of the people of a particular town in Ireland, where nine in ten of the inhabitants are Romanists. ’Nor is the observation confined to the people. He had made a proselyte of Mr. Drake, [See letter of Sept. 25, 1755.] Vicar of B[awtry]. And, to show he was no discredit to his master, he gives him this character: " He seemed to stagger at nothing, though as yet his understanding is not opened."’ (Page 162.) Mr. Drake was never a proselyte of mine; nor did I ever see him before or since. I endeavoured to show him that we are justified by faith. And he did not object; though neither did he understand. ’But in the first propagation of religion God began with the understanding, and rational conviction won the heart’ (page 163). Frequently, but not always. The jailer’s heart was touched first, then he understood what he must do to be saved. In this respect, then, there is nothing new in the present work of God. So the lively story from Moliere is just nothing to the purpose. [’But, for this discordancy, between his Mission and St. Paul’s, he has a salvo. He observes occasionally, in several places of his Journal, that God now not only does a new work, but by new ways. This solution of our spiritual empiric will perhaps put the reader in mind of the quack in Moliere, who, having placed the liver on the left side and the heart on the right, and being told that the structure of the parts was certainly otherwise, replied: Oui, cela etoit autre fois ainsi; mais nos avons change tout cela, et nous faisons maintenant la medecine d’une methode toute nouvelle.’--The Doctrine of Grace, pp. 163-4; p. 136, 2nd Edn.] In drawing the parallel between the work God has wrought in England and in America I do not so much as ’insinuate that the understanding has nothing to do in the work’ (page 165). Whoever is engaged therein will find full employment for all the understanding which God has given him. ’On the whole, therefore, we conclude that wisdom which divests the Christian faith of its truth, and the test of it, reason, and resolves all religion into spiritual mysticism and ecstatic raptures, cannot be the wisdom from above, whose characteristic is purity’ (page 166). Perhaps so. But I do not ’divest faith either of truth or reason’; much less do I resolve all into ’spiritual mysticism and ecstatic raptures.’ Therefore, suppose purity here meant sound doctrine (which it no more means than it does a sound constitution), still it touches not me, who, for anything that has yet been said, may teach the soundest doctrine in the world. (2) ’Our next business is to apply the other marks to these pretending sectaries. The first of these, purity, respects the nature of " the wisdom from above," or, in other words, the doctrine taught.’ (Page 167.) Not in the least. It has no more to do with ’doctrine’ than the whole text has with ’prophets.’ ’All the rest concern the manner of teaching.’ Neither can this be allowed. They no farther concern either teaching or teachers than they concern all mankind. But to proceed: ’Methodism signifies only the manner of preaching; not either an old or a new religion: it is the manner in which Mr. Wesley and his followers attempt to propagate the plain old religion’ (page 168). And is not this sound doctrine Is this ’spiritual mysticism and ecstatic raptures’ ’Of all men, Mr. Wesley should best know the meaning of the term; since it was not a nickname imposed on the sect by its enemies, but an appellation of honour bestowed upon it by themselves.’ In answer to this, I need only transcribe what was published twenty years ago:-- ’Since the name first came abroad into the world, many have been at a loss to know what a Methodist is; what are the principles and the practice of those who are commonly called by that name; and what the distinguishing marks of this sect, " which is everywhere spoken against." ’And it being generally believed that I was able to give the clearest account of these things (as having been one of the first to whom that name was given and the person by whom the rest were supposed to be directed), I have been called upon, in all manner of ways and with the utmost earnestness, so to do. I yield at last to the continued importunity both of friends and enemies; and do now give the clearest account I can, in the presence of the Lord and Judge of heaven and earth, of the principles and practice wherein those who are called Methodists are distinguished from other men. ’I say those who are called Methodists; for let it be well observed that this is not a name which they take to themselves, but one fixed upon them by way of reproach without their approbation or consent. It was first given to three or four young men at Oxford by a student of Christ Church; either in allusion to the ancient sect of physicians (so called from their teaching that almost all diseases might be cured by a specific method of diet and exercise), or from their observing a more regular method of study and behaviour than was usual with those of their age and station.’ [Preface to The Character of a Methodist. See Works, viii. 339; and letter of Aug. 24, 1758.] I need only add that this nickname was imposed upon us before ’this manner of preaching’ had a being--yea, at a time when I thought it as lawful to cut a throat as to preach out of a church. ’Why, then, will Mr. Wesley so grossly misrepresent his adversaries as to say that, when they speak against Methodism, they speak against the plain, old doctrine of the Church of England’ (Tract, p. 169.) This is no misrepresentation. Many of our adversaries all over the kingdom speak against us eo nomine for preaching these doctrines, Justification by Faith in particular. However, ’a fanatic manner of preaching, though it were the doctrine of an apostle, may do more harm to society at least than reviving old heresies or inventing new. It tends to bewilder the imaginations of some, to inflame the passions of others, and to spread disorder and confusion through the whole community.’ (Page 169.) I would gladly have the term defined. What is a ’fanatic manner of preaching’ Is it field-preaching But this has no such effect, even among the wildest of men. This has not ’bewildered the imagination’ even of the Kingswood colliers or ’inflamed their passions.’ It has not spread disorder or confusion among them, but just the contrary. From the time it was heard in that chaos, Confusion heard the voice, and wild uproar Stood ruled, . . . and order from disorder sprung. [Paradise Lost, iii. 710-13.] ’But St. James, who delivers the test for the trial of these men’s pretensions’ (the same mistake still), ’unquestionably thought a fanatic spirit did more mischief in the mode of teaching than in the matter taught; since of six marks, one only concerns doctrine, all the rest the manner of the teacher’ (page 170). Nay, all six concern doctrine as much as one. The truth is, they have nothing to do either with doctrine or manner. ’From St. Paul’s words, "Be instant in season, out of season," he infers more than they will bear; and misapplies them into the bargain’ (page 171). When and where I do not remember applying them at all. ’When seasonable times are appointed for holy offices, to fly to unseasonable is factious’ (page 172). But it is not clear that five in the morning and seven in the evening (our usual times) are unseasonable. 2. We come now directly to the second article. ’"The wisdom from above is peaceable." But the propagation of Methodism has occasioned many and great violations of peace. In order to know where the blame hereof lies, let us inquire the temper which "makes for peace." For we may be assured the fault lies not there, where such a temper is found.’ (Page 173.) Thus far we are quite agreed. ’Now, the temper which makes for peace is prudence.’ This is one of the tempers which make for peace; others are kindness, meekness, patience. ’This our Lord recommended by His own example’ (pages 174-7). ’But this Mr. Wesley calls "the mystery of iniquity and the offspring of hell"’ (page 178). No, not this; not the prudence which our Lord recommends. I call that so, and that only, which the world, the men who know not God, style Christian prudence. By this I mean subtlety, craft, dissimulation; study to please man rather than God; the art of trimming between God and the world, of serving God and mammon. Will any serious man defend this And this only do I condemn. But you say, ’"Good sort of men," as they are called, are "the bane of all religion"’ (pages 179-80). And I think so. By this ’good sort of men’ I mean persons who have a liking to but no sense of religion, no real fear or love of God, no truly Christian tempers. ’These steal away the little zeal he has--that is, persuade him to be peaceable.’ No; persuade me to be like themselves-- without love either to God or man. ’Again, speaking of one, he says, "Indulging himself in harmless company"’ (vulgarly so called), ’"he first made shipwreck of his zeal, then of his faith." In this I think he is right. The zeal and faith of a fanatic are such exact tallies that neither can exist alone. They came into the world together to disturb society and dishonour religion.’ By zeal I mean the flame of love or fervent love to God and man; by faith, the substance or confidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Is this the zeal and faith of a fanatic Then St. Paul was the greatest fanatic on earth. Did these come into the world to ’disturb society and dishonour religion’ ’On the whole, we find Mr. Wesley by his own confession entirely destitute of prudence. Therefore it must be ascribed to the want of this if his preaching be attended with tumult and disorder.’ (Page 181.) ’By his own confession’ Surely no. This I confess, and this only: what is falsely called prudence I abhor; but true prudence I love and admire. However, ’You set at naught the discipline of the Church by invading the province of the parochial minister’ (page 182). Nay, if ever I preach at all, it must be in the province of some parochial minister. ’By assembling in undue places and at unfit times.’ I know of no times unfit for those who assemble; and I believe Hanham Mount and Rose Green were the most proper places under heaven for preaching to the colliers in Kingswood. ’By scurrilous invectives against the governors and pastors of the national Church.’ This is an entire mistake. I dare not make any ’scurrilous invectives’ against any man. ’Insolences of this nature provoke warm men to tumult.’ But those insolences do not exist; so that, whatever tumult either warm or cool men raise, I am not chargeable therewith. ’To know the true character of Methodism.’ The present point is to know the true character of John Wesley. Now, in order to know this we need not inquire what others were before he was born. All, therefore, that follows of old Precisians, Puritans, and Independents may stand just as it is. (Pages 184-6.) But ’Mr. Wesley wanted to be persecuted’ (page 187). As this is averred over and over, I will explain myself upon it once for all. I never desired or wanted to be persecuted. Lives there who loves his pain I love and desire to ’live peaceably with all men.’ ’But persecution would not come at his call.’ However, it came uncalled; and more than once or twice it was not ’mock persecution.’ It was not only the huzzas of the mob: showers of stones are something more than huzzas. And whosoever saw the mob either at Walsall or Cork (to instance in no more) saw that they were not ’in jest,’ but in great earnest, eagerly athirst, not for sport, as you suppose, but for blood. But though I do not desire persecution, I expect it. I must, if I believe St. Paul: ’All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution’ (2 Tim. iii. 12); either sooner or later, more or less, according to the wise providence of God. But I believe ’all these things work together for good to them that love God.’ And from a conviction of this they may even rejoice when they are ’persecuted for righteousness’ sake.’ Yet, as I seldom ’complain of ill treatment,’ so I am never ’dissatisfied with good ’ (page 188). But I often wonder at it; and I once expressed my wonder nearly in the words of the old Athenian--’What have we done that the world should be so civil to us’ [See letter of July 18, 1747.] You conclude the head: ’As he who persecutes is but the tool of him that invites persecution’ (I know not who does), ’the crime finally comes home to him who set the rioter at work’ (page 191). And is this all the proof that I am not peaceable Then let all men judge if the charge is made good. 3, ’The next mark of the celestial wisdom is, it is "gentle and easy to be entreated," compliant and even obsequious to all men.’ And how does it appear that I am wanting in this Why, he is ’a severe condemner of his fellow citizens and a severe exactor of conformity to his own observances.’ Now the proof: (1) ’He tells us this in the very appellation he assumes’ (page 192). Nay, I never assumed it at all. (2) But ’you say, "Useless conversation is an abomination to the Lord." And what is this but to withstand St. Paul to the face’ Why, did St. Paul join in or condemn useless conversation I rather think he reproves it. He condemns as sapros logos, ’putrid, stinking conversation,’ all that is not good, all that is not ’to the use of edifying,’ and meet to ’minister grace to the hearers’ (Eph. iv. 29). (3) Mr. Wesley ’resolved never to laugh nor to speak a tittle of worldly things’ (page 193)--’though others may, nay must.’ Pray add that with the reason of my so resolving--namely, that I expected to die in a few days. If I expected it now, probably I should resume the resolution. But, be it as it may, this proves nothing against my being both gentle and easy to be entreated. (4) ’He says Mr. Griffith was a clumsy, overgrown, hardfaced man’ (page 194). So he was. And this was the best of him. I spare him much in saying no more. But he is gone: let his ashes rest. (5) ’I heard a most miserable sermon, full of dull, senseless, improbable lies.’ It was so from the beginning to the end. I have seldom heard the like. (6) ’"The persecution at St. Ives"’ (which ended before I came; what I saw I do not term persecution) ’" was owing to the indefatigable labours of Mr. Hoblyn and Mr. Symonds, gentlemen worthy to be had in everlasting remembrance."Here he tells us it is his purpose to gibbet up the names of his two great persecutors to everlasting infamy.’ (Page 195.) These gentlemen had occasioned several innocent people to be turned out of their livelihood; and others to be outraged in the most shocking manner, and beat only not to death. My purpose is, by setting down their names, to make others afraid so to offend. Yet I say still, God forbid that I should rail either at a Turk, infidel, or heretic. But I will bring to light the actions of such Christians to be a warning to others. And all this I judge to be perfectly consistent with ’the spirit of meekness’ (page 196). 4. ’The fourth mark is "full of mercy and good fruits." Let us inquire into the "mercy and good fruits" of Mr. Wesley.’ (Page 198.) (1) And, first: ’He has no mercy on his opposers. They pass with him under no other title than that of the devil’s servants and the devil’s children.’ (Ibid.) This is far from true. Many have opposed and do oppose me still, whom I believe to be children and servants of God. ’We have seen him dispatching the principal of these children of the devil without mercy to their father’ (page 199). No, not one. This has been affirmed over and over, but never proved yet. I fling about no exterminating judgements of God; I call down no fire from heaven. ’But it would be for the credit of these new saints to distinguish between rage and zeal.’ That is easily done. Rage is furious fire from hell; zeal is loving fire from heaven. (2) ’If what has been said above does not suffice, turn again to Mr. Wesley’s Journals: "Mr. Simpson, while he was speaking to the Society against my brother and me, was struck raving mad"’ (page 200). He was so before an hundred witnesses, though I was the last to believe it. ’But it seems God is at length entreated for him, and has restored him to a sound mind.’ And is my relating this fact an instance of ’dooming men to perdition’ (3) ’John Haydon cried aloud, "Let the world see the just judgement of God"’ (page 201). He did. But let John Haydon look to that. It was he said so, not I. (4) ’I was informed of an awful providence. A poor wretch, who was here the last week, cursing and blaspheming, and labouring with all his might to hinder the word of God, had afterwards boasted he would come again on Sunday, and no man should stop his mouth then. But on Friday God laid his hand upon him, and on Sunday he was buried.’ (Page 202.) And was not this an awful providence But yet I do not doom even him to perdition. (5) ’I saw a poor man, once joined with us, who wanted nothing in this world. A day or two before, he hanged himself, but was cut down before he was dead. He has been crying out ever since, God had left him because he had left the children of God.’ This was his assertion, not mine. I neither affirm nor deny it. (6) The true account of Lucy Godshall is this: ’I buried the body of Lucy Godshall, After pressing toward the mark for more than two years, since she had known the pardoning love of God, she was for some time weary and faint in her mind, till I put her out of the bands. God blessed this greatly to her soul, so that in a short time she was admitted again. Soon after, being at home, she felt the love of God in an unusual manner poured into her heart. She fell down upon her knees and delivered up her soul and body into the hands of God. In the instant the use of all her limbs was taken away and she was in a burning fever. For three days she mightily praised God and rejoiced in Him all the day long. She then cried out, "Now Satan hath desired to have me that he may sift me as wheat." Immediately darkness and heaviness fell upon her, which continued till Saturday, the 4th instant. On Sunday the light shone again upon her heart. About ten in the evening one said to her, "Jesus is ready to receive your soul." She said, "Amen! Amen!" closed her eyes, and died.’ (Journal, iii. 44-5.) Is this brought as a proof of my inexorableness or of my dooming men to perdition (7) ’I found Nicholas Palmer in great weakness of body and heaviness of spirit. We wrestled with God in his behalf; and our labour was not in vain. His soul was comforted, and a few hours after he quietly fell asleep.’ A strange proof this likewise, either of inexorableness or of ’dooming men to perdition.’ Therefore this charge too stands totally unsupported. Here is no proof of my unmercifulness yet. ’Good fruits come next to be considered, which Mr. Wesley’s idea of true religion does not promise. He saith’ (I will repeat the words a little at large, that their true sense may more clearly appear), ’"In explaining those words, The kingdom of God, or true religion, is not meats and drinks, I was led to show that religion does not properly consist in harmlessness, using the means of grace, and doing good, that is, helping our neighbours, chiefly by giving alms; but that a man might both be harmless, use the means of grace, and do much good, and yet have no true religion at all."’ (Tract, p. 203.) He may so. Yet whoever has true religion must be ’zealous of good works.’ And zeal for all good works is, according to my idea, an essential ingredient of true religion. ’Spiritual cures are all the good fruits he pretends to’ (pages 204-5). Not quite all, says William Kirkman with some others. ’A few of his spiritual cures we will set in a fair light: "The first time I preached at Swalwell"’ (chiefly to colliers and workers in the ironwork) ’"none seemed to be convinced, only stunned."’ I mean amazed at what they heard, though they were the first principles of religion. ’But he brings them to their senses with a vengeance.’ No, not them. These were different persons. Are they lumped together in order to set things in ’a fair light’ The whole paragraph runs thus: ’I carefully examined those who had lately cried out in the congregation. Some of these, I found, could give no account at all how or wherefore they had done so; only that of a sudden they dropped down, they knew not how; and what they afterward said or did they knew not. Others could just remember they were in fear, but could not tell what they were in fear of. Several said they were afraid of the devil, and this was all they knew. But a few gave a more intelligible account of the piercing sense they then had of their sins, both inward and outward, which were set in array against them round about; of the dread they were in of the wrath of God, and the punishment they had deserved, into which they seemed to be just falling without any way to escape. One of them told me, "I was as if I was just falling down from the highest place I had ever seen. I thought the devil was pushing me off, and that God had forsaken me." Another said, "I felt the very fire of hell already kindled in my breast; and all my body was in as much pain as if I had been in a burning fiery furnace." What wisdom is this which rebuketh these, that they should hold their peace Nay, let such an one cry after Jesus of Nazareth till He saith, "Thy faith hath made thee whole."’ (Journal, iii. 59-60.) Now follow the proofs of my driving men mad: (1) ’Another of Dr. Monro’s patients came to ask my advice. I found no reason to believe she had been any otherwise mad than every one is that is deeply convinced of sin.’ (Tract, p. 208.) Let this prove all that it can prove. (2) ’A middle-aged woman was really distracted.’ Yes, before I ever saw her or she me. (3) ’I could not but be under some concern with regard to one or two persons, who were tormented in an unaccountable manner, and seemed to be indeed lunatic as well as sore vexed.’ True; for a time. But the deliverance of one of them is related in the very next paragraph. (4) ’Two or three are gone quite distracted’ (page 209)--’that is, they mourn and refuse to be comforted till they have redemption.’ (5) ’I desired one to visit Mrs. G--in Bedlam, put in by her husband as a madwoman.’ But she never was mad in any degree, as he himself afterwards acknowledged. (6) ’One was so deeply convinced of her ungodliness that she cried out day and night, "Lord, save, or I perish!" All the neighbours agreed she was stark mad.’ But I did not make her so. For this was before she ever saw my face. Now let every one judge whether here is yet a single proof that I drive men mad. ’The time when this spiritual madness was at its height he calls a glorious time’ (page 210). I call that a glorious time when many notorious sinners are converted to God (whether with any outward symptoms or none, for those are no way essential), and when many are in the triumph of faith greatly rejoicing in God their Saviour. ’But though Mr. Wesley does so well in turning fools into madmen, yet his craftmaster is certainly one Mr. Wheatley, of whom he gives this extraordinary account’ (page 211): ’"A poor woman" (on Wednesday, September 17, 1740) "said it was four years" (namely, in September 1736, above a year before I left Georgia) "since her son, by hearing a sermon of Mr. Wheatley’s, fell into great uneasiness. She thought he was ill, and would have sent for a physician. But he said, No, no; send for Mr. Wheatley. He was sent for, and came; and, after asking a few questions, told her, The boy is mad: get a coach, and carry him to Dr. Monro: use my name; I have sent several such to him." Who this Mr. Wheatley is I know not.’ He was lecturer at Spitalfields Church. The event was, after the apothecary had half murdered him, he was discharged, and the lad soon recovered his strength. His senses he never had lost. The supposing this was a blunder from the beginning. ’These are the exploits which M--,--. Wesley calls blessings from God’ (page 212). Certainly I do, both repentance and faith. ’And which therefore we may call the good fruits of his ministry.’ May God increase them an hundredfold! ’What the Apostle calls "good fruits," namely, doing much good, Mr. Wesley tells us belongs not to true religion.’ I never told any man so yet. I tell all men just the contrary. I may then safely leave all mankind to judge whether a single article of the charge against me has yet been made good. So much for the first charge that I am a madman. Now for the second that I am a knave. 5. The proof is short: ’Every enthusiast is a knave: but he is an enthusiast; therefore he is a knave.’ I deny both the first and second proposition. Nay, the first is proved thus: ’Enthusiasm must always be accompanied with craft and knavery’ (page 213). It is often so, but not always; for there may be honest enthusiasts. Therefore the whole account of that odd combination which follows is ingenious, but proves nothing. (Pages 214-18.) Yet I must touch upon one or two parts of it. ’An enthusiast thinks he is dispensed with in breaking, nay that he is authorized to break, the common laws of morality.’ Does every enthusiast Then I am none; for I never thought any such thing. I believe no man living is authorized to break, or dispensed with in breaking, any law of morality. I know whoever (habitually) breaks one of the least of these ’shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.’ ’Can any but an enthusiast believe that he may use guile to promote the glory of God’ Yes, ten thousand that are no enthusiasts firmly believe thus. How few do we find that do not believe it! that do not plead for officious lies! How few will subscribe to St. Augustine’s declaration (to which I assent with my whole heart), ’I would not tell a wilful lie to save the souls of the whole world!’ But to return: "’The wisdom from above is without partiality and without hypocrisy." Partiality consists in dispensing an unequal measure in our transactions with others; hypocrisy, in attempting to cover that unequal measure by prevarication and false presences.’ The former of these definitions is not clear; the latter neither clear nor adequate to the defined. But let this pass. My partiality is now the point. What are the proofs of it (1) ’His followers are always the children of God, his opposers the children of the devil’ (page 220). Neither so, nor so. I never affirmed either one or the other universally. That some of the former are children of God and some of the latter children of the devil I believe. But what will this prove ’His followers are directed by inward feelings, the impulses of an inflamed fancy’ (no more than they are directed by the Alcoran); ’his opposers by the Scripture.’ What, while they are cursing, swearing, blaspheming, beating and maiming men that have done them no wrong, and treating women in a manner too shocking to be repeated (2) The next proof is very extraordinary. My words are, ’I was with two persons, who, I doubt, are properly enthusiasts: for, first, they think to attain the end without the means, which is enthusiasm properly so called. Again, they think themselves inspired of God, and are not. But false imaginary inspiration is enthusiasm. That theirs is only imaginary inspiration appears hence--it contradicts the law and the testimony.’ (Page 221.) Now, by what art of man can this be made a proof of my partiality Why, thus: ’These are wise words. But what do they amount to Only to this--that these two persons would not take out their patents of inspiration from his office.’ But what proof is there of this round assertion Truly, none at all. Full as extraordinary is the third proof of my partiality. ’Miss Gr-- [Probably Miss Gregory. See Journal, ii. 430d, iii. 46-7.] told Mrs. Sparrow Mr. Wesley was a Papist. Upon this Miss Gr--is anathematized. And we are told that in consequence she had lately been raving mad, and as such was tied down in her bed. Yet all these circumstances of madness have befallen his favourite saints, whom he has vindicated from the opprobrium.’ (Page 222.) The passage in my Journal stands thus: ’Mrs. Sparrow told me two or three nights since, "Miss Gr-- met me and said, I assure you Mr. Wesley is a Papist." Perhaps I need observe no more upon this than that Miss Gr-- had lately been raving mad in consequence of a fever (not of an anathema, which never had any being); that as such she was tied down in her bed; and as soon as she was suffered to go abroad went to Mr. Whitefield to inquire of him whether she was not a Papist. But he quickly perceived she was only a lunatic, the nature of her disorder soon betraying itself.’ Certainly, then, my allowing her to be mad is no proof of my partiality. I will allow every one to be so who is attended with ’all these circumstances of madness.’ (4) ’He pronounces sentence of enthusiasm upon another, and tells us wherefore without any disguise: "Here I took leave of a poor, mad, original enthusiast, who had been scattering lies in every quarter."’ [See Journal, iii. 181-2. The asylum in Box (Wilts.) adjoined the churchyard. The parson’s fee for the burial of a lunatic was one penny; three pence for a sane person.] It was the famous John Adams, since confined at Box, whose capital lie (the source of the rest) was that he was a prophet greater than Moses or any of the Apostles. And is the pronouncing him a madman a proof of my partiality (5) ’I had much conversation with Mr. Simpson, an original enthusiast I desired him in the evening to give an exhortation. He did so, and spoke many good things in a manner peculiar to himself’--without order or connexion, head or tail, and in a language very near as Mystical as that of Jacob Behmen. ’When he had done, I summed up what he had said, methodizing and explaining it. Oh what pity it is this well-meaning man should ever speak without an interpreter!’ (Page 223.) Let this passage likewise stand as it is, and who can guess how it is to prove my partiality But by a sleight of hand the thing is done. ’How differently does Mr. Wesley treat these two enthusiasts! The first is accused of spreading lies of his master.’ No, he never was any disciple of mine. ’On which Mr. Wesley took his leave of him;--a gentle expression, to signify the thrusting him out head and shoulders from the society of saints.’ It signifies neither more nor less than that I went out of the room and left him. ’The other’s enthusiasm is made to consist only in want of method.’ No. His enthusiasm did not consist in this: it was the cause of it. But he was quite another man than John Adams; and I believe a right honest man. (6) ’I was both surprised and grieved at a genuine instance of enthusiasm. John Brown, who had received a sense of the love of God a few days before, came riding through the town, hallooing and shouting, and driving all the people before him, telling them God had told him he should be a king and should tread all his enemies under his feet. I sent him home immediately to his work; and advised him to cry day and night to God that he might be lowly in heart, lest Satan again "get an advantage over him."’ What this proves, or is intended to prove, I cannot tell. Certainly neither this nor any of the preceding passages prove the point now in question--my partiality. So this likewise is wholly unproved still. ’We shall end, where every fanatic leader ends, with his hypocrisy’ (page 227). Five arguments are brought in proof of this. I shall take them in their order. (1) ’After having heaped up miracles one upon another, he sneaks away under the protection of a puny wonder: "About five I began near the Keelmen’s Hospital, many thousands standing round. The wind was high just before, but scarce a breath was felt all the time we assembled before God. I praise God for this also. Is it enthusiasm to see God in every benefit we receive "It is not; the enthusiasm consists in believing those benefits to be conferred through a change in the established course of nature. But here he insinuates that he meant no more by his miracles than the seeing God in every benefit we receive.’ (Pages 228-9.) That sudden and total ceasing of the wind I impute to the particular providence of God. This I mean by seeing God therein. But this I knew many would count enthusiasm. In guarding against it, I had an eye to that single incident, and no other. Nor did I insinuate anything more than I expressed in as plain a manner as I could. A little digression follows: ’A friend of his advises not to establish the power of working miracles as the great criterion of a divine mission, seeing the agreement of doctrines with Scripture is the only infallible rule’ (page 230). ’But Christ Himself establishes the power of working miracles as the great criterion of a divine mission’ (page 231). True, of a mission to be the Saviour of the world; to put a period to the Jewish and introduce the Christian dispensation. And whoever pretends to such a mission will stand in need of such credentials. (2) ’He shifts and doubles no less’ (neither less nor more) ’as to the ecstasies of his saints. Sometimes they are of God, sometimes of the devil; but he is constant in this--that natural causes have no hand in them.’ This is not true: in what are here termed ecstasies, strong joy or grief, attended with various bodily symptoms, I have openly affirmed again and again that natural causes have a part; nor did I ever shift or double on the head. I have steadily and uniformly maintained that, if the mind be affected to such a degree, the body must be affected by the laws of the vital union. The mind I believe was in many of those cases affected by the Spirit of God, in others by the devil, and in some by both; and in consequence of this the body was affected also. (3) ’Mr. Wesley says, "I fear we have grieved the Spirit of the jealous God by questioning His work, and by blaspheming it, by imputing it to nature, or even to the devil"’ (pages 232-3). True; by imputing the conviction and conversion of sinners, which is the work of God alone (because of these unusual circumstances attending it), either to nature or to the devil. This is flat and plain. No prevarication yet. Let us attend to the next proof of it: ’Innumerable cautions were given me not to regard visions or dreams, or to fancy people had remission of sins because of their cries or tears or outward professions. The sum of my answer was, You deny that God does now work these effects--at least, that He works them in this manner. I affirm both. I have seen very many persons changed in a moment from a spirit of fear, horror, despair, to a spirit of love, joy, peace. What I have to say touching visions and dreams is this: I know several persons in whom this great change was wrought in a dream, or during a strong representation to the eye of their mind of Christ either on the cross or in glory. This is the fact; let any judge of it as they please. And that such a change was then wrought appears, not from their shedding tears only, or falling into fits, or crying out (these are not the fruits, as you seem to suppose, whereby I judge), but from the whole tenor of their life, till then many ways wicked, from that time holy and just and good.’ ’Nay, he is so convinced of its being the work of God, that the horrid blasphemies which ensued he ascribes to the abundance of joy which God had given to a poor mad woman’ (page 234). Do I ascribe those blasphemies to her joy in God No; but to her pride. My words are: ’I met with one who, having been lifted up with the abundance of joy which God had given her, had fallen into such blasphemies and vain imaginations as are not common to men. In the afternoon I found another instance, nearly, I fear, of the same kind-- one who set her private revelations (so called) on the selfsame foot with the written Word.’ (Page 235.) But how is this to prove prevarication ’Why, on a sudden he directly revokes all he had advanced. He says: "I told them they were not to judge of the spirit whereby any one spoke, either by appearances, or by common report, or by their own inward feelings--no, nor by any dreams, visions, or revelations supposed to be made to the soul, any more than by their tears or any involuntary effects wrought upon their bodies. I warned them that all these things were in themselves of a doubtful, disputable nature; they might be from God or they might not, and were therefore not simply to be relied on any more than simply to be condemned, but to be tried by a farther rule, to be brought to the only certain test, the law and the testimony." Now, is not this a formal recantation of what he had said just above’ (Page 235.) Nothing less, as I will show in two minutes to every calm, impartial man. What I say now I have said any time this thirty years; I have never varied therefrom for an hour: ’Everything disputable is to be brought to the only certain test, "the law and the testimony."’ ’But did not you talk just now of visions and dreams’ Yes; but not as of a test of anything: only as a channel through which God is sometimes pleased to convey ’love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, temperance,’ the indisputable fruit of His Spirit; and these, we may observe, wherever they exist, must be inwardly felt. Now, where is the prevarication where the formal recantation They are vanished into air. But here is more proof: ’At length he gives up all these divine agitations to the devil. "I inquired," says he, "into the case of those who had lately cried out aloud during the preaching. I found this had come upon every one of them in a moment, without any previous notice. In that moment they dropped down, lost all their strength, and were seized with violent pain. Some said they felt as if a sword were running through them; others as if their whole body was tearing in pieces. These symptoms I can no more impute to any natural cause than to the Spirit of God. I make no doubt but it was Satan tearing them as they were coming to Christ."’ (Page 236.) ’Now, these were the very symptoms which he had before ascribed to the Spirit of God’ (page 237). Never in my life. Indeed, some of them I never met with before. Those outward symptoms which I had met with before, bodily agitations in particular, I did not ascribe to the Spirit of God, but to the natural union of the soul and body. And those symptoms which I now ascribe to the devil I never ascribed to any other cause. The second proof of my prevarication or hypocrisy is therefore just as conclusive as the first. 3. Now for the third: ’Mr. Wesley before spoke contemptuously of orthodoxy to take in the sectaries. But when he would take off Churchmen, then orthodoxy is the unum necessarium.’ Did I ever say so No more than, in the other extreme, speak contemptuously of it. ’Yes, you say, "I described the plain, old religion of the Church of England, which is now almost everywhere spoken against under the new name of Methodism."’ Very well; and what shadow of prevarication is here May I not still declare the plain, old religion of the Church of England, and yet very consistently aver that right opinion is a very slender part of it 4. The next passage, I am sorry to say, is neither related with seriousness nor truth: ’We have seen him inviting persecution.’ Never; though I ’rejoiced,’ in the instance alleged, at having an opportunity of calling a multitude of the most abandoned sinners to repentance. What is peculiarly unfair is the lame, false account is palmed upon me by ’So he himself tells the story.’ I must therefore tell the story once more in as few words as I can:-- ’Sunday, August 7, 1737. I repelled Mrs. Williamson from the communion. Tuesday, 9. I was required by Mr. Bailiff Parker to appear at the next court. Thursday, 11. Mr. Causton, her uncle, said to me, "Give your reasons for repelling her before the whole congregation." I answered, "Sir, if you insist upon it, I will." But I heard no more of it. Afterward he said (but not to me) "Mr. Wesley had repelled Sophy out of revenge, because he had made proposals of marriage to her, which she rejected." Tuesday, 16. Mrs. Williamson made affidavit of it. Thursday, September 1. A Grand Jury prepared by Mr. Causton found that "John Wesley had broken the laws of the realm, by speaking and writing to Mrs. Williamson against her husband’s consent, and by repelling her from the communion." ’Friday, 2, was the third court-day at which I appeared, since my being required so to do by Mr. Parker. I moved for an immediate hearing, but was put off till the next court-day. On the next court-day I appeared again, as also at the two courts following, but could not be heard. Thursday, November 3, I appeared in court again; and yet again on Tuesday, November 22, on which day Mr. Causton desired to speak with me, and read me an affidavit in which it was affirmed that I "abused Mr. Causton in his own house, calling him liar, villain, and so on." It was likewise repeated that I had been reprimanded at the last court by Mr. Causton as an enemy to and hinderer of the public peace. ’My friends agreed with me that the time we looked for was now come. And the next morning, calling on Mr. Causton, I told him I designed to set out for England immediately. ’Friday, December 2. I proposed to set out for Carolina about noon. But about ten the Magistrates sent for me, and told me I must not go out of the province; for I had not answered the allegations laid against me. I replied, "I have appeared at six or seven courts in order to answer them. But I was not suffered so to do." After a few more words, I said, "You use me very ill; and so you do the Trustees. You know your business, and I know mine." ’In the afternoon they published an order forbidding any to assist me in going out of the province. But I knew I had no more business there. So as soon as Evening Prayer was over, the tide then serving, I took boat at the Bluff for Carolina.’ This is the plain account of the matter. I need only add a remark or two on the pleasantry of my censurer. ’He had recourse as usual to his revelations: "I consulted my friends whether God did not call me to England"’ (page 242). Not by revelations-- these were out of the question; but by clear, strong reasons. ’The Magistrate soon quickened his pace by declaring him an enemy to the public peace.’ No; that senseless assertion of Mr. Causton made me go neither sooner nor later. ’The reader has seen him long languish for persecution.’ What, before November 1737 I never languished for it either before or since. But I submit to what pleases God. ’To hide his poltroonery in a bravado, he gave public notice of his apostolical intention’ (page 243). Kind and civil! I may be excused from taking notice of what follows. It is equally serious and genteel. ’Had his longings for persecution been without hypocrisy.’ The same mistake throughout. I never longed or professed to long for it at all. But if I had professed it ever since I returned from Georgia, what was done before I returned could not prove that profession to be hypocrisy. So all this ribaldry serves no end; only to throw much dirt, if haply some may stick. Meantime how many untruths are here in one page! (1) ’He made the path doubly perplexed for his followers. (2) He left them to answer for his crimes. (3) He longed for persecution. (4) He went as far as Georgia for it. (5) The truth of his mission was questioned by the Magistrate, and (6) decried by the people, (7) for his false morals. (8) The gospel was wounded through the sides of its pretended missionary. (9) The first Christian preachers offered up themselves.’ So did I. ’Instead of this, our paltry mimic’ (page 244). Bona verba! Surely a writer should reverence himself, how much soever he despises his opponent. So, upon the whole, this proof of my hypocrisy is as lame as the three former. 5. ’We have seen above how he sets all prudence at defiance.’ None but false prudence. ’But he uses a different language when his rivals are to be restrained.’ No; always the same, both with regard to false prudence and true. ’But take the affair from the beginning. He began to suspect rivals in the year thirty-nine; for he says, "Remembering how many that came after me were preferred before me."’ The very next words show in what sense. They ’had attained unto the law of righteousness’: I had not. But what has this to do with rivals However, go on: ’At this time, December 8, 1739, his opening the Bible afforded him but small relief. He sunk so far in his despondency as to doubt if God would not lay him aside and send other labourers into His harvest.’ But this was another time. It was June 22; and the occasion of the doubt is expressly mentioned: ’I preached, but had no life or spirit in me, and was much in doubt’ on that account. Not on account of Mr. Whitefield. He did not ’now begin to set up for himself.’ We were in full union; nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I still sincerely ’praise God for His wisdom in giving different talents to different preachers’ (page 250), and particularly for His giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not. 6. What farther proof of hypocrisy Why, ’he had given innumerable flirts of contempt in his Journals against human learning’ (pages 252-3). Where I do not know. Let the passages be cited; else, let me speak for it ever so much, it will prove nothing. ’At last he was forced to have recourse to what he had so much scorned; I mean prudence’ (page 255). All a mistake. I hope never to have recourse to false prudence; and true prudence I never scorned. ’He might have met Mr. Whitefield half-way; but he was too formidable a rival. With a less formidable one he pursues this way. "I laboured," says he, "to convince Mr. Green"’ (my assistant, not rival) ’"that he had not done well in confuting, as he termed it, the sermon I preached the Sunday before. I asked, Will you meet me half-way"’ (The words following put my meaning beyond all dispute.) ’"I will never publicly preach against you: will not you against me’’ [ See Journal, iv. 94; and for a letter to William Green, October 25, 1789. ] Here we see a fair invitation to Mr. Green to play the hypocrite with him.’ (Ibid.) Not in the least. Each might simply deliver his own sentiments without preaching against the other. ’We conclude that Mr. Wesley, amidst his warmest exclamations against all prudence, had still a succedaneum, which indeed he calls prudence; but its true name is craft’ (page 257). Craft is an essential part of worldly prudence. This I detest and abhor. And let him prove it upon me that can. But it must be by better arguments than the foregoing. Truly Christian prudence, such as was recommended by our Lord and practiced by Him and His Apostles, I reverence and desire to learn, being convinced of its abundant usefulness. I know nothing material in the argument which I have left untouched. And I must now refer it to all the world whether, for all that has been brought to the contrary, I may not still have a measure of the ’wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.’ I have spoke abundantly more concerning myself than I intended or expected. Yet I must beg leave to add a few words more. How far I am from being an enemy to prudence I hope appears already. It remains to inquire whether I am an enemy to reason or natural religion. ’As to the first, he frankly tells us the father of lies was the father of reasonings also. For he says, "I observed more and more the advantage Satan had gained over us. Many were thrown into idle reasonings."’ (Page 289.) Yes, and they were hurt thereby. But reason is good, though idle reasonings are evil. Nor does it follow that I am an enemy to the one because I condemn the other. ’However, you are an enemy to natural religion. For you say, "A Frenchman gave us a full account of the Chicasaws. They do nothing but eat and drink and smoke from morning till night, and almost from night till morning. For they rise at any hour of the night when they awake, and, after eating and drinking as much as they can, go to sleep again. Hence we could not but remark what is the religion of nature, properly so called, or that religion which flows from natural reason unassisted by revelation."’ (Page 290.) I believe this dispute may be cut short by only defining the term. What does your Lordship mean by natural religion a system of principles But I mean by it in this place men’s natural manners. These certainly ’flow from their natural passions and appetites’ with that degree of reason which they have. And this in other instances is not contemptible, though it is not sufficient to teach them true religion. II. I proceed to consider, in the second place, what is advanced concerning the operations of the Holy Spirit. ’Our blessed Redeemer promised to send among His followers the Holy Ghost, called "the Spirit of truth" and "the Comforter," which should co-operate with man in establishing his faith and in perfecting his obedience, or (in other words) should sanctify him to redemption’ (page 2). Accordingly ’the sanctification and redemption of the world man cannot frustrate nor render ineffectual. For it is not in his power to make that to be undone which is once done and perfected.’ (Page 337.) I do not comprehend. Is all the world sanctified Is not to be sanctified the same as to be made holy Is all the world holy And can no man frustrate his own sanctification ’The Holy Ghost establishes our faith and perfects our obedience by enlightening the understanding and rectifying the will’ (page 3). ’In the former respect, 1. He gave the gift of tongues at the day of Pentecost. ’Indeed, enthusiasts in their ecstasies have talked very fluently in languages they had a very imperfect knowledge of in their sober intervals.’ I can no more believe this on the credit of Lord Shaftesbury and a Popish exorcist than I can believe the tale of an hundred people talking without tongues on the credit of Dr. Middleton. [See letter of Jan. 4, 1749, sect.vi. 12-14, p. 367] ’The other gifts of the Spirit St. Paul reckons up thus: "To one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another the gifts of healing, to another working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discerning of spirits"’ (page 23). But why are the other three left out--faith, divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues I believe the ’word of wisdom’ means light to explain the manifold wisdom of God in the grand scheme of gospel salvation; the ’word of knowledge,’ a power of explaining the Old Testament types and prophecies. ’Faith’ may mean an extraordinary trust in God under the most difficult and dangerous circumstances; ’the gifts of healing,’ a miraculous power of curing diseases; ’the discerning of spirits,’ a supernatural discernment whether men were upright or not, whether they were qualified for offices in the Church, and whether they who professed to speak by inspiration really did so or not. But ’the richest of the fruits of the Spirit is the inspiration of Scripture’ (page 30). ’Herein the promise that "the Comforter" should "abide with us for ever" is eminently fulfilled. For though His ordinary influence occasionally assists the faithful of all ages, yet His constant abode and supreme illumination is in the Scriptures of the New Testament. I mean, He is there only as the Illuminator of the understanding.’ (Page 39.) But does this agree with the following words--’Nature is not able to keep a mean: but grace is able; for "the Spirit helpeth our infirmities." We must apply to the Guide of truth to prevent our being "carried about with divers and strange doctrines."’ (Page 340.) Is He not, then, everywhere to illuminate the understanding as well as to rectify the will And, indeed, do we not need the one as continually as the other ’But how did He inspire the Scripture He so directed the writers that no considerable error should fall from them.’ (Page 45.) Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture shake the authority of the whole Again: what is the difference between the immediate and the virtual influence of the Holy Spirit I know Milton speaks of ’virtual or immediate touch [Paradise Lost, viii. 617.]’; but most incline to think virtual touch is no touch at all. ’Were the style of the New Testament utterly rude and barbarous and abounding with every fault that can possibly deform a language, this is so far from proving such language not divinely inspired that it is one certain mark of this original’ (page 55). A vehement paradox this! But it is not proved yet, and probably never will. ’The labours of those who have attempted to defend the purity of Scripture Greek have been very idly employed’ (page 66). Others think they have been very wisely employed, and that they have abundantly proved their point. Having now ’considered the operations of the Holy Spirit as the Guide of truth, who clears and enlightens the understanding, I proceed to consider Him as the Comforter who purifies and supports the will’ (page 89). ’Sacred antiquity is full in its accounts of the sudden and entire change made by the Holy Spirit in the dispositions and manners of those whom it had enlightened; instantaneously effacing their evil habits and familiarizing them to the performance of every good action’ (page 90). ’No natural cause could effect this. Neither fanaticism nor superstition, nor both of them, will account for so sudden and lasting a conversion.’ (Ibid.) ’Superstition never effects any considerable change in the manners. Its utmost force is just enough to make us exact in the ceremonious offices of religion or to cause some acts of penitence as death approaches.’ (Page 91.) ’Fanaticism, indeed, acts with greater violence, and, by influencing the will, frequently forces the manners from their bent, and sometimes effaces the strongest impressions of custom and nature. But this fervour, though violent, is rarely lasting; never so long as to establish the new system into an habit. So that when its rage subsides, as it very soon does (but where it drives into downright madness), the bias on the will keeps abating till all the former habitudes recover their relaxed tone.’ (Page 92.) Never were reflections more just than these. And whoever applies them to the matters of fact which daily occur all over England, and particularly in London, will easily discern that the changes now wrought cannot be accounted for by natural causes;-- not by superstition, for the manners are changed, the whole life and conversation; not by fanaticism, for these changes are so lasting ’as to establish the new system into an habit’; not by mere reason, for they are sudden: therefore they can only be wrought by the Holy Spirit. As to Savonarola’s being a fanatic or assuming the person of a prophet, I cannot take a Popish historian’s word. And what a man says on the rack proves nothing, no more than his dying silent. Probably this might arise from shame and consciousness of having accused himself falsely under the torture. ’But how does the Spirit as Comforter abide with us for ever He abides with the Church for ever, as well personally in His office of Comforter, as virtually in His office of Enlightener.’ (Page 96.) Does He not, then, abide with the Church personally in both these respects What is meant by abiding virtually And what is the difference between abiding virtually and abiding personally ’The question will be, Does He still exercise His office in the same extraordinary manner as in the Apostles’ days’ (page 97). I know none that affirms it. ’St. Paul has determined this question. "Charity," says he, "never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" (I Cor. xiii. 8, &c.).’ ’The common opinion is that this respects another life, as he enforces his argument by this observation: "Now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now we know in part; but then shall we know, even as also we are known"’ (page 99). ’But the Apostle means charity is to accompany the Church in all its stages, whereas prophecy and all the rest are only bestowed during its infant state to support it against the delusions and powers of darkness’ (page 100). ’The Corinthians abounded in these gifts, but were wanting in charity. And this the Apostle here exposes by proving charity to be superior to them all both in its qualities and duration. The first three verses declare that the other gifts are useless without charity. The next four specify the qualities of charity. The remaining six declare its continuance,--"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." In the next verse he gives the reason,--"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away": that is, when that Christian life, the lines of which are marked out by the gospel, shall arrive to its full vigour and maturity, then the temporary aids, given to subdue prejudice and to support the weak, shall, like scaffolding, be removed. In other words, when that Christian life, wherein the Apostles and first Christians were but infants, shall arrive to its full vigour and maturity in their successors, then miracles shall cease.’ (Page 102.) But I fear that time is not yet come. I doubt none that are now alive enjoy more of the vigour and maturity of the Christian life than the very first Christians did. ’To show that the loss of these will not be regretted when the Church has advanced from a state of infancy to manhood ’ (alas the day! Were the Apostles but infants to us), ’he illustrates the case by an elegant similitude,--"When I was a child, I spake as a child; . . . but when I became a man, I put away childish things." His next remark, concerning the defects of human knowledge, is only an occasional answer to an objection. And the last verse shows that the superior duration of charity refers to the present life only,--"Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." That is, you may perhaps object, Faith and hope will likewise remain in the Church, when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge are ceased: they will so; but still charity is the greatest, because of its excellent qualities.’ (Page 107.) ’The last verse shows’! Is not this begging the question How forced is all this! The plain natural meaning of the passage is, Love (the absolute necessity and the nature of which is shown in the foregoing verses) has another commendation--it ’never faileth,’ it accompanies and adorns us to eternity. ’But whether there be prophecies, they shall fail,’ when all things are fulfilled and God is all in all. ’Whether there be tongues, they shall cease’: one language shall prevail among all the inhabitants of heaven, while the low, imperfect languages of earth are forgotten. The ’knowledge,’ likewise, we now so eagerly pursue shall then ’vanish away.’ As starlight is lost in that of the midday sun, so our present knowledge in the light of eternity. ’For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.’ We have here but short, narrow, imperfect conceptions, even of the things round about us, and much more of the deep things of God; and even the prophecies which men deliver from God are far from taking in the whole of future events. ’But when that which is perfect is come,’ at death and in the last day, ’that which is in part shall be done away.’ Both that low, imperfect, glimmering light, which is all the knowledge we can now attain to; and these slow and unsatisfactory methods of attaining, as well as of imparting it to others. ’When I was a child, I talked as a child, I understood as a child, I reasoned as a child.’ As if he had said, In our present state we are mere infants compared to what we shall be hereafter. ’But when I became a man, I put away childish things’; and a proportionable change shall we all find when we launch into eternity. ’Now we see’ even the things which surround us by means of ’a glass’ or mirror, in a dim, faint, obscure manner, so that everything is a kind of riddle to us; ’but then’ we shall see, not a faint reflection, but the objects themselves’ ’face to face,’ directly and distinctly. ’Now I know but in part.’ Even when God reveals things to me, great part of them is still kept under the veil. ’But then shall I know even as I also am known’--in a clear, full, comprehensive manner; in some measure like God, who penetrates the centre of every object, and sees at one glance through my soul and all things. ’And now,’ during the present life, ’abide these three, faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these,’ in its duration as well as the excellence of its nature, ’is love.’ Faith, hope, love, are the sum of perfection on earth; love alone is the sum of perfection in heaven. ’It appears, then, that the miraculous powers of the Church were to cease upon its perfect establishment’ (page 107). Nothing like it appears from this scripture. But supposing it did, is Christianity perfectly established yet even nominal Christianity Mr. Brerewood took large pains to be fully informed; and, according to his account, [Enquiries touching the Diversity of Languages and Religions through the chiefe parts of the World (1614), p. 118. ] five parts in six of the known world are Mahometans or Pagans to this day. If so, Christianity is yet far from being perfectly established, either in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America. ’Having now established the fact’ (wonderfully established!), ’we may inquire into the fitness of it. There were two causes of the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit--one to manifest His mission (and this was done once for all), the other to comfort and instruct the Church.’ (Page 110.) ’At His first descent on the Apostles, He found their minds rude and uninformed, strangers to all heavenly knowledge, and utterly averse to the gospel. He illuminated their minds with all necessary truth. For, a rule of faith not being yet composed’ (No! Had they not ’the Law and the Prophets’) ’some extraordinary infusion of His virtue was still necessary. But when this rule was perfected, part of this office was transferred upon the Sacred Canon; and His enlightening grace was not to be expected in such abundant measure as to make the recipients infallible guides.’ (Page 112.) Certainly it was not. If this is all that is intended, no one will gainsay. ’Yet modern fanatics pretend to as high a degree of divine communications as if no such rule were in being’ (I do not); ’or, at least, as if that rule needed the farther assistance of the Holy Spirit to explain His own meaning.’ This is quite another thing. I do firmly believe (and what serious man does not) omnis scriptura legi debet eo Spiritu quo scripta est: ’We need the same Spirit to understand the Scripture which enabled the holy men of old to write it.’ ’Again, the whole strength of human prejudices was then set in opposition to the gospel, to overcome the obstinacy and violence of which nothing less than the power of the Holy One was sufficient. At present, whatever prejudices may remain, it draws the other way.’ (Page 113.) What, toward holiness toward temperance and chastity toward justice, mercy, and truth Quite the reverse. And to overcome the obstinacy and violence of the heart-prejudices which still lie against these, the power of the Holy One is as necessary now as ever it was from the beginning of the world. ’A farther reason for the ceasing of miracles is the peace and security of the Church. The profession of the Christian faith is now attended with ease and honour.’ ’The profession,’ true; but not the thing itself, as ’all that will live godly in Christ Jesus’ experience. ’But if miracles are not ceased, why do you not prove your mission thereby’ As your Lordship has frequently spoke to this effect, I will now give a clear answer. And I purposely do it in the same words which I published many years since....[See sect. v of the letter of June 17, 1746, to Thomas Church, which Wesley quotes here.] ’But "why do you talk of the success of the gospel in England, which was a Christian country before you was born" Was it indeed Is it so at this day I would explain myself a little on this head also. ’And (1) None can deny that the people of England in general are called Christians. They are called so, a few only excepted, by others as well as by themselves. But I presume no man will say the name makes the thing, that men are Christians barely because they are called so. It must be allowed (2) That the people of England generally speaking have been christened or baptized; but neither can we infer, "These were once baptized, therefore they are Christians now." It is allowed (3) That many of those who were once baptized, and are called Christians to this day, hear the word of God, attend public prayers, and partake of the Lord’s Supper. But neither does this prove that they are Christians. For, notwithstanding this, some of them live in open sin; and others, though not conscious to themselves of hypocrisy, yet are utter strangers to the religion of the heart, are full of pride, vanity, covetousness, ambition, of hatred, anger, malice, or envy, and consequently are no more spiritual Christians than the open drunkard or common swearer. ’Now, these being removed, where are the Christians from whom we may properly term England a Christian country the men who have "the mind which was in Christ" and who "walk as He also walked" whose inmost soul is renewed after the image of God, and who are outwardly holy, as He who hath called them is holy There are doubtless a few such to be found. To deny this would be "want of candour." But how few! how thinly scattered up and down! And as for a Christian visible Church, or a body of Christians visibly united together, where is this to be seen Ye different sects, who all declare, Lo, here is Christ I or, Christ is there! Your stronger proofs divinely give, And show me where the Christians live! ’And what use is it of, what good end does it serve, to term England a Christian country Although it is true most of the natives are called Christians, have been baptized, frequent the ordinances; and although here and there a real Christian is to be found, "as a light shining in a dark place,"--does it do any honour to our great Master among those who are not called by His name Does it recommend Christianity to the Jews, the Mahometans, or the avowed heathens Surely no one can conceive it does. It only makes Christianity stink in their nostrils. Does it answer any good end with regard to those who are called by this worthy name I fear not, but rather an exceeding bad one. For does it not keep multitudes easy in their heathen practice Does it not make or keep still greater numbers satisfied with their heathen tempers Does it not directly tend to make both the one and the other imagine that they are what indeed they are not, that they are Christians while they are utterly without Christ and without God in the world To close this point: if men are not Christians till they are renewed after the image of Christ, and if the people of England in general are not thus renewed, why do we term them so "The god of this world hath" long "blinded their hearts." Let us do nothing to increase their blindness, but rather to recover them from that strong delusion, that they may no longer believe a lie. ’Let us labour to convince all mankind that to be a real Christian is to love the Lord our God with all our heart and to serve Him with all our strength; to love our neighbour as ourselves, and therefore to do unto every man as we would he should do unto us. [See letter of June 17 1746, sect. vi. 3-4.] To change one of these heathens into a real Christian, and to continue him such, all the ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit are absolutely necessary. ’But what are they’ I sum them up (as I did in the Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion) in the words of as learned and orthodox a divine as ever England bred:-- ’Sanctification being opposed to our corruption, and answering fully to the latitude thereof, whatsoever of holiness and perfection is wanting in our nature must be supplied by the Spirit of God. Wherefore, we being by nature totally void of all saving truth and under an impossibility of knowing the will of God, this "Spirit searcheth all things, yea even the deep things of God," and revealeth them unto the sons of men; so that thereby the darkness of their understanding is expelled, and they are enlightened with the knowledge of God. The same Spirit which revealeth the object of faith generally to the universal Church, doth also illuminate the understanding of such as believe, that they may receive the truth. For faith is the gift of God, not only in the object, but also in the act. And this gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us. And as the increase of perfection, so the original of faith, is from the Spirit of God by an internal illumination of the soul. ’The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost is the renewing of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural corruption consisting in an aversation of our wills and a depravation of our affections, an inclination of them to the will of God is wrought within us by the Spirit of God. ’The third part of this office is to lead, direct, and govern us in our actions and conversations. "If we live in the Spirit," quickened by His renovation, we must also "walk in the Spirit," following His direction, led by His manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit of God, who giveth "both to will and to do." ’And "as many as are thus led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God" (Rom. viii. 14). Moreover, that this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers by the same Spirit, according to the promise, "I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication" (Zech. xii. 10). Whereas, then, "this is the confidence we have in Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us"; and whereas "we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. viii. 26). "And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" (verse 27). From which intercession (made for all true Christians) He hath the name of the Paraclete given Him by Christ, who said, "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete" (John xiv. 16, 26). For "if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," saith St. John. "Who maketh intercession for us," saith St. Paul (Rom. viii. 34). And we have "another Paraclete," saith our Saviour (John xiv. 16), "which also maketh intercession for us," saith St. Paul (Rom. viii. 27). A Paraclete, then, in the notion of the Scriptures, is an Intercessor. ’It is also the office of the Holy Ghost to assure us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And, because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." As, therefore, we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from Him our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit assured of our adoption. Because, being "sons, we are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ," by the same Spirit we have the pledge, or rather the earnest, of our inheritance. "For He which establisheth us in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and hath given us the earnest of His Spirit in our hearts; so that we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance." The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life, is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made with us, certainly to be received.’ [Works, viii. 99-101; Pearson’s An Exposition of the Creed, art. VIII. ii. on The Office of the Spirit.] It now rests with your Lordship to take your choice, either to condemn or to acquit both: either your Lordship must condemn Bishop Pearson for an enthusiast, or you must acquit me; for I have his express authority on my side concerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians. But I have greater authority than his, and such as I reverence only less than the oracles of God: I mean that of our own Church. I shall close this head by setting down what occurs in her authentic records concerning either our receiving the Holy Ghost or His ordinary operations in all true Christians. In her Daily Service she teacheth us all to ’beseech God to grant us His Holy Spirit, that those things may please Him which we do at this present, and that the rest of our life may be pure and holy’; to pray for our sovereign Lord the King, that God would ’replenish him with the grace of His Holy Spirit’; for all the Royal Family, that ’they may be endued with His Holy Spirit and enriched with His heavenly grace’; for all the clergy and people, that He would ’send down upon them the healthful Spirit of His grace’; for the catholic Church, that ’it may be guided and governed by His good Spirit’; and for all therein, who at any time make their common supplications unto Him, that ’the fellowship’ or communication ’of the Holy Ghost may be with them all evermore.’ Her Collects are full of petitions to the same effect. ’Grant that we may daily be renewed by Thy Holy Spirit’ (Collect for Christmas Day). ’Grant that in all our sufferings here, for the testimony of Thy truth, we may by faith behold the glory that shall be revealed, and, being filled with the Holy Ghost, may love and bless our persecutors’ (St. Stephen’s Day). ’Send Thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity’ (Quinquagesima Sunday). ’O Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us Thy humble servants that by Thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by Thy merciful guidance may perform the same’ (Fifth Sunday after Easter). ’We beseech Thee, leave us not comfortless, but send to us the Holy Ghost to comfort us’ (Sunday after Ascension Day). ’Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort’ (Whit Sunday). ’Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, the Spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful’ (Ninth Sunday after Trinity). ’O God, forasmuch as without Thee we are not able to please Thee, mercifully grant that Thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts’ (Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity). ’Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of Thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love Thee and worthily magnify Thy holy name’ (Communion Office). ’Give Thy Holy Spirit to this infant (or this person), that he may be born again. Give Thy Holy Spirit to these persons’ (N.B. already baptized), ’that they may continue Thy servants.’ ’Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water and the Holy Ghost, strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of Thy grace’ (Office of Confirmation). From these passages it may sufficiently appear for what purposes every Christian, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, does now receive the Holy Ghost. But this will be still more clear from those that follow; wherein we may likewise observe a plain, rational sense of God’s ’revealing’ Himself to us, of the ’inspiration’ of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer’s ’feeling’ in himself the ’mighty working’ of the Spirit of Christ:-- ’God gave them of old, grace to be His children, as He doth us now. But, now by the coming of our Saviour Christ, we have received more abundantly the Spirit of God in our hearts.’ (Homily on Faith, Part II.) ’He died to destroy the rule of the devil in us, and He rose again to send down His Holy Spirit to rule in our hearts’ (Homily on the Resurrection). ’We have the Holy Spirit in our hearts as a seal and pledge of our everlasting inheritance’ (ibid.). ’The Holy Ghost sat upon each of them, like as it had been cloven tongues of fire, to teach that it is He that giveth eloquence and utterance in preaching the gospel, which engendereth a burning zeal towards God’s Word, and giveth all men a tongue; yea a fiery tongue.’ (N.B.--Whatever occurs, in any of the Journals, of God’s ’giving me utterance’ or ’enabling me to speak with power’ cannot therefore be quoted as enthusiasm without wounding the Church through my side.) ’So that if any man be a dumb Christian, not professing his faith openly, he giveth men occasion to doubt lest he have not the grace of the Holy Ghost within him.’ (Homily on Whit Sunday, Part I.) ’It is the office of the Holy Ghost to sanctify; which the more it is hid from our understanding’ (that is, the particular manner of His working), ’the more it ought to move all men to wonder at the secret and mighty workings of God’s Holy Spirit, which is within us. For it is the Holy Ghost that doth quicken the minds of men, stirring up godly motions in their hearts. Neither does He think it sufficient inwardly to work the new birth of men, unless He does also dwell and abide in them. "Know ye not," saith St. Paul, "that ye are the temples of God, and that His Spirit dwelleth in you Know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which is within you" Again he saith, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." For why "The Spirit of God dwelleth in you." To this agreeth St. John: "The anointing which ye have received" (he meaneth the Holy Ghost) "abideth in you" (I John ii. 27). And St. Peter saith the same: "The Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." Oh what comfort is this to the heart of a true Christian, to think that the Holy Ghost dwelleth in him! "If God be with us," as the Apostle saith, "who can be against us" He giveth patience and joyfulness of heart in temptation and affliction, and is therefore worthily called "the Comforter" (John xiv. 16). He doth instruct the hearts of the simple in the knowledge of God and His Word; therefore He is justly termed "the Spirit of truth" (John xvi. 13). And (N.B.) where the Holy Ghost doth instruct and teach, there is no delay at all in learning.’ (Ibid.) From this passage I learn (1) that every true Christian now ’receives the Holy Ghost’ as the Paraclete or Comforter promised by our Lord (John xiv. 16); (2) that every Christian receives Him as ’the Spirit of all truth’ (promised John xvi. 13) to ’teach him all things’; and (3) that the anointing mentioned in the First Epistle of St. John ’abides in every Christian.’ ’In reading of God’s Word, he profiteth most who is most inspired with the Holy Ghost’ (Homily on Reading the Scripture, Part I.). ’Human and worldly reason is not needful to the understanding the Scripture; but the "revelation of the Holy Ghost," who inspireth the true meaning unto them who with humility and diligence search for it’ (Part II.). ’Make him know and feel that there is no other name given under heaven unto men whereby we can be saved.’ ’If we feel our conscience at peace with God, through remission of our sins, all is of God.’ (Homily on Rogation Week, Part III.) ’If you feel such a faith in you, rejoice in it, and let it be daily increasing by well working’ (Homily on Faith, Part III.). ’The faithful may feel wrought, tranquillity of conscience, the increase of faith and hope, with many other graces of God’ (Homily on the Sacrament, Part I.). ’Godly men feel inwardly God’s Holy Spirit inflaming their hearts with love’ (Homily on Certain Places of Scripture, Part I.). ’God give us grace to know these things, and feel them in our hearts! This knowledge and feeling is not of ourselves. Let us therefore meekly call upon the bountiful Spirit, the Holy Ghost, to inspire us with His presence, that we may be able to hear the goodness of God to our salvation. For without His lively inspiration we cannot so much as speak the name of the Mediator: "No man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost." Much less should we be able to believe and know these great mysteries that be opened to us by Christ. "But we have received," saith St. Paul, "not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God"; for this purpose, "that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God." In the power of the Holy Ghost resteth all ability to know God and to please Him. It is He that purifieth the mind by His secret working. He enlighteneth the heart to conceive worthy thoughts of Almighty God. He sitteth on the tongue of man to stir him to speak His honour. He only ministereth spiritual strength to the powers of the soul and body. And if we have any gift whereby we may profit our neighbour, all is wrought by this one and selfsame Spirit.’ (Homily for Rogation Week, Part III.) Every proposition which I have anywhere advanced concerning those operations of the Holy Ghost, which I believe are common to all Christians in all ages, is here clearly maintained by our own Church. Being fully convinced of this, I could not well understand for many years how it was that, on the mentioning any of these great truths, even among men of education, the cry immediately arose, ’An enthusiast, an enthusiast!’ But I now plainly perceive this is only an old fallacy in a new shape. To object enthusiasm to any person or doctrine is but a decent method of begging the question. It generally spares the objector the trouble of reasoning, and is a shorter and easier way of carrying his cause. For instance: I assert that ’till a man "receives the Holy Ghost" he is without God in the world; that he cannot know the things of God unless God reveal them unto him by His Spirit-- no, nor have even one holy or heavenly temper without the inspiration of the Holy One.’ Now, should one who is conscious to himself that he has experienced none of these things attempt to confute these propositions either from Scripture or antiquity, it might prove a difficult task. What, then, shall he do Why, cry out, ’Enthusiasm! Fanaticism!’ and the work is done. ’But is it not mere enthusiasm or fanaticism to talk of the new birth’ So one might imagine from the manner in which your Lordship talks of it: ’The Spirit did not stop till it had manifested itself in the last effort of its power--the new birth. The new birth began in storms and tempests, in cries and ecstasies, in tumults and confusions. Persons who had no sense of religion --that is, no ecstatic feelings, or pains of the new birth. What can be the issue of the new birth, attended with those infernal throes Why would he elicit sense from these Gentiles, when they were finally to be deprived of it in ecstasies and new births All these circumstances Mr. Wesley has declared to be constant symptoms of the new birth.’ (Pages 123, 126, 180, 170, 225, 222.) So the new birth is throughout the whole tract the standing topic of ridicule. ’No, not the new birth itself, but your enthusiastic, ridiculous account of it.’ What is, then, my account of the new birth I gave it some years ago in these words:-- ’It is that great change which God works in the soul when He brings it into life; when He raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is the change wrought in the whole soul by the almighty Spirit of God, when it is "created anew in Christ Jesus," when it is "renewed after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness; when the love of the world is changed into the love of God, pride into humility, passion into meekness, hatred, envy, malice into a sincere, tender, disinterested love to all mankind. In a word, it is that change whereby the earthly, sensual, devilish mind is turned into "the mind which was in Christ Jesus."’ [Sermon on the New Birth. See Works, vi. 71.] This is my account of the new birth. What is there ridiculous or enthusiastic in it ’But what do you mean by those tempests, and cries, and pains, and infernal throes attending the new birth’ I will tell you as plainly as I can, in the very same words I used to Dr. Church, after premising that some experience much, some very little, of these pains and throes:-- ’"When men feel in themselves the heavy burthen of sin, see damnation to be the reward of it, behold with the eye of their mind the horror of hell, they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and open their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto Him for mercy. This being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is laid apart, and loathing of worldly things and pleasures comes in place, so that nothing then liketh them more than to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body to show themselves weary of life." ’Now, permit me to ask, What, if, before you had observed that these were the very words of our own Church, one of your acquaintance or parishioners had come and told you that, ever since he heard a sermon at the Foundery, he saw damnation before him, and beheld with the eye of his mind the horror of hell What, if he had trembled and quaked, and been so taken up, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from the danger of hell and damnation, as to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour to show himself weary of life Would you have scrupled to say, "Here is another deplorable instance of the Methodists driving men to distraction"’ I have now finished, as my time permits, what I had to say, either concerning myself or on the operations of the Holy Spirit. In doing this I have used great plainness of speech, and yet I hope without rudeness. If anything of that kind has slipped from me, I am ready to retract it. I desire, on the one hand, to ’accept no man’s person’; and yet, on the other, to give ’honour to whom honour is due.’ If your Lordship should think it worth your while to spend any more words upon me, may I presume to request one thing of your Lordship--to be more serious It cannot injure your Lordship’s character or your cause. Truth is great, and will prevail. Wishing your Lordship all temporal and spiritual blessings, I am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s dutiful son and servant. Other: Volume 4 [Note from the editor of the digital edition of Wesley’s Letters: Telford placed several of Wesley’s lengthier letters from this period in a separate location in the last half of vol. 4. I have chosen to relocate them within the file for year in which they were written.] CONTROVERSIAL I. To JOHN DOWNES, Rector of St. Michael’s, Wood Street, author of Methodism Examined and Exposed. II. To DR. WARBURTON, Bishop of Gloucester, ’occasioned by his tract on The Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 58: 56. VOLUME 5 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 5 Events METHODISM BROADENING OUT JANUARY 15, 1767, TO DECEMBER 30, 1769 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1767. Rigging-loft rented for Methodist preaching in New York. Mark. 30. Wesley visits Ireland leaves July 29. Aug. 18. Conference in London: effort to remove debts on preaching-houses; Francis Asbury received on trial. 1768. Jan. Appointed a domestic chaplain to the Countess Dowager of Buchan. Apr. 27. Wesley makes a Will. Aug. 24. Trevecca College opened. 1769. Aug. 1. Conference begins at Leeds: Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor volunteer to go to New York; 50 contributed for the preaching-house there, 20 ’given to our brethren for their passage.’ Hannah Ball’s Sunday school at High Wycombe. [Many features of the previous three years are prominent in this period. If possible, Wesley was burdened more than ever by the care of all the Churches. He tells his brother on December 17, 1768, with something like a sigh, ’I have no time for Handel or Avison now.’ But he made time to guide Joseph Benson in his reading at Kingswood, little thinking that he was preparing an editor of high capacity for his beloved Magazine, That was still unborn but Benson was evidently destined to be one of Wesley’s most influential and powerful preachers.] Three new lady correspondents were added to Wesley’s list at this time. Hannah Ball at High Wycombe abounded in good works, and began her Sunday school nearly fourteen years before Robert Raikes started his in Gloucester. Nancy Bolton, of Witney, became one of Wesley’s most favored correspondents. Mary Bishop, of Bath, was a teacher and thinker after Wesley’s own heart. There are signs in the correspondence of the renewal of the Calvinistic Controversy, which was to flame up around the Minutes of the Conference of 1770. George Whitefield is described at the time as ’still breathing nothing but love’: but the letter to Joseph Townsend in August 1767 points to the coming storm. The letters to Charles Wesley are of the deepest significance and there is a pathetic touch about the fragment of a letter to his old friend Mrs. Woodhouse asking for particulars of John Whitelamb, who had been his father’s curate and had married Mary Wesley. The effort to clear off the debts of the Connection is one of the outstanding features of this period. Wesley left no stone unturned to accomplish this object, in which preachers and friends gave him the most generous and unwearying support. The last letter is one of unique interest. Wesley had sent his first two preachers to America, where Methodism had already taken root, and was himself thinking of another voyage across the Atlantic, though that was never accomplished. THE CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY JANUARY 1, 1770, TO DECEMBER 28, 1771 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1770 May 5. Letter from Dr. Wrangel. Aug. Doctrinal Minutes at the Bristol Conference. Sep. 30. Death of George Whitefield. Nov. 18. Wesley preaches Whitefield’s funeral sermon. 1771 Jan. 17. Benson dismissed from Trevecca. Jan. 23. Mrs. Wesley leaves him. Sep. 4. Francis Asbury sails for America. Fletcher’s First and Second Check to Antinomianism published. Wesley issues the first five volumes of his collected Works. The storm aroused by the Doctrinal Minutes of the Conference in 1770 is the outstanding feature of these years, The Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, who was the prime mover in the onslaught made on Wesley, was convinced by the declaration of the ensuing Conference that he ’had mistaken the meaning of the doctrinal points in the Minutes.’ Wesley’s attitude is shown in his letters to his brother, to the Countess of Huntingdon, and to Mary Bishop. John Fletcher proved himself a masterly champion of Wesley’s Minutes and a noble example of the Christian controversialist. America takes its place in the correspondence of the period. Wesley was strongly urged to go over to see the work with his own eyes. The death of Whitefield on September 30, 1770, marks the close of the most memorable friendship and partnership of the Evangelical Revival; and the funeral sermon which Wesley preached on November 18 shows how deeply he loved his friend and gloried in his boundless influence. The correspondence with Joseph Benson has special importance; and Wesley’s affectionate care for young Christians is seen in letters to Ann Bolton and to the members of the Perronet family. Nor should the letter ’To a Nobleman’ be overlooked. It is another illustration of Wesley’s far-reaching influence over spiritually-minded men and women in all ranks of society. The straightforward candor of such letters as that to Mary Bosanquet on January 2, 1770, is characteristic. The letters to his preachers give a vivid picture of his vigilant oversight of all the work of Methodism. A QUIETER INTERVAL JANUARY 5, 1772, TO DECEMBER 31, 1773 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1772 Friends provide Wesley with a carriage. Apr. 28. Presented with the Freedom of Perth. Aug. 14. Meets Howell Harris at Trevecca. Fletcher’s Third and Fourth Check to Antinomianism published. Wesley issues vols. xi.-xvi. of his Works. Controversial writings of the Hills and Toplady. 1773 Jan. Proposals to John Fletcher. Mar. Wesley lets Shadford loose on America. Mark. 14. Replies to Sir Richard Hill’s Farrago Double-Distilled. Dec. Boston Tea Riots. Vols. xvii.-xxv. of Wesley’s Works published. The years 1772 and 1773 are not marked by any outstanding events. Wesley pursued his work with unflagging zeal. He writes to his brother on March 25, 1772: ’Oh what a thing it is to have curam animarum! You and I are called to this to save souls from death, to watch over them as those that must give account!’ ’I am ashamed,’ he adds, ’of my indolence and inactivity.’ That was the spirit of the veteran evangelist. The number of letters to Methodist women shows how they turned to him for counsel not only in spiritual things but in the concerns of their daily life. His anxiety about the health and well being of Nancy Bolton comes out strongly in several letters to her at this time. It must be remembered also that such devoted women as Mrs. Bennis and Hannah Ball were used as means to stir up and guide his preachers in many parts of their teaching and work. The letters to Christopher Hopper, Joseph Benson, and Thomas Wride show how vigilant was Wesley’s oversight of the work in the three kingdoms; and the important letter of December 4, 1773, to Thomas Rankin, who had gone to take charge in America, is perhaps the most sage and significant in the correspondence of this period. The renewal of intercourse with his old friend and convert James Hutton is a happy feature: and one sees Wesley’s pleasant irony at the expense of Peter Jaco in the letter of October 7, 1773, which suggests that a camel or an elephant would be necessary for such an itinerant. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 59: 57. 1766 ======================================================================== 1766 PEACEFUL AND STEADY PROGRESS FEBRUARY 28 TO DECEMBER 30, 1766 To John Fletcher LONDON, February 28, 1766. DEAR SIR,-In my journey northward (which I am to begin from London on Monday, March 10, from Bristol on Monday, March 17) I am obliged to go from Evesham by Binningham to Nottingham; so that I shall not then be able to reach Madeley. But if I live to return from the Conference at Leeds (which is to begin on Tuesday, August 12, and at which it is possible you may favor us with your company), I hope to cross over from Yorkshire to Shropshire. If so, I shall probably be at Madeley on Wednesday, August 20. What I mean by Perfection I have defined both in the first and in the Farther Thoughts upon that subject: ’Pure love, rejoicing evermore, praying always, in everything giving thanks.’ And I incline to think the account you give will amount to the very same thing. But we may observe that, naturally speaking, the animal frame will affect more or less every power of the soul; seeing at present the soul can no more love than it can think, any otherwise than by the help of bodily organs. If, therefore, we either think, speak, or love aright, it must be by power from on high. And if our affections or will continue right, it must be by a continued miracle. Have we reason to believe, or have we not, that God will continually sustain the stone in air Allow yourself compass enough, and I do not doubt the work you speak of will be of use. But I think you will want, to close the whole, a dialogue on Christian Perfection. Unity and holiness are the two things I want among the Methodists. Who will rise up with me against all open or secret opposers either of one or the other Such are in truth all prudent, all delicate, all fashionable, all half-hearted Methodists! My soul is weary because of these murderers of the work of God. O let us go through with our work! Why should not we give totum pro toto I hope you will always love and pray for, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. The Rev. Mr. Fletcher, At Madeley, Near Shrewsbury. To John Newton LEWISHAM, February 28, 1766. DEAR SIR, - You are exceeding happy in having ’done with controversy,’ or rather in having never begun it, as necessity was not laid upon you. And he must be a madman that will leap into the fire without necessity. To ’follow peace with all men’ is an admirable help to the following after holiness. And even outward peace, when we can have it upon honest terms, is an invaluable blessing. The late sermon I have published eo nomine to explain my sentiments on that head. This very day I answered a letter from a good man (and one of considerable sense and learning) who thinks (as you seem to do) that I have therein contradicted some of my former writings. But I think not; and a man should understand himself best. I think I have not wrote one line, either in verse or prose (I mean since the year 1737), which contradicts any sentiment in that sermon, much less the grand leading sentiment. And I desire the sense of any doubtful expression which occurs in any of my other writings may be ascertained by this, wherein I purposely explain myself on the head. I do not only insinuate, but affirm, and that upon full personal knowledge, (1) That ’people otherwise well-meaning’ (yea, true believers, holy till then both in heart and life) ’have been deluded and hardened,’ at least for the present, ’chiefly, if not merely, by the too frequent’ and improper ’use of the phrase imputed righteousness.’ These melancholy instances stare me in the face continually. I affirm, (2) That some of ’those who love that expression are remarkably remiss in showing their zeal and care for practical holiness.’ They do not enforce it, as Dr. Owen [John Owen (1616-83) was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University.] does, with whom (though I do not like some of his opinions) I should never have disputed had he been alive now. And I suppose I should never dispute with you. I want only that He who died for us may live in us, and that He may reign alone in our hearts. I have just printed (but I know not that I shall publish it all; for I would not, if possible, afford more matter of controversy to the children of God) for the satisfaction of my serious friends, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection as believed and taught by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley from the year 1725 to the year 1765. If you care to give it a reading, you shall be welcome to a copy. I hope Mrs. Newton and yourself will never forget in your prayers, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. On Monday se’nnight I am to set out for Bristol and the North. To Mrs. Bennis MANCHESTER, March 29, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER, - One of our preachers [James Oddie. See letter of July 24, 1769.] has lately advanced a new position among us-that there is no direct or immediate witness of sanctification, but only a perception or consciousness that we are changed, filled with love, and cleansed from sin. But if I understand you right, you find a direct testimony that you are a child of God. Now, certainly, if God has given you this light, He did not intend that you should hide it under a bushel. ’It is good to conceal the secrets of a king; but it is good to tell the loving-kindness of the Lord.’ Every one ought to declare what God has done for his soul, and that with all simplicity; only care is to be taken to declare to several persons that part of our experience which they are severally able to bear, and some parts of it to such alone as are upright and simple of heart. One reason why those who are saved from sin should freely declare it to believers is because nothing is a stronger incitement to them to seek after the same blessing. And we ought by every possible means to press every serious believer to forget the things which are behind and with all earnestness go on to perfection. Indeed, if they are not thirsting after this, it is scarce possible to keep what they have: they can hardly retain any power of faith if they are not panting after holiness. A thousand infirmities are consistent even with the highest degree of holiness, which is no other than pure love, an heart devoted to God, one design and one desire. Then whatever is done either in word or deed may be done in the name of the Lord Jesus. Press after all the residue of the promises. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Peggy Dale MANCHESTER, April 1, 1766. MY DEAR PEGGY, - I perceived that, about the time when you wrote before, your treadings had wellnigh slipped. You was within a little of casting away your confidence and giving up what God had wrought. But His eye pitied you, and His hand held you up and set your feet again upon the rock. Now, my dear maid, abide simple before God! And if the thought comes (as it may do a thousand times), ’How do you reconcile this or this with pure love’ do not reason, but look unto Jesus, and tell Him earnestly and without delay, ’Thou shalt answer for me, O Lord, my God.’ Continue to love and pray for, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Dale, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. North Post. To John Newton MANCHESTER, April 1, 1766. DEAR SIR, - I do not perceive that there is an hair’s breadth difference between us with regard to the nature of Sanctification: only you express a little less plainly and a little less scripturally than I am accustomed to do. However, I understand your expressions perfectly well, ’A cordial, admiring, believing apprehension of Christ.’ And it is of little consequence whether we call this sanctification or sanctifying faith. Neither can I discern that there is any more difference between us with regard to the means of sanctification; or with regard to the fruit of those means, which we both continually maintain to spring wholly and solely from the almighty grace of God, which alone worketh all in and by them all. And yet it is true that there is often a considerable difference in our manner of speaking. Although we think alike-namely, that there is nothing good either in our heart or in our life which we do not receive from Christ, and that He is fountain and life of sanctification (which should be in all our thoughts) -yet we do not speak alike. The words ’Christ’ and ’faith’ are far oftener in your mouth than mine. I am glad you give me an opportunity of explaining myself on this head. Seven-and-twenty years ago the Moravian Brethren objected to me, ’That I did not speak enough of Christ and of faith.’ My answer was: ’The Bible is my standard of language as well as sentiment. I endeavor not only to think but to speak as the oracles of God. Show me any one of the inspired writers who mentions Christ or faith more frequently than I do, and I will mention them more frequently. But otherwise I cannot without varying from my standard.’ At length the Count said frankly, ’You do speak scripturally; but the Lamb has taught us a better language.’ I cannot believe it: therefore I keep to my old way, and speak neither better nor worse than the Bible. In food, apparel, and all things else I advise all those under my care to save all they can (with a safe conscience) in order to give all they can. And I never knew any one repent of it in a dying hour. Peace be with you and yours! - I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Furly CHESTER, April 3, 1766. DEAR SAMMY, - It would have been a great satisfaction to me to have waited upon Mrs. Venn, [Henry Venn was Vicar of Huddersfield, where his wife died on Sept. 11, 1767.] had I received yours a few days sooner. But it did not reach Sheffield till I was gone, so that I did not receive it till I came to Manchester. One of our preachers that was (I mean Hampson) has lately made a discovery that there is no such thing in any believer as a direct, immediate testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God, that the Spirit testifies this only by the fruits, and consequently that the witness and the fruits are all one. Let me have your deliberate thoughts on this head. It seems to me to be a point of no small importance. I am afraid lest we should get back again unawares into justification by works. My best wishes attend Mrs. Venn, Mr. Roland, [See heading to letter of June 22,1763.] and all at your house.-I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peggy Dale April 1766. MY DEAR PEGGY, - Is our intercourse drawing toward a period Let it be so, if that be best for you. But I have another doubt: I am afraid if you go to Leytonstone you will give up perfection; I mean by placing it so high as I fear none will ever attain. I know not one in London that has largely conversed with Sally Ryan who has not given it up - that is, with regard to their own experience. Now this, I think, would do you no good at all. Nay, I judge it would do you much hurt: it would be a substantial loss. But I do not see how you could possibly avoid that loss without a free intercourse with me both in writing and speaking. Otherwise I know and feel I can give you up, though you are exceeding near and dear to me. But if you was to be moved from your steadfastness, that would give me pain indeed. You will write immediately to, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 2, 1766. DEAR MADAM, - Yesterday I received the following lines from Mr. Miller at Edinburgh: Yours I received this day at one o’clock, and immediately went to Dr. Monro [Alexander Monro, M.D. Edin. (1697-1767); first Professor of Anatomy, Edinburgh University, 1720.] and showed him your letter. He said: ’It is my opinion he was born deaf. I cannot give any particular advice: I do not think it is necessary for him to come hither. But if it be desired, I will write and order medicines for him.’ The doctor seems to have little hopes of his recovery. It seems, therefore, you have no call at present to so long and expensive a journey. But if you desire it, I will endeavor when I am at Edinburgh to talk with Dr. Monro myself. If it be in my power to do anything for Mr. Woodhouse [Wesley was at Epworth on April 24, when Mrs. Woodhouse had evidently sought his help as to her father’s illness. See letter of May 17.] or you, it will be a pleasure to, dear madam, Your affectionate servant. To Ebenezer Blackwell SUNDERLAND, May 6, 1766. DEAR SIR, - William Matthews [He had evidently been one of Silas Told’s scholars. John Matthews died in 1764. See letter of April 24, 1757.] writes me word that he has quitted the school at the Foundry, and begs me to speak to you in his behalf. I should be glad to serve him in anything that was in my power, either for his late brother’s sake or his own. I judge him to be a right honest man, one that may be trusted in every respect, and one that would perform with all diligence whatever he undertook, not so much for gain as for conscience’ sake. I am not yet quite free from the effects of the fall which I had at Christmas, [Riding through the Borough on Dec. 18, 1765, on his way to Shoreham, his mare fell. Wesley was badly bruised. See Journal, v. 152.] and perhaps never shall in this world. Sometimes my ankle, sometimes my knee, and frequently my shoulder, complains. But, blessed be God, I have strength sufficient for the work to which I am called. When I cannot walk any farther, I can take an horse, and now and then a chaise; so that hitherto I have not been hindered from visiting any place which I purposed to see before I left London. The fields in every part of England are indeed white for the harvest. There is everywhere an amazing willingness in the people to receive either instruction or exhortation. We find this temper now even in many of the higher rank, several of whom cared for none of these things. But surely the time is coming for these also; for the scripture must be fulfilled, ’They shall all know Me, from the least even to the greatest.’ We who have lived more years have need of more earnestness and vigor in running the race which is set before us, or some of those that come after us will get before us in the way. Many of those who have lately set out run well. Grey heads stand upon green shoulders. They make their morning bear the heat of day. Let us mend our pace! What is there here that is worth lingering for A little while, and this world of shadows will vanish, and all will be boundless, bottomless eternity! My wife, who has been very ill, but is much better, joins with me in wishing Mrs. Blackwell and you every blessing which is purchased for you with the blood of the covenant. - I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate servant. To Lady Maxwell NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 6, 1766. MY DEAR LADY, - It was well that I did not hear anything of a trial you lately had till it was past. You have great reason to bless God that this did not turn you out of the way. You might easily have inferred from it that ’all these people are alike’; and thence have given way to a thousand reasonings, which would have brought you into utter darkness. But it is plain you are not left to your own weakness. You have a strong Helper. The Lord stands on your right hand; therefore you are not moved. And I make no doubt but He will continue to help till His arm brings you salvation. But in the meantime you have need of patience; and the more so, because you have a weak body. This, one may expect, will frequently press down the soul, especially till you are strong in faith. But how soon may that be, seeing it is the gift, yea and the free gift, of God! Therefore it is never far off. The word is nigh thee! ’Only believe!’ Look unto Jesus! Be thou saved! Receive out of His fullness grace upon grace; mercy, and grace to keep mercy. On the 24th instant I hope to be at Edinburgh with my wife and daughter. [See Journal, v. 168. The previous letter shows that Mrs. Wesley had been very ill.] But perhaps you will see the salvation of God before you see, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Mrs. Woodhouse NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 17, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER, - It is a doubt with me whether Dr. Monro will attempt anything in Mr. Woodhouse’s case [See letters of May 2, 1766, and Feb. 3, 1768.] and the person at Sunderland who was so strongly recommended to me I fear knows nothing of the matter. I hope to be at Edinburgh next week. If I can learn anything more, I will send you word. You have great reason to praise God for what He has done and to expect what He has promised. That spark of faith which you have received is of more value than all the world. O cherish it with all your might! Continually stir up the gift of God which is in you, not only by continuing to hear His word at all opportunities, but by reading, by meditation, and above all by private prayer. Though sometimes it should be a grievous cross, yet bear your cross, and it will bear you: your labor shall not be in vain. Is not our Lord just now ready to bless you to increase your faith, and love, and patience, and gentleness You have no need to be any more overcome of evil. Through Him you shall overcome evil with good. Surely His grace is sufficient for you: sufficient to subdue all things to Himself. I want you to be all like Him. Your openness and freedom of behavior when we were at Epworth endeared you to me much. At any time you should speak to me without reserve just what rises in your heart. The peace that passes all understanding keep you heart and mind in Christ Jesus. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. If you write in two or three weeks, please to direct to me in Edinburgh. To Subscribers to ’Notes upon the Old Testament’ GLASGOW, June 20, 1766. From the time that I published the Notes on the New Testament I was importuned to publish Notes on the Old. I long resisted that importunity; but at length yielded and began the work, supposing that it need not be above twice as long as the former, otherwise all the importunity in the world would not have prevailed on me to undertake it. But I had not gone through the Book of Exodus before I began to find my mistake. I perceived the work would be considerably longer than I expected if I designed to make it intelligible to common readers, and therefore immediately consulted with my friends what was best to be done. Here was a difficulty on each hand. If I had went on as I begun, and explained every text so as to be understood by every reader, then the work would swell to 100, perhaps 110 or 112 numbers. This, it was easily foreseen, many would complain of, especially those who did not observe that it was not possible to make the notes shorter without making them almost useless. On the other hand, if I left many texts unexplained, they would have reason to complain This was judged the greater evil of the two: so that every one to whom I spoke earnestly desired me to go on as I had begun and not to cramp the work. Several of them added that, even if the work should swell to 120 numbers, it would be far better than by laboring to shorten the notes to make them unintelligible to ordinary readers. In the meantime I myself have far the worst of it: the great burthen falls upon me-a burthen which, if I had seen before, all the world would not have persuaded me to take up. I am employed day and night, and must go on, whether I will or no, lest the printer should stand still. All my time is swallowed up, and I can hardly catch a few hours to answer the letters that are sent me. Does any one who knows anything of me suppose that I would drudge thus for money What is money to me Dung and dross. I love it as I do the mire in the streets. But I find enough that want it; and among these I disperse it with both hands, being careful only to owe no man anything, to ’wind my bottom round the year.’ [Prior’s An Epitaph, 11. 45-8: ’They neither added nor confounded; They neither wasted nor abounded. Each Christmas they accompts did clear, And wound their bottom round the year.’] For my own sake I care not how short the work is; for I am heartily tired of it. It is for the reader’s sake that I say as much on each verse as I think will make it intelligible. And there is no fear I should say any more; for I am not a dealer in many words. To Lady Maxwell GLASGOW, June 22, 1766. MY DEAR LADY, - How great was the satisfaction which I received in several of our late conversations! The fears which I long entertained concerning you are now wellnigh at an end. I am not now afraid of your being entangled again by your honorable relations or acquaintance; or of your regarding the pleasures that perish in the using, or seeking happiness in the things of earth. God has given you a taste for better things, and has taught you to see the honor that comes from Him only. Oh what is all the applause or admiration of our poor fellow worms to this! Let them censure or praise: of how small concern is this, so your great Judge says, ’Servant of God, well done.’ This is the applause which I trust you will always seek, and of which you cannot be disappointed, seeing ’every one that seeketh, findeth; every one that asketh, receiveth.’ Before this I hope it is made plain to you whether you should comply with St. James or no. I incline to think something of the kind would be good for your body. All the doubt is whether your soul will prosper. [Wesley was in Edinburgh from May 24 to June 1, and probably stayed with Lady Maxwell.] I commend you for being more careful on this than on any other account. And unless you have a clear, particular conviction from God that He will preserve you in the fiery furnace, I cannot advise you to venture into it. Your mind is as yet exceeding tender. You are weak as an infant; your bones are not knit; you are not able to bear. Yet if it should please our Lord to call you into the combat, He would strengthen you for it, and you would be able to testify, ’I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me.’ Pray let me hear (at Newcastle-upon-Tyne) that you use some exercise every day. I cannot tell you how tender a concern I feel for you. Fulfill you my joy by receiving all the promise. Then I am sure you will love and pray for, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To his Brother Charles WHITEHAVEN, June 27, 1766. DEAR BROTHER, - I think you and I have abundantly too little intercourse with each other. Are we not old acquaintances Have we not known each other for half a century and are we not jointly engaged in such a work as probably no two other men upon earth are Why, then, do we keep at such a distance It is a mere device of Satan. But surely we ought not at this time of day to be ignorant of his devices. Let us therefore make the full use of the little time that remains. We at least should think aloud and use to the uttermost the light and grace on each bestowed. We should help each other, Of little life the best to make, And manage wisely the last stake. [Anacreon’s Age. Cowley’s translation.] In one of my last I was saying I do not feel the wrath of God abiding on me; nor can I believe it does. And yet (this is the mystery) [I do not love God. I never did]. Therefore [I never] believed in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore [I am only an] honest heathen, a proselyte of the Temple, one of the foboumenoi Qeon. [’Those that fear God.’] And yet to be so employed of God! and so hedged in that I can neither get forward nor backward! Surely there never was such an instance before, from the beginning of the world! If I [ever have had] that faith, it would not be so strange. But [I never had any] other elegcos of the eternal or invisible world than [I have] now; and that is [none at all], unless such as fairly shines from reason’s glimmering ray. [I have no] direct witness, I do not say that [I am a child of God], but of anything invisible or eternal. And yet I dare not preach otherwise than I do, either concerning faith, or love, or justification, or perfection. And yet I find rather an increase than a decrease of zeal for the whole work of God and every part of it. I am feromenos, [’Borne along.’] I know not how, that I can’t stand still. I want all the world to come to on ouk oida. [’What I do not know.’] Neither am I impelled to this by fear of any kind. I have no more fear than love. Or if I have [any fear, it is not that of falling] into hell but of falling into nothing. I hope you are with Billy Evans. If there is an Israelite indeed, I think he is one. O insist everywhere on full redemption, receivable by faith alone I Consequently to be looked for now. You are made, as it were, for this very thing. Just here you are in your element. In connection I beat you; but in strong, pointed sentences you beat me. Go on, in your own way, what God has peculiarly called you to. Press the instantaneous blessing: then I shall have more time for my peculiar calling, enforcing the gradual work. We must have a thorough reform of the preachers. I wish you would come to Leeds [Where the Conference was held on Aug. 12. ’A happier Conference we never had, nor a more profitable one. It was both begun and ended in love, and with a solemn sense of the presence of God.’ See Journal, V. 181-2; and letter of July 9 to brother.] with John Jones in the machine. It comes in two days; and after staying two days, you might return. I would willingly bear your expenses up and down. I believe it will help, not hurt, your health. My love to Sally. To Mrs. Ryan WHITEHAVEN, June 28, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER, - For some time I have been convinced it was my duty to tell you what was on my mind. I will do it with all plainness. You may answer or not, as you judge best. Many things I have observed in you which gave me pleasure; some which gave me concern: the former I need not mention; the latter I must, or I should not myself be clear before God. The first of these is something which looks like pride. You sometimes seem to think too highly of yourself, and (comparatively) to despise others. I will instance in two or three particulars: - 1. You appear to be above instruction - I mean instruction from man. I do not doubt but you are taught of God. But that does not supersede your being taught by man also. I believe there is no saint upon earth whom God does not teach by man. 2. You appear to think (I will not affirm you do), that none understands the doctrine of Sanctification like you. [See letter in April to Peggy Dale; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 561-5, as to the feeling about Perfection at this time; and letter of July 9 to his brother.] Nay, you sometimes speak as if none understood it besides you: whereas (whether you experience more or less of it than some) I know several, both men and women, who both think and speak full as scripturally of it as you do; and perhaps more clearly, for there is often something dark and confused in your manner of speaking concerning it. 3. You appear to undervalue the experience of almost every one in comparison of your own. To this it seems to be owing that you some way or other beat down almost all who believe they are saved from sin. And so some of them were, in the only sense wherein I either teach or believe it, unless they tell flat and willful lies in giving an account of their experience. A second thing which has given me concern is, I am afraid you are in danger of enthusiasm. We know there are divine dreams and impressions. But how easily may you be deceived herein! How easily, where something is from God, may we mix something which is from nature! especially if we have a lively imagination, and are not aware of any danger. I will mention one thing more. It has frequently been said, and with some appearance of truth, that you endeavor to monopolize the affections of all that fall into your hands; that you destroy the nearest and dearest connection they had before, and make them quite cool and indifferent to their most intimate friends. I do not at all speak on my own account; I set myself out of the question. But if there be anything of the kind with regard to other people, I should be sorry both for them and you. I commend you all to God and to the word of His grace. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell HARTLEPOOL, July 8, 1766. MY DEAR LADY, - You have certainly taken the safest step. There would have been danger if you had acted otherwise. There is something infectious in the familiar conversation of persons that know not God. Unless we are continually on the watch, it damps and deadens the soul. So much the more reason you have to praise God for the liberty He has given you. He has dealt exceedingly tender with you. He has given you a thousand tokens for good. Do not dare to distrust His goodness any more. Check every thought of that kind. It cometh not from Him that calleth you. Christ is yours. Here is your foundation. Let nothing remove you from this. Jesus hath loved you. He hath given Himself for you. And the Father Himself loves you, and will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good. I am in much hope Mr. Taylor [Thomas Taylor. See letter of Dec. 17, 1765.] will be of use to you. You will not object to his plainness of speech, but rather encourage him from time to time to tell you all that is in his heart concerning you. Mrs. Douglas spent a day with our friends at Newcastle, and I believe a profitable one. I have desired my wife to call upon her next week and bring the Colonel and her to York.[Wesley himself reached York on Saturday, July 19, and stayed till the following Wednesday. For Dr. Douglas of Kelso, with whom Wesley stayed in June 1782, see Journal, vi.358.] If she could spend a few days with the simple Christians there, I hope it would be the means of establishing her for ever. I rejoice to hear that you have the resolution to sleep and rise early. The uneasiness of it will soon be over, but the advantage will remain for ever. O fear no cross! God is on your side, and will command all to work together for good. - I am, my dear Lady, Your most affectionate servant. To his Brother Charles STOCKTON, July 9, 1766. DEAR BROTHER, - I hope Sam. Richards has not left his wife destitute. Sister Purnell certainly is unqualified for an housekeeper. [Evidently for housekeeper at Kingswood School.] I will give her five pounds that she may not be distressed before she is in some way of life. I have wrote to Nancy Smith to go to Bristol directly. By all the accounts I have had from others, and by talking with her myself, I judge she is a proper person. I am sure she has grace and sense, and is willing to learn. I shall judge of the bands at Kingswood when I am there. They have not met tolerably for these dozen years. I have set aside J. H., and will stand by it. But I expect to meet more critical cases than his. How apt are you to take the color of your company! When you and I [talked] together, you seemed at least to be of the same mind with me, and now you are all off the hooks again! - unless you only talk because you are in an humor of contradiction; and if so, I may as well blow against the wind as talk with you. I was not mad, though Thomas Maxfield was. I did not talk nonsense on the head as he did. I did not act contrary to all moral honesty. When your hymns on one hand were added to his talking and acting on the other, what was likely to be the consequence I will tell you a secret. I will not be opposed at the Conference; for I will not dispute. I shall find them other work. But (as I wrote in my last) it is highly expedient you should be there. Don’t mind four or five pounds expense; I have enough for you and me.[See letter of June 27.] One word more, concerning setting perfection too high. [See letter of June 28.] That perfection which I believe, I can boldly preach, because I think I see five hundred witnesses of it. Of that perfection which you preach, you do not even think you see any witness at all. Why, then you must have far more courage than me, or you could not persist in preaching it. I wonder you do not in this article fall in plumb with Mr. Whitefield. For do not you as well as he ask, ’Where are the perfect ones’ I verily believe there are none upon earth, none dwelling in the body. I cordially assent to his opinion that there is no such perfection here as you describe-at least, I never met with an instance of it; and I doubt I never shall. Therefore I still think to set perfection so high is effectually to renounce it. Pray tell Mr. Franks [His Book Steward at the Foundery. Pine was printing Wesley’s Notes upon the Old Testament and his Plain Account of Christian Perfection. See letter of June 20.] I have this moment received Mr. Pine’s letter and agree with every article of it. I believe the sooner Sister Smith goes to Bristol the better. I wish you would advise and encourage her a little. Both James and Jonas had much grace. But you and I are no Calvinists. I know nothing of Jonas’s escape. It is not strange that an high nervous disorder should terminate in madness, yet she too had much grace, and perhaps has still. Miss Lewen [Wesley’s fall in Southwark had shaken him severely (see letter of May 6). This chaise was a great boon.] gave me a chaise and a pair of horses. You are a long time getting to London. Therefore I hope you will do much good there. Yes, says William, ’Mr. Charles will stop their prating in the bands at London, as he has done at Bristol.’ I believe not. I believe you will rather encourage them to speak humbly and modestly the words of truth and soberness. Great good has flowed and will flow herefrom. Let your ’knowledge direct not quench the fire.’ That has been done too much already. I hope you will now raise, not depress their hopes. ’They consider us,’ says honest George, [Whitefield. On Aug. 21 Charles Wesley writes to his wife from London: ’Last night my brother came. This morning we spent two blessed hours with G. Whitefield. The threefold cord, we trust, will never more be broken.’] ’as setting suns. And yet it may please God we should outlive many of them.’ The proposal is good. But I fear our Council is a little like the Senate of Capua. [The Senate of Capua was attached to Rome, but lost its control when Hannibal appeared, and he entered the city in triumph.] Come, try. Name me four senators, and I will name four more. Find such as you can, till you can find such as you would. Don’t expect men ’without spot or blemish.’ I could name six if need were, and yet not one angel; but oioi nun brotoi eisi [’Such are mortals now.’] My wife continues in an amazing temper. Miracles are not ceased. Not one jarring string. O let us live now! My love to Sally. To Samuel Furly YARM, July 9, 1766. DEAR SAMMY, - What a blessing it is that, where we do not think alike, we can agree to disagree! Seventeen or eighteen years ago, after much searching of the Scriptures and mature deliberation, I wrote my thoughts concerning the witness of God’s Spirit and the witness of our own spirit. [In Wesley’s first volume of Sermons, published in 1746.] I have not yet seen any reason to change my judgment on either of these subjects; rather I am confirmed therein more and more both by the living and dying children of God. And this is no peculiarity of the Methodists. Many I have found in various parts both of Great Britain and Ireland (to say nothing of Holland, Germany, and America) who enjoyed that immediate witness before they had any sort of connection with the Methodists or any knowledge either of their persons or writings. Most of the Papists call it a peculiarity of the Protestants. And they have some color from the ’Harmonia Confessionum’; which does undoubtedly prove that this was the general opinion of the Protestant Churches. But not of them alone; for many of the Romanists too both held and experienced it. Wishing you and yours every gospel blessing, I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Furly, At Crossport, Huddersfield. To Francis Wanley, Dean of Ripon YARM, July 9, 1766. REVEREND SIR, - The regard which I owe to a fellow Christian, and much more to a clergyman and a magistrate, constrains me to trouble you with a few lines, though I have no personal acquaintance with you. Ralph Bell has just been giving me an account of the late affair at Ripon. What he desires is (1) to have the loss he has sustained repaired; and (2) liberty of conscience - that liberty which every man may claim as his right by the law of God and nature, and to which every Englishman in particular has a right by the laws of his country. I well know the advantage these laws give us in the present case: I say us, because I make the case my own, as I think it my bounder duty to do. I have had many suits in the King’s Bench, and (blessed be God) I never lost one yet. [See letter of Dec. 20.] But I would far rather put an amicable end to any dispute where it can be done. Not that I am afraid of being overborne by the expense: if I am not, I know them that are able to bear it. But I love peace. I love my neighbor as myself, and would not willingly bring loss or trouble upon any man. Be so good as to impute to this motive my interfering in this matter. - I am, reverend sir, Your servant for Christ’s sake. To James Rea YORK, July 21, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Preach abroad at Newry, Newtown, Lisburn, and Carrick, if ever you would do good. It is the cooping yourselves up in rooms that has damped the work of God, which never was and never will be carried on to any purpose without going out into the highways and hedges and compelling poor sinners to come in. Papists converted may read their recantation or not; it is of no great consequence. But I go to church whether the minister is good or bad, and advise others so to do. But what is become of Robert Williams He is usually a reviver of the work wherever he comes. Let him and you go on hand in hand, and you will carry all before you. But preach abroad in every place. Mind not lazy or cowardly Methodists. ’Tis a shame to preach in an house before October unless in a morning. At the Conference we will consider where it is best for you to be. Meantime be all in earnest. - I am Your affectionate brother. I don’t recollect who Brother Clendearning is. To Jane Hilton YORK, July 22, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER, - See that you stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. You need never more be entangled either with pride or anger or desire of any creature. Christ is yours; all is yours. O be all His, and admit no rival into your heart! But, above all, beware of unbelief. Beware of the reasoning devil. In every cloud or shadow of doubt look up, and help, while yet you ask, is given. All you want is ready! Only believe! - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother in Christ. I hope your health is better. To Mrs. Bennis LEEDS, August 14, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER, - Although I am at present exceedingly hurried with various business, yet love constrains me to write a few lines. Your letters are always welcome to me as the picture of an honest and affectionate heart. What you say concerning the witness of the Spirit is agreeable to all sound experience. We may in some measure be satisfied without it in the time of broad sunshine: but it is absolutely necessary in the time of clouds and heaviness and temptation; otherwise it would be hardly possible to hold fast your confidence. Beware of voluntary humility; even this may create a snare. In the Thoughts on Christian Perfection and in the Farther Thoughts you have the genuine experience of the adult children of God. Oppose that authority to the authority of any that contradict (if reason and Scripture are disregarded), and look daily for a deeper and fuller communion with God. O what is it to walk in the light as He is in the light! Do not cease to pray for Your truly affectionate brother. To Ann Foard LONDON, August 21, 1755. DEAR MISS ANN, - Your letters will always be agreeable to me; and the more largely and freely you write the better. I am deeply concerned for your happiness; and a measure of happiness you may enjoy as long as you feel any love in your heart to God, though it be but in a small degree. Be thankful for what you have, and in peace and love wait for the whole promise. God has not only promised, but confirmed that promise by an oath, that, ’being delivered from all your enemies, you shall serve Him in righteousness and holiness all the days of your life.’ By what art can this be made to mean the last day or the last moment of your life Look for it now! To-day hear His voice. Do not reason against God, against yourself. ’Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.’ ’The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.’ I advise you: (1) Get all the opportunities you can of hearing the preaching and conversing with the children of God. (2) Avoid disputing with your might. (3) Spend some time every day in private prayer, in meditation, and in reading the Notes on the New Testament, the first volume of Sermons, and the Appeals. (4) When you may be free, use it rather. Peace be with your spirit. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Crosby ST. Ives, CORNWALL, September 12, 1766. MY DEAR SISTER, - Last night I received yours, and was in some doubt whether to write again or no; and if I did, whether to write with reserve or without. At length I resolved upon the latter, and that for two reasons: (1) because I love you; (2) because I love myself. And if so, I ought to write, and to write freely; for your letters do me good. I see little difference in our sentiments on the head of friendship: only in two particulars you do not seem to . . . . . rally. I really think she has more love than light. Herein I want her to know what is her own gift and wherein she has need of others. I still say I never saw one text in the Bible which speaks of a state from which it is not possible to fall; although I see several which speak of the plerophory (or full assurance) of hope. And whoever has this is divinely assured ’I shall dwell with God in glory.’ I shall add a little on a subject more difficult to speak on (unless to a friend indeed), namely, myself. In times past you thought very wrong concerning me. I believe God tore you from me on that very account. You told me at Leeds you was convinced of your mistake; you told me so again at London. But I doubt you are now as deep in it as before. And are you not brought into that opinion of me the second time by the very same persons who brought you into it at first O Sally, beware! Evil is before you! Remember poor Thomas Walsh! [See Wesley’s Veterans, v. 188-98.] ’You lose your authority with many of the people and preachers by not living closer with God.’ Who knows whether I live more or less closely with God You know something by my own testimony. Your companions know nothing about it but by those surmisings with which God is not well pleased. For that they have the discernment of spirits I do not believe. And what can Brother Jones or Penington [William Penington. See letter of Sept. 21, 1764.] know but by my outward walking Wherein I will be bold to say they see nothing but what might become Gregory Lopez. ’I used to wonder, said one, that you was so little affected at things that would make me run mad. But now I see it is God’s doing. If you felt these things as many do, you would be quite incapable of the work to which you are called.’ Consider this well. I am called to a peculiar work. And perhaps the very temper and behavior which you blame is one great means whereby I am capacitated for carrying on that work. I do not ’lessen my authority’ (perhaps there have been six exceptions, perhaps not) over two hundred preachers and twenty thousand men and women by any tenderness either of speech or behavior, whether to preachers or people. God exceedingly confirms my authority thereby; of which I have such proofs as you cannot have. The wants I feel within are to God and my own soul; and to others, only so far as I choose to tell them. If they descant upon them any farther, it is their own loss, not mine. But He that sends me does not take it well at their hands. I take well all that you say; and I love you the more, the more free you are. That is another total mistake, that I dislike any one for plain dealing. And of all persons living Sarah Crosby has least room to say so. - My dear sister, adieu. To Mrs. Crosby, At Miss Bosanquet’s, In Leytonstone, Near London. To John Haime ST. IVES, CORNWALL, September 16, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER,-I think you have no need to go to London; God has, it seems, provided a place for you here. Mr. Hoskins [See letter of July 15, 1765.] wants a worn-out preacher to live with him, to take care of his family and to pray with them morning and evening. To William Orpe TIVERTON, September 18, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Certainly Mr. Ward ought not to be a trustee, nor any person who is not a member of our Society. Neither can Francis Whitehead or Thomas Underhill, seeing the majority of the present trustees are against them. You must needs have men of peace and those who love the cause of God and the whole Methodist plan. A new conveyance may include the whole. But I doubt whether you should not discharge such a lawyer immediately. Go on, calm and steady. - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. TO Mr. Will. Orpe, At Mrs. Wright’s, Baker, In Wednesbury. Per Bristol and Gloucester. To Thomas Rankin BRISTOL, October 9, 1766. DEAR TOMMY, - I am persuaded good will be done in Lincolnshire. They are in general a simple, teachable people. And Billy Brammah will do much good, if he continues to sleep early and rise early, and denies himself with regard to tobacco and eating flesh suppers. One or other of the remedies against an ague in the Primitive Physick will hardly fail. I depend most on (1) the pills. If these fail, (2) on the sal prunellae. If that fail, (3) on the spirits of hartshorn. Cornwall in general is in a good way. Most of the large Societies there have subscribed for the Notes for the use of the preachers. I know not why the Society at Epworth should not follow their example. Perhaps those advices may be printed separate by-and-by. Be calm and steady. Be clothed with firmness and humility.- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Whitehead KINGSWOOD, October 15, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am of your mind that there is need of three preachers in the North, [Of Ireland.] and that there would be sufficient provision for them. Send me word which of those who are there now you think would be most proper to act as Assistant. If they can persuade the people to give a penny a quarter for horses, it may prevent much inconvenience. If James Morgan judges it best, I have no objection to James Mears being the General Steward. It is not advisable to take any step with a young woman without the full and free consent of her parents. So let what is past be forgotten, and be more wary for the time to come. Let your eye be single, that your whole body may be full of light. Mind one thing! What have you to do but to save your own soul and them that hear you - I am Your affectionate brother. I desire James Morgan, Mark Davis, John Johnson, W. Thompson, and T. Brisco to act as Assistants this year To Peggy Dale LONDON, November 7, 1766. MY DEAR PEGGY, - How happy is it to sit loose to all below! Just now I find a paper on which is wrote (in Miss Lewen’s hand), ’March 24, 1762. Margaret Dale, Anne Dale, Margaret Lewen wonder in what state of life they will be in the year 1766.’ How little did any of you think at that time that she would then be in eternity! [Miss Lewen had died in October. see letter in June 1764 to her.] But she now wonders at nothing and grieves at nothing: Extinct is the animal flame, And passion is vanished away You say, ’Do not forget me till that time!’ I think there is no danger. I remember your determination to be all for God, your childlike confidence in Him, your tenderness to your friends, your honest, artless simplicity! O give all the glory to Him for every gracious thought or word that brings you nearer heaven! A few days remain for you and me: let us husband them to the uttermost. I long for you to burn with the flame of the seraphim, to love with love like theirs! O press forward! Wrestle and fight and pray! And sure neither life nor death shall separate you from, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather LONDON, November 15, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Go on in the name of the Lord and in the power of His might. The Lord is on your side. Fear not what man can do unto you. So far you may fairly go. You may mildly reprove a swearer first. If he sets your reproof at naught, then you ought to proceed as the law directs. I have no manner of objection as to the inoculating grown persons. I have some scruples as to inoculating children, unless the physician could promise me the child shall not die of it. The lawyer in London whom I can best trust is Mr. Hunt, No. 15 Friday Street. - I am, dear George, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, November 20, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The letter now before me runs thus: SUNDERLAND, November 10. Mr. Hopper has been here preaching for a fortnight; and he proposes to come to live here and be our minister; and an house is to be built for him. Then we shall not want the traveling preachers so often. And I hope he will give us the sacrament. You must explain this to me yourself. I can say nothing to it; for I know nothing of the matter. - I am Yours affectionately. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, November 27, 1766. It is well my letter was overlooked till I came home: so one will do for two. John Fenwick will set out to-morrow morning, which is as soon as he could be spared from hence. Nay, it is you must make the best of M. Fenwick. Cure him of his coxcomicality, and he may do good. If Mrs. Robinson continues to walk closely with God, I expect her health will continue. Miss Lewen’s Will probably will be a nine days’ wonder. [Under her will Wesley received l,000, which he soon distributed amongst the poor. See letter of Nov. 7n.] Mr. Whitefield acted according to the light he had; but I durst not have done so, because I am God’s steward for the poor. We all join in love. Adieu! To Ann Foard LONDON, November 30, 1766. DEAR SISTER, - Your letter was exceeding acceptable to me, and the more so because I was almost afraid you had forgotten me. I am glad to find you have not forgotten the blessing which God gave you when at Newcastle and the resolutions which you formed there; and I trust you never will, till God gives you the full enjoyment of the glorious liberty which you then tasted. Do not imagine that this is afar off; or that you must do and suffer a great deal before you attain it - I dare not affirm that. Has not Christ done and suffered enough for you The purchase is made; the price is paid already; you have only to believe and enter into rest, to take the purchased possession; all is ready, and to-day is the day of salvation! Why should you not now be all love all devoted to Him that loves you Is it not the language of your heart - Henceforth may no profane delight Divide this consecrated soul; Possess it Thou, who hast the right, As Lord and Master of the whole. You are to obey your parent in the Lord only, not in opposition to Him. If, therefore, any means should offer whereby you might enjoy that full liberty of conscience which every creature has a right to, I judge it would be not only lawful but your bounder duty to accept of such an offer. You did nothing amiss in showing the letter, especially to so good and sensible a man as Mr. Thornton. Mrs. Wilberforce’s charity is a good omen: what is it God will not do if we can trust Him Only cast your whole care upon Him, and He will do all things well; He will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good. O let Him have all your heart!-I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To William Orpe LONDON, December 16, 1766. DEAR BILLY, - I did intend to give William Fugill [See letter of June 18, 1762, to Christopher Hopper.] four or five guineas-if his behavior was unblameable. But it has not been so; therefore I alter my intention, and give the rest to them that deserve it better. The circumstances you mention are very considerable, and I am afraid amount to a full proof that at this very time his heart is not right either with God or with his brethren. I do not see but in a particular case you may preach in such a meeting-house. We may repair, but we must not build houses yet. If you require another preacher, I will look for one. But Assistants are not so plenty as blackberries. I hope you are visiting from house to house. This will do execution! - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Orpe, At Mr. Ezekiel King’s, In Stroud, Gloucestershire. To Peggy Dale LONDON, December 19, 1766. MY DEAR PEGGY, - Indeed, it is an unspeakable blessing to be convinced that God does all things well! But what wonder is it that such poor short-sighted creatures as we are cannot explain the reasons of His acting! Many times these are among the secrets of His government which we shall not understand till death opens our eyes. [The death of Miss Lewen had probably strengthened her feeling that she would die early (Life and Letters, i. 14).] Oh what a scene will then be unfolded, when we shall see what we now believe! Do you find faith’s abiding impression, realizing things to come Do you feel no decay of love Is the eye of your soul always fixed and always unclouded And yet what a depth of blessing remains for you! It is indeed A sea of life and love unknown, Without a bottom or a shore! It comforts me to think that you are sinking deeper and deeper into this, and receiving more and more of Him that loves you. I hope you are not weary of visiting the poor and sick. Abound more and more in the work of the Lord! And still love and pray for, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather LONDON, December 20, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER, - When the actions [Probably the trouble at Ripon. See letters of July 9, 1766 (to Dean Wanley), and Jan. 29, 1767.] are brought, then it is soon enough to apply to the King’s Bench. If they are cast, I suppose it will cost you little if anything. If you are cast, it cannot easily be determined what the expense will be. But one thing you should keep in your own breast, and it may stand you in good stead. Get proof, if it be possible, that those gentlemen are a confederate body. And if they should swear through thick and thin, so that all things should go against you, you have only to prove ’There is such a combination,’ and the suit turns on your side at once. Go on in the work whereto God has called you, and He will do all things well. I hope our preachers preach and live the gospel. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Walter Sellon LONDON, December 30, 1766. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It is certain that nothing less than the mighty power of God can ever effect that union. However, in me mora non erit ulla [’No delay will occur.’]; and I doubt not you are of the same mind. Begin then. Set upon John Goodwin [See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 55; and letters of Dec. 1, 1757, and July 9, 1768.] as soon as you please. You are very capable of the work; and you have something more leisure than I have. But I would not have you stint yourself for room. The book should be in the letter wherein my Abridgement of the Serious Call is printed. And if it have three hundred and fifty pages, well. Are you tired with ploughing on the sand Then come away to better work. It is true you would have less money, only forty pounds a year; but you would have more comfort and more fruit of your labor. Here is a wide and glorious field of action. You might exceedingly help a willing people, as well as strengthen the hands of Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] John Fletcher was born at Nyon in 1729. Wesley became acquainted with him in 1752, soon after he came to London; and when he was ordained at Whitehall in 1757, he hastened to West Street to help Wesley in his sacramental service. Their friendship grew more and more intimate, till Fletcher’s death in 1785. He was twenty-five years Vicar of Madeley, and both by his personal influence and his masterly writings rendered constant service to the friend with whom he said ’I gladly would both live and die.’ Wesley says, ’We were of one heart and of one soul’; and when he wrote his Life, bore witness: ’I have known many excellent men, holy in heart and life; but one equal to him I have not known, one so uniformly and deeply devoted to God.’ See Works, xi. 273-365. Wesley went to Lewisham on Sunday evening, February 23, ’and finished the notes on the Book of Job’ for his Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament. Fletcher wrote on the 17th as to an exact definition of Perfection, and spoke of his ’desire to execute the plan of a work’ to consist of six dialogues on cardinal Christian doctrines. See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 563-4. [2] The sermon on The Lord our Righteousness was preached at West Street, London, on November 24, 1765. He says in his Journal, v. 150-1: ’I said not one thing which I have not said at least fifty times within this twelvemonth.’ The Plain Account, published in 1766, is Wesley’s classic exposition of the doctrine of Christian Perfection, and has had world-wide influence. See Works, xi. 366-446; Green’s Bibliography, No. 238. [3] Mrs. Bennis wrote on March 11 about her religious experience. She asked whether there may not be imperfections where there is no sin, &c. See letter of August 23, 1763. [4] ’Peggy submitted her judgment to John Wesley’s, and stayed at home.’ Wesley thought it would not be altogether good for her to come under the influence of Mrs. Ryan, who was living at Leytonstone with Miss Bosanquet. See Dale’s Life and Letters, i. 13; and letters of October 12, 1764, October 5 and 12, 1765, and June 28, 1766. [5] Lady Maxwell’s biographer says she had ’become zealous in the cause of religion, and was deeply affected when anything occurred calculated to stain its purity or to lead the unwary to question its reality. Something of this nature had happened in Edinburgh, which led her ladyship to state the matter to Mr. Wesley.’ See Life, p. 23. [6] This circular letter was found by the Rev. Wilfrid J. Moulton, M.A., in his copy of Wesley’s Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament. The work was expected to fill sixty numbers, each containing three sheets and sold at 6d. The printer adds this footnote to the circular: As it cannot be exactly ascertained in how many numbers the work will be completed, it is judged most necessary (for the sake of uniformity) with the last number to give the title-pages and likewise directions to the binder to divide the volumes: by which means it will be done with greater exactness than otherwise it possibly can be. And as the work unavoidably exceeds what was at first intended, the subscribers shall receive GRATIS a Print of Mr. Wesley with each of the volumes to serve as a frontispiece. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 234. [7] This is an extraordinary outpouring of Wesley’s deepest religious feeling. It is impressive to find the leading spirit of the Evangelical Revival, who is growing daily in zeal and in influence, exercising such discipline over himself. It is no wonder that the words in brackets were in shorthand, as only intended for his brother’s eye. He is severe with himself, but quick to acknowledge the devotion of others. William Evans the jeweler lived at Woodsclose, Clerkenwell, whence Charles Wesley (in his Journal) dates a letter to his wife on July 12, 1766. Wesley writes on February 25, 1776: ’I buried the remains of William Evans, one of the first members of our Society. He was an Israelite indeed, open (if it could be) to a fault; always speaking the truth from his heart.’ In Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 34, his name appears in the band list for June 1745 among the ’single’ members. [8] The Methodists at Ripon had suffered much harsh and unlawful treatment. Francis Wanley (1709-91), Dean of Ripon and Rector of Stokesley, was a magistrate, but refused to administer justice in the case of the Methodists. Ripon was in the Yarm Circuit, where Wesley evidently saw Ralph Bell at the Quarterly Meeting which was held that day. On May 2, 1780, Wesley was at Ripon. ’The great hindrance of the work of God in this place has suddenly disappeared, and the poor people, being delivered from their fear, gladly flock together to hear His word.’ [9] James Rea was one of four preachers from Ireland received on trial at the Conference of 1765, and was appointed to Newry. He ’desisted from traveling’ in 1770. An unpublished diary by Jonathan Hern, then stationed at Castlebar, says he rode to Dublin with Mr. Clendinnen on July 14, 1772, and attended a watch-night service there that night. John C. Clendinnen, of Downpatrick, was received on trial as a preacher in 1796 and appointed to Ballyshannon. He died at Bideford in 1855. Robert Williams preached in the market-place at Whitehaven on June 29, 1766, to some thousands of people, all quiet and attentive. Wesley met him in Ireland the previous April. He was a strong dissenter, and went to America in 1769, where he became the Apostle of Methodism in Virginia and South Carolina and led thousands to Christ. See Journal, v. 173, 202, 315-6; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 225, 298. [10] Francis Hilton was ’a respectable shoemaker’ in Beverley, in whose house Methodist preaching was first held. When this became too small, he hired and fitted up at his own expense a large and commodious room in Mr. Turner’s yard, a very central situation. He had a numerous family. His daughter Jane joined the Methodist Society on September 10, 1764. Wesley preached in Hilton’s yard on July 14, 1759. Miss Hilton consulted him about her marriage to William Barton, of Beverley. See Methodist Magazine, 1828, pp. 222-5; and letter of September 30, 1768. [11] Mrs. Bennis told Wesley on July 10, ’I had got into a new world! I found an entire change; I had that perception or consciousness that I was changed; but I also found doubts, fears, and questionings,’ till she cried mightily for the witness of the Spirit, which was granted ’in such a manner as was very clear to me.’ [12] The Leytonstone circle was disposed to be critical of Wesley’s spiritual experience. His patience and readiness to listen to the advice of these friends are remarkable; and this letter, part of which is missing, gives an insight into his inner life which is of great interest. See letters of March 25, 1764, and June 28, 1766, to Mrs. Ryan. A name was blotted out at the end of the original letter. It is evidently ’Sarah Crosby’; but ’S. R. and M. B.’ (Sarah Ryan and Mary Bosanquet), with ’has’ altered to ’have,’ appear in the draft, probably written by Michael Fenwick, who had taught himself to write so like Wesley that Atmore says ’it was difficult without strict scrutiny to discriminate between them’ (Memorial, p. 123). [13] In Wesley’s Veterans, i. 54, Haime writes: ’In the beginning of September 1766 I was living at Shaftesbury, when, Mr. Wesley passing through on his way to Cornwall, I asked if it would be agreeable for me to be at his house in London a few days. He said, "Yes, as long as you please." But before I set out I received the following letter’: [14] Orpe was now the Assistant in the Staffordshire Round. The Minutes for 1767 show that special attention was being given to the trust deeds and that Wednesbury trustees were afraid that Conference might impose one preacher on them for many years. Francis Ward was one of the first Methodists in the town, and Wesley was writing in his house when it was beset by the mob in 1743. See Journal, iii. 98; and letter of December 14, 1765. [15] Rankin was appointed Assistant at Epworth, with William Brammah (’a plain, honest man of deep piety and great zeal’) and Lancelot Harrison as his colleagues. He had not been more than two months there when he was seized with fever and ague, which made his work a burden. Hence Wesley’s remedies. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 162. [16] John Whitehead became an itinerant in 1765, and was a preacher for some years. He then married, and entered into business in Bristol. Afterwards he opened a school at Wandsworth, where two sons of Dr. Lettsom were his pupils. Under Dr. Lettsom’s direction he studied medicine, and took his M.D. at Leyden. He became Wesley’s medical adviser, attended him on his death-bed, and wrote his Life. See Moore’s Wesley, i. v-vi. Whitehead was now in his second year at Athlone. With him were William Thompson, the Irish preacher who in 1791 became the first President; and Thomas Brisco, whose health gave way, and who died at Chester in 1797. John Johnson and James Morgan were in the North-West Round. [17] Merryweather’s daughter married Matthew Naylor, a local preacher, who introduced Methodism into Bishop Auckland and other places in Durham. Their son, Mr. B. S. Naylor, became a teacher of elocution in Melbourne. When he died, this letter was found among his papers left to Mr. John Ross, and was sent to the Australian Spectator by the Rev. Dr. Sugden. Wesley’s view on inoculation and his advice about a lawyer show how he touched life at all points. See W.H.S. xiii. 88-9. [18] Hopper, who was stationed in Newcastle, says: ’I was just worn out; my bodily strength failed. I was on the verge of eternity.’ He became a supernumerary in 1767, but after a year’s rest was able to take a circuit. See Wesley’s Veterans, i. 146. [19] Mrs. Wilberforce was sister to John Thornton, of Clapham. Her husband was guardian to his nephew William Wilberforce, who lived with them for some time at Wimbledon. His mother was afraid of the Methodist influences of that home, and called him back to Hull. Mrs. Wilberforce was a friend and disciple of Wilberforce, and afterwards lived at Blackheath. She died in 1788. See A Sect that moved the World, pp. 44, 66, 91, 97, 100. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 60: 58. 1767 ======================================================================== 1767 METHODISM BROADENING OUT JANUARY 15, 1767, TO DECEMBER 30, 1769 PRINCIPAL EVENTS 1767. Rigging-loft rented for Methodist preaching in New York. Mark. 30. Wesley visits Ireland leaves July 29. Aug. 18. Conference in London: effort to remove debts on preaching-houses; Francis Asbury received on trial. 1768. Jan. Appointed a domestic chaplain to the Countess Dowager of Buchan. Apr. 27. Wesley makes a Will. Aug. 24. Trevecca College opened. 1769. Aug. 1. Conference begins at Leeds: Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor volunteer to go to New York; 50 contributed for the preaching-house there, 20 ’given to our brethren for their passage.’ Hannah Ball’s Sunday school at High Wycombe. Three new lady correspondents were added to Wesley’s list at this time. Hannah Ball at High Wycombe abounded in good works, and began her Sunday school nearly fourteen years before Robert Raikes started his in Gloucester. Nancy Bolton, of Witney, became one of Wesley’s most favoured correspondents. Mary Bishop, of Bath, was a teacher and thinker after Wesley’s own heart. There are signs in the correspondence of the renewal of the Calvinistic Controversy, which was to flame up around the Minutes of the Conference of 1770. George Whitefield is described at the time as ’still breathing nothing but love’: but the letter to Joseph Townsend in August 1767 points to the coming storm. The letters to Charles Wesley are of the deepest significance and there is a pathetic touch about the fragment of a letter to his old friend Mrs. Woodhouse asking for particulars of John Whitelamb, who had been his father’s curate and had married Mary Wesley. The effort to clear off the debts of the Connexion is one of the outstanding features of this period. Wesley left no stone unturned to accomplish this object, in which preachers and friends gave him the most generous and unwearying support. The last letter is one of unique interest. Wesley had sent his first two preachers to America, where Methodism had already taken root, and was himself thinking of another voyage across the Atlantic, though that was never accomplished. METHODISM BROADENING OUT JANUARY 15, 1767, TO DECEMBER 30, 1769 To Ann Foard LONDON, January 15, 1767. DEAR MISS ANN,--Time changes thought, especially in youth and amidst variety of company. So that it would be nothing strange if you should forget those for whom you once had a regard; but you need not. Every reasonable affection is intended to last to eternity. And the true affection for our friends is, as Milton says, a scale whereby to heavenly love thou may’st ascend. [Paradise Lost, viii. 589-92.’Love refines/ The thoughts, and heart enlarges: hath his seat/ In reason, and is judicious; is the scale/ By which to heavenly love thou may’st ascend,’] For the present you seem to be in your place, the place which the wisdom of God has assigned you; and the crosses you now meet with, as they are not of your own choosing, will surely work together for good. Your want of more public opportunities may in a good measure be supplied by private exercises. Let no day pass without more or less private prayer, reading, and meditation. And does not God see in secret Does He not now read your heart, and see if it pants for His pure love If so, are not all things ready May you not now find what you never did before Ask Him that loves you, whose nature and whose name is Love!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, January 22, 1767. DEAR TOMMY,--What has more than once troubled me is this. One Assistant was very zealous for one, two, or three years. Afterwards he quite lost his catholic zeal and usefulness. See that this be not your case. Are the people there willing that John Ellis should come into Lincolnshire If they are, let the exchange be made without delay. There is a good work going on in London. But not like that which George Bell and Thomas Maxfield put a stop to. I know not when we shall see an end of the advantage which Satan gained by their means. They made the very name of Perfection stink in the nostrils even of those who loved and honoured it before. And this I told them and others long ago must be a consequence of proceeding in such a manner. I hope you all labour in training up the children and in visiting from house to house. Take care of the rising generation.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Tho. Rankin, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To his Brother Charles LONDON, January 27, 1767. DEAR BROTHER,--Some thoughts occurred to my mind this morning which I believe it may be useful to set down: the rather because it may be a means of our understanding each other clearly; that we may agree as far as ever we can, and then let all the world know it. I was thinking on Christian Perfection, with regard to the thing, the manner, and the time. 1. By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man ruling all the tempers, words, and actions, the whole heart by the whole life. I do not include an impossibility of falling from it, either in part or in whole. Therefore I retract several expressions in our Hymns which partly express, partly imply, such an impossibility. And I do not contend for the term sinless, though I do not object against it. Do we agree or differ here If we differ, wherein 2. As to the manner. I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by faith, by a simple act of faith, consequently in an instant. But I believe in a gradual work both preceding and following that instant. Do we agree or differ here 3. As to the time. I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before death. Do we agree or differ here I believe it is usually many years after justification, but that it may be within five years or five months after it. I know no conclusive argument to the contrary. Do you If it must be many years after justification, I would be glad to know how many. Pretium quotus arrogat annus [Horace’s Epistles, II. i. 35 ’What year must claim the reward’] And how many days or months or even years can you allow to be between perfection and death How far from justification must it be And how near to death If it be possible, let you and I come to a good understanding, both for our own sakes and for the sake of the people. [See letter of Feb. 12.] To George Merryweather LONDON, January 29, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--To suppose a combination, does not avail; to prove it, would cast them at once. You are in the right to lose no time; what is to be done should be done as soon as possible. Delays are never more dangerous than in law proceedings.[See letters of Dec. 20, 1766, and Oct. 6, 1767.] I have no knowledge of Mr. Dunning [John Dunning (1731-83), first Baron Ashburton 1782; Solicitor-General 1768-70. Sir Fletcher Norton (1716-89); Attorney-General 1763, Speaker of the House of Commons 1770, Baron Grantley of Markenfield 1782. Attacked by Junius in Letter 39.] or Sir Fletcher Norton. Only I have lately retained Sir Fletcher in the behalf of Miss Lewen’s executors. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, February 12, 1767. DEAR BROTHER,--What I mean is, Bishop Lowth is sometimes hypercritical and finds fault where there is none. Yet doubtless his is the best English Grammar that is extant. [In June 1770 Wesley ’looked over Dr. Priestley’s English Grammar. I wonder he would publish it after Bishop Lowth’s’ (Journal, v. 370).] I never saw Hermes; the author of it is a rooted Deist. I won’t complain of the preaching too often at Bath. Pray do you take two things upon yourself: (1) Let punctual notice be given on Sunday, March 8, in the chapel [See Journal, v. 198.] of my preaching there on Tuesday evening, March 10. (2) That notice be given at Bristol on the same Sunday of my preaching at the New Room on Wednesday the 11th, at seven in the evening, and afterwards meeting the Society, at which I desire all who can to be present. On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday I purpose meeting the classes. Pray take care that Brother Henderson [Richard Henderson, then Assistant at Bristol.] wants nothing. Sickness is an expensive thing. You are not yet (nor probably I) aware of pickthanks. [Pickthank, ’one who picks a thank--i.e. one who curries favour with another, especially by informing against someone else’ (New Eng. Dic.). See 1 Henry IV. 111. ii. 22 - 5:Yet such extenuation let me beg,/As, in reproof of many tales devised/(Which oft the ear of greatness needs must hear)/By smiling pickthanks and base news mongers. ] Such were those who told you I ’did not pray for you by name in public.’ And they are liars into the bargain, unless they are deaf. . The voice of one who truly loves God surely is-- ’Tis worse than death my God to love And not my God alone. Such an one is certainly ’as much athirst for sanctification as he once was for justification.’ You remember this used to be one of your constant questions. It is not now. Therefore you are altered in your sentiments. And, unless we come to an explanation, we shall inevitably contradict each other. But this ought not to be in any wise, if it can possibly be avoided. [See letter of Jan. 27.] I still think to disbelieve all the professors amounts to a denial of the thing. For if there be no living witness of what we have preached for twenty years, I cannot, dare not preach it any longer. The whole comes to one point,--Is there or is there not any instantaneous sanctification between justification and death I say, Yes; you (often seem to) say, No. What arguments brought you to think so Perhaps they may convince me too. Nay, there is one question more, if you allow there is such a thing,--Can one who has attained it fall Formerly I thought not; but you (with T. Walsh and Jo. Jones) convinced me of my mistake. Sat. morning. The delay of sending this gives me occasion to add a few words. I have heard nothing of the lovefeast; but if I had, I could not go. On Monday I am to set out for Norwich. Divide, then, the men and women at once, as we do in London. I shall not be in town again till this day fortnight. Oh for an heart to praise my God! What is there beside Panta gelws kai panta konis. [’All things a jest and all things dust.’] To Lady Maxwell NORWICH, February 23, 1767. MY DEAR LADY,--For a considerable time I was under apprehensions that you were in a state of temptation. And as I had no other way of helping you, this put me upon commending you the more frequently to Him that is able to save you. Your last, therefore, was doubly acceptable to me, as it relieved me from my fears concerning you and gave me the occasion of rejoicing over one for whom I have the most sincere and tender affection. Sure it is that the grace of God is sufficient for you in this and in every trying hour. So you have happily experienced it to be already; and so I trust you will experience to the end. But you must not imagine that you are yet out of the reach of temptation: thoughts will be suggested again and again; so that you have still need to be For ever standing on your guard And watching unto prayer. And let my dear friend keep at the utmost distance from temptation and carefully shun all occasions of evil. Oh it is a good though painful fight! You find you are not sent a warfare at your own cost. You have Him with you who can have compassion on your infirmities, who remembers you are but dust, and who at the same time has all power in heaven and earth, and so is able to save you to the uttermost. Exercise, especially as the spring comes on, will be of greater service to your health than an hundred medicines; and I know not whether it will not be restored in a larger measure than for many years when the peace of God fixes in your heart. [Her Life, p. 25, shows that she was then ’distressed in mind and weak in body.’ ] Is it far off Do not think so. His ear is not heavy; He now hears the cry of your heart. And will He not answer Why not to-day Come, Lord Jesus; come quickly! Your openness obliges me to be more than ever, my dear Lady, Your affectionate friend and servant. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ LONDON, March 5, I 767. SIR,--Many times the publisher of the Christian Magazine has attacked me without fear or wit; and hereby he has convinced his impartial readers of one thing at least--that (as the vulgar say) his fingers itch to be at me, that he has a passionate desire to measure swords with me. But I have other work upon my hands: I can employ the short remainder of my life to better purpose. The occasion of his late attack is this: Five- or six-and thirty years ago I much admired the character of a perfect Christian drawn by Clemens Alexandrinus. Five- or six-and twenty years ago a thought came into my mind of drawing such a character myself, only in a more scriptural manner, and mostly in the very words of Scripture; this I entitled The Character of a Methodist, believing that curiosity would incite more persons to read it, and also that some prejudice might thereby be removed from candid men. But, that none might imagine I intended a panegyric either on myself or my friends, I guarded against this in the very title-page, saying, both in the name of myself and them, ’Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect.’ To the same effect I speak in the conclusion: ’These are the principles and practices of our sect; these are the marks of a true Methodist’--i.e. a true Christian, as I immediately after explain myself: ’by these alone do those who are in derision so called desire to be distinguished from other men’ (page 11). ’By these marks do we labour to distinguish ourselves from those whose minds or lives are not according to the gospel of Christ’ (page 12). Upon this Rusticulus, or Dr. Dodd, says: ’A Methodist, according to Mr. Wesley, is one who is perfect, and sinneth not in thought, word, or deed.’ Sir, have me excused. This is not ’according to Mr. Wesley.’ I have told all the world I am not perfect; and yet you allow me to be a Methodist. I tell you flat I have not attained the character I draw. Will you pin it upon me in spite of my teeth ’But Mr. Wesley says the other Methodists have.’ I say no such thing. What I say, after having given a scriptural account of a perfect Christian, is this: ’By these marks the Methodists desire to be distinguished from other men; by these we labour to distinguish ourselves.’ And do not you yourself desire and labour after the very same thing But you insist, ’Mr. Wesley affirms the Methodists’ (i.e. all Methodists) ’to be perfectly holy and righteous.’ Where do I affirm this Not in the tract before us. In the front of this I affirm just the contrary; and that I affirm it anywhere else is more than I know. Be pleased, sir, to point out the place. Till this is done all you add (bitterly enough) is mere brutum fulmen; and the Methodists (so called) may still declare (without any impeachment of their sincerity) that they do not come to the Holy Table ’trusting in their own righteousness, but in God’s manifold and great mercies.’-- I am, sir, Yours, &c. To George Whitefeld LIVERPOOL, March 21, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Yesterday I came hither just in good time; for the ship which sailed a few days ago was the next night overtaken by a storm and is gone to the bottom with all the crew. If I can’t find a convenient vessel here very soon, I think to go round (as I did before) by Portpatrick. I trust before you receive this you will have reason to bless God for His comfortable presence with you at Brighthelmstone. I should have rejoiced could I have made one of the company; but I was called to buffet with the wind and rain. All is well so we are but about our Master’s work. Let us work in earnest while the day is. We are so far from having any travelling preachers to spare that there are not enough to supply the people that earnestly call for them. I have been this very year at my wits’ end upon the account. But some of the local preachers are equal both in grace and gifts to most of the itinerants. Such is Richard Moss in particular. And I heartily rejoice when these are removed into a larger field of action. I trust you always remember in your prayers Your ever affectionate brother. To Peggy Dale PORTPATRICK, March 29, 1767. MY DEAR PEGGY,--Those you mention are Israelites indeed, to whom you will do well to speak with all freedom. A few more in Newcastle are of the same spirit; although they are but few in whom the gold is free from dross. I wish you could help poor Molly Stralliger. I am often afraid for her lest she should be ignorant of Satan’s devices and lose all that God had wrought in her. Do you still find a witness in yourself that God has purified your heart from sin Do you never feel any return of pride, or anger, or self-will, or foolish desire Do you steadily endure, seeing Him that is invisible Are you always sensible of His loving presence Are you constantly happy in Him Does He keep you sleeping and waking, and make your very dreams devout O stand fast in glorious liberty! And be sure to remember daily, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Foard LONDONDERRY, April 20, 1767. DEAR SISTER,--Certainly the point we should always have in view is, What is best for eternity And I believe it would be best for you to change your condition if a proper person offers. But I should scruple doing this without a parent’s consent. If your mother is willing, I see no objection to your marrying one that fears God and is seeking salvation through Christ. Such an one is not an unbeliever in the sense wherein that word is taken in 2Corinthians vi. 14. I love to think of you and hear from you. I want you to be always holy and happy. And why not You have a strong Helper; and shall not His strength be made perfect in your weakness Why, then, should you stop short of His whole promise--’Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart’ Hold Him to His word, and let not your hope be weakened by the subtle reasonings of men. Still let the language of your heart be, Big with earnest expectation, Let me sit at Thy feet, Longing for salvation As long as you are in this spirit you will not forget Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Crosby SLIGO, May 2, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is a long time since I heard either of you or from you. I hope you think of me oftener than you write to me. Let us but continue in prayer, And mountains rise and oceans roll To sever us in vain. I frequently find profit in thinking of you, and should be glad if we had more opportunities of conversing together. If a contrary thought arises, take knowledge from whom it comes: you may judge by the fruit of it; for it weakens your hands and slackens you from being instant in prayer. I am inclined to think I found the effect of your prayer at my very entrance into this kingdom. And here especially we have need of every help, for snares are on every side. Who would not, if it could be done with a clear conscience, run out of the world, wherein the very gifts of God, the work of God, yea His grace itself in some sense, are all the occasion of temptation I hope your little family remains in peace and love and that your own soul prospers. I doubt only whether you are so useful as you might be. But herein look to the anointing which you have of God, being willing to follow wherever He leads, and it shall teach you of all things. There is an amazing increase of the work of God within these few months in the North of Ireland. And no wonder; for the five preachers [James Dempster, John Johnson, James Morgan, James Rea, and Robert Williams.] who have laboured there are all men devoted to God, men of a single eye, whose whole heart is in the work, and who Constantly trample on pleasure and pain. Do they gain ground in London I am afraid perfection should be forgotten. Encourage Richard Blackwell [See letter of July 4, 1763.] and Mr. Colley [Benjamin Colley, a clerical helper of Wesley, was misled by George Bell and Maxfield; but he saw their errors, and was restored to Methodism. Wesley buried him on Nov. 8. See Journal, v. 238 and letter of Sept. 18, 1773, to John Valton.] to speak plainly and to press believers to the constant pursuit and earnest expectation of it. A general faintness in this respect is fallen upon this whole kingdom. Sometimes I seem almost weary of striving against the stream both of preachers and people. See that you all strengthen the hands of, my dear sisters, [She was at Leytonstone with Miss Bosanquet and Mrs. Ryan.] Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell CASTLEBAR, May 7, 1767. MY DEAR LADY,--Your silence is not enough. I will not believe you are tired of my correspondence unless I have it under your own hand. But when I have heard nothing from you for six or eight weeks I begin to be full of fears. I am afraid either that you are dead; or that you are extremely ill, not well able to write; or that your affection is cooled, perhaps to me, perhaps to Him that loves you a thousand times better than I do. It lies upon you to put a period to my fears, to show me that you are still the same, only more and more determined, in spite of all temptations, to go on in the most excellent way. I knew not whether it was proper to make any inquiry concerning the trial out of which you said God had delivered you, because there are some things of so delicate a nature that one scarce knows how to commit them to paper. Otherwise I think there is nothing which you might not mention to me, as I believe none is more nearly concerned for your happiness. Have you found a return of the trial you mentioned Still the God whom you serve is able to deliver you. I do not indeed wonder that things should make a deep impression upon so tender a spirit. But still, is not His grace sufficient for you and shall not His strength be made perfect in your weakness Are not you still determined to seek your happiness in Him, and to devote to God all you have and all you are Is it not your desire to be all given up to Him and to glorify Him with your body and with your spirit Go on in His name and in the power of His might! Through Him you shall be more than conqueror. Frequently He has chastened and corrected you; but He has not given you over to death, and He never will. ’Thou shalt not die, but live, and declare the loving-kindness of the Lord.’ I shall hope to receive a particular account of your health and of your present situation in all respects. Need there be any reserve between us Cannot you speak to me with all simplicity May the peace and love of God fill and rule your heart!--I am, my dear Lady, Your most affectionate servant. A letter directed to Dublin will always find me. To Peggy Dale CASTLEBAR, May 17, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--Concerning that displeasure, one may doubt whether it was any other than the concern you ought to have felt on the occasion; or, at least, whether it was any more than temptation to sin. But if it was, what would it prove Not that your heart had not been cleansed, but that, being off your guard, you suffered a degree of evil to re-enter. Was it so Then (if it be not done already) the Lord cleanse you from it this moment! Woman, be it unto thee even as thou wilt! Believe, and feel the blessing! Certainly the more vigorously you follow after Him the clearer will that unction be, without which it is not possible on some occasions to distinguish between temptation and sins. But you take the right way, without perplexing your mind about anything else. Now give yourself up to God. This is all you have to do. And even while you are doing it light will spring up. I feel it does me good to converse with you even at a distance. O never diminish either your love or your prayers for, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell CORK, June 4, 1767. MY DEAR LADY,--My belief is that a journey to England might be of great service to your health. And it is not improbable you might receive much benefit from the water of the Hot Wells near Bristol. In August I hope to be at Bristol, and again in the latter end of September. My chaise and horses are at Bristol, which you would oblige me much if you would please to use as your own (if you do not bring any with you) during your stay there; for you should if possible ride out daily. My wife, who is at Newcastle, will be exceeding glad to wait upon you there. And if you choose to rest a few days, I should be happy if you would make use of the Orphan House. You would be pleased with the Miss Dales, [See letter of Sept. 29.] and they with you; you and they have drank into one Spirit. Miss Peggy is one of the holiest young women that I have any knowledge of; indeed, I think both the sisters have no desire but to glorify God with their body and with their spirit. You will be so kind as to let me know when you expect to be at Newcastle, and possibly I may meet you there. As you were providentially called to the place where you now are, I cannot doubt but you will be preserved. But you have need of much prayer and continual watching, or you may insensibly lose what God has given. I am jealous over you; I cannot but be interested in whatever concerns you. I know your tender spirit, your desire to please all for their good, your unwillingness to give pain. And even these amiable dispositions may prove a snare; for how easily may they be carried too far! If you find anything hurts you or draws your soul from God, I conjure you flee for your life! In that case, you must not stand upon ceremony; you must escape without delay. But I hope better things: I hope you are sent to Brisbane, [Her father Thomas Brisbane, lived at Brisbane, in the county of Ayr.] not to receive hurt, but to do good, to grow in grace, to find a deeper communion than ever with Him that gave Himself for you; and to fulfil the joy of, my dear Lady, Your most affectionate friend. To Peggy Dale ATHLONE, June 18, 1767. MY DEAR PEGGY,--By conversing with you I --should be overpaid for coming two or three hundred miles round about. But how it will be I know not yet. If a ship be ready for Whitehaven, then I shall aim at Whitehaven and Newcastle; otherwise I must sail for Holyhead or Chester. I hope you now again find the inward witness that you are saved from sin. There is a danger in being content without it, into which you may easily reason yourself. You may easily bring yourself to believe that there is no need of it, especially while you are in an easy, peaceful state. But beware of this. The witness of sanctification as well as of justification is the privilege of God’s children. And you may have the one always clear as well as the other if you walk humbly and closely with God. In what state do you find your mind now Full of faith and love Praying always Then I hope you always remember, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper ATHLONE, June 18, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Sometimes the children forget the parents; but it is seldom the parents forget their children. I suppose it was the death of honest Paul Greenwood [See letter of Oct. 8, 1755.] which occasioned the report of yours. He could ill be spared: but he was ready for the Bridegroom; so it was fit he should go to Him. Michael [See letter of Nov. 27, 1766.] should take care to be either in Dublin or in the North of Ireland before the end of July. If it be possible for him to be a simple, plain man, pretending to nothing but to follow Christ, God will find him employment. And if he walk circumspectly and humbly in Ireland, the people of England will soon be reconciled to him. I wish you joy of having full employment. [After his breakdown in health.] You know, the more work the more blessing. There is good work to be done in this kingdom also; and many of our preachers do it in good earnest. But we want more labourers, especially in the North, where one preacher is increased into seven! and the people cry aloud for more. But, alas! we can neither make them nor hire them!--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. I hope to see you and honest John [John Fenwick, who was helping Hopper.] at the Conference. An exact account of the Societies you will bring with you. To his Brother Charles ATHLONE, June 21, 1767 DEAR BROTHER,--For some time I have had many thoughts concerning the work of God in these kingdoms. I have been surprised that it has spread so far, and that it has spread no farther. And what hindered Surely the design of God was to ’bow a nation to His sway’: instead of which, there is still only a Christian here and there, and the rest are yet in the shadow of death; although those who would profit by us have need to make haste, as we are not likely to serve them long. What, indeed, has hindered I want to consider this. And must we not first say, Nos consules [’We who are the chiefs.’] If we were more holy in heart and life, and more throughly devoted to God, would not all the preachers catch our spirit and carry it with them throughout the land Is not the next hindrance the littleness of grace (rather than of gifts) in a considerable part of our preachers They have not the whole mind which was in Christ; they do not steadily walk as He walked. And therefore the hand of the Lord is stayed; though not altogether; though He does work still, but not in such a degree as He surely would were they holy as He that hath sent them is holy. Is not the third hindrance the littleness of grace in the generality of the people Therefore they pray little and with little fervency for a general blessing; and therefore their prayer has little power with God. It does not, as once, shut and open heaven. Add to this, that as there is much of the spirit of the world in their hearts, so there is much conformity to the world in their lives. They ought to be both burning and shining lights; but they neither burn nor shine. They are not true to the rules they profess to observe; they are not holy in all manner of conversation. Nay, many of them are salt that has lost its savour, the little savour they once had. Wherewith, then, shall the rest of the land be seasoned What wonder that their neighbours are as unholy as ever But what can be done to remedy this I wish you would give an attentive reading to the Minutes of the last Conference, and see if it will not be worth our while to enforce them with our might. We have weight enough, and can force them. I know not who can or will when we are gone. Let us now fix things on as firm a foundation as possible, and not depend upon seeing another Conference. Richard Bourke, John Dillon, and one or two more in this kingdom are truly devoted men; so are a few of the preachers in England. Si sic omnes! [’Oh that the rest were likeminded!’] What would be able to stand before them How go you on in London How is G. Whitefield, and my Lady, and Mr. Madan, and Romaine, and Berridge Do you converse with those that are most alive, and sparingly and warily with them that are dead while they live I hope Sally and your young ones are well. Oh what a work is it to train up children for heaven! Peace be with you and yours! Errwso. [’Farewell.’] To Miss March PORTARLINGTON, Junc 29, 1767. For some days you have been much on my mind. Are you still making the best of life employing a few days exactly in such a manner as you judge is most to the glory of God And do you still hold fast what you have received and expect the fullness of the promise Surely you may retain all that earnestness of expectation to which Mr. Maxfield [See Journal, v. 5-7; and letter of Oct. 13, 1764.] used to incite you without any prejudice either to humility or sobriety of spirit. Doubtless it is possible, with Mr. Dryden’s leave, ’to be wise and love’ [Palamon and Arcite, ii. 364-5 (Amare et sapere vix deo conceditur-- Publius Syrus): The proverb holds, that to be wise and love / Is hardly granted to the gods above.] at the same time; and neither of these need interfere with the other, seeing the spirit of love is also the spirit of wisdom. Are all your family breathing this spirit and strengthening each other’s hands in God I hope you have the satisfaction of observing the same thing in most of those that are round about you, and of seeing the work of God prosper, wherever you have occasion to be. When you are with the genteel part of your acquaintance, you have more immediate need of watching unto prayer, or you will insensibly drink into the lightness of their spirit and abate a little of the accuracy of your walking. Nay, stand fast, walking in every point as Christ also walked. Fashion and custom are nothing to you: you have a more excellent rule. You are resolved to be a Bible Christian; and that, by the grace of God, not in some but in all points. Go on in the name of God and in the power of His might. [Compare with his last letter, to Wilberforce, Feb. 26, 1791.] Still let your eye be single; aim at one point; retain and increase your communion with God! You have nothing else to do. Happy and wise, the time redeem, And live, my friend, and die to Him. At some times we must look at outward things: such is the present condition of humanity. But we have need quickly to return home; for what avails all but Christ reigning in the heart Daily in His grace to grow What else have we to care for Only now to use all the grace we have received and now to expect all we want! The Lord Jesus swallow you up in His love! To Duncan Wright July 4, 1767. DEAR DUNCAN,--You have chosen the better part, and will never repent of your choice. Write down the sermon you preached upon that subject with what additions you see good, and I will correct and print it if I live to return to London. Perhaps I may likewise print the Advice concerning Children as a separate tract. I am glad Richard Blackwell [See letter of May 2. Wright was then in London. At the Conference in August he was appointed to Canterbury and Blackwell to Dundee.] goes to Colchester. Perhaps he and you by turns may spend the ensuing year in London.--I am Yours affectionately. To the Printer of the ’Freeman’s Journal’ WHITEFRIAR STREET, DUBLIN, July 9, 1767. SIR,--Two or three days ago I was desired to read a letter printed in the Dublin Mercury of June 27. I cannot possibly believe what I have heard strongly asserted that the author is a clergyman of our own Church; the slander is so dull, so trite, so barefaced, and so clothed in so base, ungenteel Billingsgate language. ’Cursed gospel gossip, sanctified devils, scoundrels, canting hypocritical villains,’--these are some of the flowers which he strews abroad with no sparing hand. The writer therefore must needs be one of the lowest class, as void of learning and good manners as even of conscience. His wonderful tale confutes itself. ’At the last lovefeast at midnight she fell into a trance.’ Ex pede Herculem. Let every man of reason judge of the rest by this; none of our lovefeasts last till midnight--no, nor till ten, rarely till nine o’clock. But the poor man confounds a lovefeast with a watch-night (at which the service does usually continue till midnight or a little longer), knowing just as much of the one as the other. I call upon him hereby, if he does ’carry on a considerable trade in the city,’ or any trade at all (except perhaps that of retailing whisky or crying bloody murders through the streets), to give up his name and place of his abode with the name of the curate whom he brought to reason with his wife. No evasion here can be received. Unless this be done without delay, all candid men will believe the whole story to be a senseless, shameless slander. If Mr. B (with whom I had formerly the pleasure of conversing at his own house, and who behaved like a gentleman and a Christian) had had objections to me or my fellow labourers, he would not have proposed them in such a manner. He would have spoken (in private or in public) as a gentleman to a gentleman; and I would have answered him plainly and directly. Indeed, I am ready to give any man of understanding a reason of the hope that is in me that I have a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man.--I am Your humble servant. To Mrs. Bennis DUBLIN, July 25, 1767. DEAR SISTER BENNIS,--When you write to me, you have only to ’think aloud,’ just to open the window in your breast. When we love one another, there is no need of either disguise or reserve. I love you, and I verily believe you love me; so you have only to write just what you feel. The essential part of Christian holiness is giving the heart wholly to God; and certainly we need not lose any degree of that light and love which at first attend this: it is our own infirmity if we do; it is not the will of the Lord concerning us. Your present business is not to reason whether you should call your experience thus or thus, but to go straight to Him that loves you, with all your wants, how great or how many soever they are. Then all things are ready; help, while you ask, is given. You have only to receive it by simple faith. Nevertheless you will still be encompassed with numberless infirmities; for you live in an house of clay, and therefore this corruptible body will more or less press down the soul, yet not so as to prevent your rejoicing evermore and having a witness that your heart is all His. You may claim this: it is yours; for Christ is yours. Believe, and feel Him near.--My dear sister, adieu. Yours affectionately. To Joseph Townsend EDINBURGH, August 1-3, 1767. DEAR SIR,--When I saw you here some years since, I could not but admire you, such was your simplicity and godly sincerity. You knew the poor little flock, though a proverb of reproach, were a living people of God. You knew their preachers were messengers of Christ; and you espoused their cause in the face of the sun. You returned to London. You conversed with Mr. Madan and others, most of whom owe the Methodists their own souls also. You came to Edinburgh again. But you did not know the Methodists, unless one or two honourable ones. You had no fellowship with them; you neither joined with them in public nor strengthened their hands in private. You stood aloof from them as though they would have infected you. Nay, you preached just by them at the very hour of their preaching. You lessened their congregations; you threw many of the Society into vain reasonings; you opened many mouths against them; you exceedingly grieved the spirit of the preachers and caused their hands to hang down. Was this well done Was it of a piece with your former conduct Did it do any honour to the gospel Did it do any real good Did it cherish any Christian temper in Mr. Walker or Dr. Erskine [Robert Walker, a minister of the Established Church in Edinburgh, was a friend and correspondent of Lady Glenorchy. He and Erskine preached at the opening of her chapel in Edinburgh on May 8, 1774. For Dr. John Erskine, see letter of April 24, 1765.] Was it a proof of love to me Was it a means of increasing the knowledge or love of God in your own soul Alas, my brother! I know you would do well; but surely herein you have mistaken your way. Do you say, ’Nay, but I have acted right; for the Methodist people are a fallen people and the preachers preach only dry morality. They are in grievous error, denying election, perseverance, and the righteousness of Christ. Therefore their work is at an end, and the work of God which is now wrought is wrought by the awakened clergy. If I had preached in their chapels, I should thereby have abetted all their errors.’ This is home to the point. Convince me of this, and I have done with the Methodists and with preaching. But is it the true state of the case Let us consider it point by point. 1. Are the Methodists a fallen people Blessed be God, they are not: there never were more, there never were so many of them, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, standing fast in loving, holy faith, as at this day. 2. ’But the preachers preach only dry morality.’ With what ears must they hear who think so With the same as the honest Predestinarian at Witney, who, when I had been enforcing Galatians vi. 14 (and indeed with uncommon freedom of spirit), said, ’It was a pretty moral discourse.’ My brother, distrust yourself; you may possibly mistake. I think we likewise have the Spirit of God. I think even I, to speak as a fool, can judge a little of preaching the gospel, perhaps as well as either Mr. Madan or Romaine. 3. ’But they deny election and perseverance and the righteousness of Christ.’ They are not Calvinists; but they no more deny the righteousness of Christ than they do the godhead of Christ. Let this never be said more; it is a shameless slander. They deny only the vile abuse of that precious truth. 4. ’But they teach perfection.’ They do exhort believers to go on unto perfection; and so do you, if you speak as the oracles of God. 5. ’Their work is at an end.’ Far from it; sinners are still convinced and converted throughout the land. 6. ’The work of God is now wrought by the clergy.’ The more the better; but where, and by whom How many has any one of them convinced or converted since Whitsuntide I fear, when we come to particulars, there will be small room to boast. If you put things on this issue, ’Whose word does God now bless’ the matter will soon be determined. 7. ’My preaching in your chapel would have been in effect to tell the people of Edinburgh that the Methodists did not deny the Calvinist doctrines.’ Amazing! Did Mr. Gillies [Dr. John Gillies. See letter of March 24, 1761 n.] tell them so when he preached in our house Just the contrary. He told them: ’In some opinions I do not agree with the Methodists; but I know they are a people of God: therefore I wish them good luck in the name of the Lord.’ Might not you have done the very same May you not still Can you be clear before God without doing it I have now told you all that lay upon my mind. If you can receive it, I shall rejoice for your sake and for the people’s. If not, I have delivered my own soul. For many years I have been labouring for peace, though I have had little thanks for my pains. However, my record is above, and my reward with the Most High. It is but a little while that I have to endure the contradiction either of sinners or good men. May God enable you, that stand up in my stead, to labour more successfully! So prays, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Ann Foard NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE:, August 8, 1767. DEAR SISTER,--We have many instances of this: persons cold and dull, and scarce knowing how to believe their own words, have asserted as they could the truths of the gospel and enforced them upon others, and at that very time God has caused light and love to spring up in their own hearts. Therefore, however you feel it in your own breast, speak as well as you can for God. Many times you will see some fruit upon others; if not, you shall have a recompense in your own bosom. In one sense you do believe that God is both able and willing to cleanse you from all unrighteousness, and to do it now; but not in that sense wherein all things are possible to him that believeth. But what if He should give you this faith also yea, while you have this paper in your hand! To-day hear His voice! O listen! and heaven springs up in your heart. Among the hearers of Mr. Madan and Mr. Romaine (much more among those of Mr. Whitefield) there are many gracious souls, and some who have deep experience of the ways of God. Yet the hearing them would not profit you; it would be apt to lead you into unprofitable reasonings, which would probably end in your giving up all hope of a full salvation from sin in this life. Therefore I advise you, check all curiosity of this kind and keep quite out of the way of danger. Hannah Harrison is a blessed woman.[See letter of Nov. 26, 1768.] I am glad you had an opportunity of conversing with her. And why should not you enjoy the same blessing The Lord is at hand.-- I am Your affectionate brother. To John Whitehead LONDON, August 15, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--As you desired it, you may labour in Lancashire for the ensuing year. [His name appears second of the four preachers for Lancashire. William Whitwell was his colleague at Bristol when this was written. See letter of Oct. 15, 1766.] I have considered what you say concerning the usefulness of being present at the General Conference. And I think we may steer a middle course. I will only require a select number to be present. But I will permit any other travelling preacher who desires it to be present with them. O let us be all alive to God and all athirst for His whole image!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, August 16, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--So the Lord has chastened and corrected you. But He hath not given you over unto death. It is your part to stand ready continually for whatever He shall call you to. Everything is a blessing, a means of holiness, as long as you can clearly say, ’Lord, do with me and mine what Thou wilt, and when Thou wilt, and how Thou wilt.’ Undoubtedly she was (and so was I) in the third stage of a consumption. And physicians have long since agreed that this is not curable by any natural means. But what signifies this in the sight of God As, When obedient nature knows His will, A fly, a grapestone, or an hair can kill [See letter of Aug. 14, 1731.]; so, when it is His will to restore life or strength, any means shall be effectual. But we are slow of heart to believe that He is still the uncontrolled, Almighty Lord of hell and earth and heaven. You judge right. I never knew, till you wrote me word, that Richard Taylor had been at Leytonstone at all. At this Conference [Conference met in London on Aug. 18.] it will be determined whether all our preachers or none shall continually insist upon Christian perfection. Remember in all your prayers, my dear sisters, Your ever affectionate brother. To Miss Bosanquet, At Mr. Michael Hemmings, In Bath. To Peggy Dale WITNEY, August 27, 1767. MY DEAR PEGGY,--I thought it was hardly possible for me to love you better than I did before I came last to Newcastle. But your artless, simple, undisguised affection exceedingly increased mine. At the same time it increased my confidence in you, so that I feel you are unspeakably near and dear to me. Oh what a cordial is this which is given to quicken us in our way! Surely An earnest of our great reward On earth our Master pays! We have all reason to give ourselves up to Him without reserve and to glorify Him with our bodies and with our spirits! If you cleave to Him with simplicity of heart, certainly you need not feel sin any more. Indeed, you will feel temptation of various kinds, and sometimes closing you in on every side. But still your soul may stand fast, believing on the Lord. By faith you will overcome all! Believe, while saved from sin’s remains! Believe yourself to heaven . --I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. Don’t forget what you have learnt in music. [She married Charles Avison the organist.] To Miss Dale, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To William Orpe PEMBROKE, September 2, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I advise you to tell her immediately, either in person or by letter (whichever you think safest), ’I dare not settle in any one place: God has called me to be a travelling preacher. Are you willing to accept of me upon these terms And can you engage never directly or indirectly to hinder me from travelling If not, it is best for us to part. It cannot be avoided.’--I am, dear Billy, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Will. Orpe, At Mr. Michael Dobinson’s, In Derby. With speed. To Peggy Dale BRISTOL, September 29, 1767. MY DEAR PEGGY,--I hope Mr. Whitefield was an instrument of good at Newcastle [Whitefield preached at Newcastle on Sept. 20, 1767, in the Castle Garth. He says, ’I am become a downright street- and field-preacher.’ See Tyerman’s Whitefield, ii. 532-4.] and a means of stirring up some. He is very affectionate and very lively, and his word seldom falls to the ground: though he does not frequently speak of the deep things of God or the height of the promises. But you say not one word of Lady Maxwell! [See letter of June 4.] Did she call at Newcastle going and coming Did you converse with her alone And did she break through her natural and habitual shyness How did you find her Seeking heavenly things alone, and all athirst for God It will be a miracle of miracles if she stands, considering the thousand snares that surround her. I have much satisfaction when I consider in how different a situation you and my dear Molly Dale are. You have every outward advantage for holiness which an indulgent Providence can give. And, what is happier still, you have a fixed determination to use all those advantages to the uttermost. Let your eye be steadily fixed on the mark! to be all love! all devoted! to have one desire, one work, one happiness, one Christ reigning alone and filling you with His fullness!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather BRISTOL, October, 6, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice at the behaviour of Mr. Whitefield. [Whitefield had visited Yarm on Sept. 23.] At length he meets me half way. I have no objection to Mr. Oddie’s changing places with Matthew Lowes [Oddie was at Newcastle, and Lowes at Yarm.] for a round or two. If they will be quiet, be you quiet too. [The law suit See letter of Jan. 29.] Get out of the fire as soon as you can. I have carried many suits in the King’s Bench, but never was reimbursed in one.-- I am Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, October 9, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Tis pity but we could follow the blow at Belford [Fifteen miles beyond Alnwick. Wesley preached there on May 22, 1766: ’The hearers were seriously attentive, and a few seemed to understand what was spoken.’ See Journal, v. 167.]; I think something might be done there. I appointed John Atlay to be at Glasgow till February, and Jos. Thompson in the Dunbar Circuit. Two preachers, if they are zealous and active, will do better than one. But why is not Joseph Thompson there I will not have my plan altered! Whoever does not observe the twelfth rule of a preacher [’Act in all things, not according to your own wish, but as a son in the gospel, and in union with your brethren, &c.’] renounces connexion with me! If Joseph Thompson does not intend to renounce this, let him come to Dunbar immediately. I will be on or off! I tell them what these two preachers are to do. ’Each preacher is to be a fortnight in the city and in the country alternately’--viz. at Leith, Dalkeith, Linlithgow, and Burrawytowys. Let them keep to this, and the fruit will soon appear. And if they do not keep to this, notwithstanding any reason or presence to the contrary, I will no farther concern myself with them. I will not attempt to guide those who will not be guided by me. There is a round cut out already. Let them keep to it, or renounce all intercourse with me! Legacy or not, Samuel Franks [Wesley’s Book Steward; Olivers was Hilton’s colleague in Dublin.] will answer your demands. But what do you make of John Hilton Did he do nothing in Scotland He was all life--all fire. I will tell Thomas Olivers part of my mind. Now let you and I go on in the name of God. We know in whom we have believed.--I am Yours affectionately. To Ann Foard SALISBURY, October 14, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--At length I get a little time (after having been some weeks almost in a perpetual motion) to write a few lines to one I sincerely love. Grow in grace every hour, the more the better. Use now all the grace you have; this is certainly right: but also now expect all the grace you want! This is the secret of heart religion--at the present moment to work and to believe. Here is Christ your Lord, the lover of your soul. Give yourself up to Him without delay; and, as you can, without reserve. And simply tell Him all you desire and all you want. What situation is it that hurries you Is it not determined whether you shall change your condition or no [She was engaged to John Thornton, of Southwark. See heading to letter of June 3, 1763.] Be it either way, God sitteth on the throne and ruleth all things well.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Robert Costerdine LONDON, November 24, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--A few days since, I received a letter from a gentleman, the substance of which with a few alterations I subjoin:-- REVEREND SIR,--In the Minutes of the Conference held at Leeds last year the whole debt of the Methodists, considered as one body, appeared to be 11,338. I suppose it is much the same now, perhaps a little more or less. The Yearly Subscription was designed to pay off this. And it has helped a little toward it, as well as answered many other excellent purposes, for which also it was intended from the beginning. But it must be long before it can answer that design; as it has hitherto been so small, that it has very little more than supplied the yearly wants. Meantime this debt remains as a constant load on your shoulders and a constant reproach on all the Societies. If this debt could be discharged, it would be an ease to your mind, an honour to the whole body, and a glorious proof of our care to provide things honest in the sight of all men. But how is it possible to raise so large a sum as 11,000 I believe it is not only possible, but easy, far easier than many may conceive, to do it in two years’ time, by the following simple method, without burthening either the rich or poor. First, as it is for the glory of God and the promoting of His cause, let us beg His blessing upon our honest endeavours. Then let us willingly and earnestly set our shoulders to the work, and by His grace it shall be accomplished. I suppose the Societies in Great Britain and Ireland contain twenty-four thousand members: one-fourth part of these, if they subscribe according to the following scheme, will discharge the whole debt in two years: Subscribers Guineas In two years. 1,000 at two 4,200 1,000 one and a half 3,150 1,000 one 2,100 1,000 three quarters 1,575 1,000 half 1,050 1,000 a quarter 525 In all 12,600 This may be paid either yearly, quarterly, or in any such manner as the subscribers please. The grand objection is, there are not so many persons in our Societies who are able and willing to contribute so much. Perhaps so. But are there not some who are both able and willing to contribute more Are there none who clear several hundred pounds a year or who are two or three thousand pounds beforehand And will none of these give ten, twenty, perhaps fifty guineas in such a case as this a case of so general concern, and that can occur but once in their lives By this method the poor will be quite excused, unless any of them choose to throw in their mite. Praying God to give good success to this and to all your undertakings for His glory, I remain Your affectionate friend and servant, A. H. I think you love me and the cause wherein I am engaged. You wish to ease me of any burthen you can. You sincerely desire the salvation of souls and the prosperity of the work of God. Will you not, then, exert yourself on such an occasion as this Will you not gladly embrace the opportunity Surely you will not be straitened in your own bowels. Do according as God has prospered you. And do it willingly, not of necessity, knowing God loveth a cheerful giver.--I am Your affectionate brother. Thus far the printed circular, which is signed ’J. Wesley.’ In a note to Costerdine, then in the Haworth Circuit, Wesley adds: MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have wrote to T. Colbeck, Jam. Greenwood, Jo. Greenwood, Sutcliffe, Southwell, Garforth, and Littledale. The rest in your circuit I leave to you. Leave no stone unturned. When you receive the printed letters, seal, superscribe, and deliver them in my name to whom you please. Be active. Adieu! To Robert Costerdine CANTERBURY, November, 26, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you have spent a little time at Whitehaven: the poor people there need every help. There and in every other large town both you and your fellow labourers should take care of those two principal points: (1) to instruct the children; and (2) to visit the parents from house to house, according to the plan laid down at the last year’s Conference. Then you will see the fruit of your labour, and the work of the Lord will prosper in your hands. Wherever you are, you should encourage the people to read as well as to pray. And to that purpose it is well to carry little books with you. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Costerdine NORWICH, December 2, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--We judge it will be to the glory of God to make a push without delay toward the payment of the General Debt. Send me a list (to London) by the next post of ten, twenty, or more of the most able persons whom you can recollect in your circuit. I will first write to each of them myself. The rest (when you have the plan) I must leave to you. Let much prayer be made concerning this.-- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Foard NORWICH, December 2, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--In the way of life you are entering upon you will have need of great resolution and steadiness. It will be your wisdom to set out with two rules, and invariably adhere to them: (1) ’I will do everything I can to oblige you, except what I cannot do with a clear conscience’; (2) ’I will refrain from everything I can that would displease you, except what I cannot refrain from with a clear conscience.’ Keep to this on both sides from the hour you meet, and your meeting will be a blessing. You will do well likewise constantly to pray with as well as for one another. Now, Nancy, put on by the grace of God the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left! Beware of foolish desires! Beware of inordinate affections! Beware of worldly cares! But, above all, I think you should beware of wasting time in what is called innocent trifling. And watch against unprofitable conversation, particularly between yourselves. Then your union may be (as it ought) a type of the union between Christ and His Church; and you may in the end present each other before Him holy and unblameable at His coming. [See letter of Oct. 14, 1767. ] I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Moon NORWICH, December 6, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--I can easily believe that nothing would be wanting to me which it was in your power to supply; for I am persuaded your heart is as my heart, as is the case with all the ’souls whom Himself vouchsafes to unite in fellowship divine.’ What is always in your power is to bear me before the throne of grace. One thing in particular which I frequently desire is ’a calm evening of a various day’; that I may have no conflicts at the last, but rather, if God sees good, before ’my flesh and my heart faileth.’ In every place where Mr. Whitefield has been he has laboured in the same friendly, Christian manner. God has indeed effectually broken down the wall of partition which was between us. Thirty years ago we were one; then the sower of tares rent us asunder; but now a stronger than him has made us one again. There is no weakness either in our body or mind but Satan endeavours to avail himself of it. That kind of dullness or listlessness I take to be originally a pure effect of bodily constitution. As such it is not imputable to us in any degree unless we give way to it. So long as we diligently resist, it is no more blameable than sleepiness or weariness of body. Do many of those who were saved from sin in your neighbourhood stand fast in their liberty or have one half, if not the greater part, been moved from their steadfastness How is it that so many are moved that in many places so few comparatively stand Have you lately conversed with Sister Heslop Does she retain all the life she had Does John Eland and some others at Hutton Peace be multiplied upon you!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Emma Moon, At George Merryweather’s, In Yarm, Yorkshire. North Post. To James Oddie LONDON, December 15, 1767. DEAR JAMES,--I have written myself to Miss Dales, T. Moses, Brother Hewitson, Fenwick, Smith, Watson, Hosmer, Morrison, Davison, Parker, Lipton, Bowmaker, Al. Patterson, T. Dobson, Rd. Parker, Brother Bell, Joblin, W. Newton, R. Foster, Jon. Simpson, Brother Coward, Gibson, Jos. and George Morrison, Capt. Robinson, Mark Middleton, Jo. Allen, and Mrs. Bate. Do all you can with the rest; think not that one of you will be poorer for this. I will send you printed letters, which you may seal and deliver in my name to as many as you please (except the above). [Oddie was the Assistant in Newcastle. see letter of Jan. 12, 1768.] Speak, and spare not, trusting in God. But never let one thought come into your mind of dropping the Yearly Collection; not if any one would give me 20,000 to-day. Wherever this is dropped you drop me, for I cannot go on one year without it. I should think you had never been present at a Conference nor ever read the Minutes of any for these four years. Talk nothing discouraging, but encouraging. Prophesy good and not evil.--I am, dear James, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, December 23, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your letters are always welcome to me; but especially when they bring me the good news of your welfare. Whereunto you have attained, hold fast without reasonings and disputings. Stand fast in that degree of liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. And continually expect all the residue of His precious promises; even to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in everything to give thanks. . . . . . . . leads to God, and generally leaves a solemn awe upon the spirit. The same I would say with regard to that extraordinary influence which you have sometimes felt. By the fruit you shall know from what root it springs. Has it any particular effect on your body or soul If you can inform me of this (and in the most minute manner as to all the circumstances), then I shall be able to form a more certain judgement of it. That Sunday morning you speak of . . . . .was in bed when it came over you I suppose ..... To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To John Fenwick December 25, 1767. Well said, John Fenwick! Go on in the name of God! One year will suffice if you have faith. Richard Pearce, of Bradford, [Bradford-on-Avon. See Wesley’s Veterans, i. 216.] writes he will give 20; Mr. Iles, of Stroud, that he will give 50. Surely God’s time is come. Set all your shoulders to the work, and it shall be done. Have you Mr. Heaton’s (the lawyer’s) bill I think Michael Callendar [See heading to letter of Sept. 7, 1749.] will settle. To George Merryweather LONDON, December 28, 1767. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I thank Mr. Waldy and you for your ready and generous assistance. It seems the time is come. But John Fenwick writes from Newcastle: ’We are all here of opinion that what is done should be done at once; and we think the debt may be paid off in one year. Only let us set about it in faith. I will give 25; Mr. Davison will give 25; Jo. Morrison 25; Miss Dales 50.’ Very well. This will not interfere. Some may give at once, some quarterly, some yearly. You will encourage your neighbours all you can. [See letters of Dec. 15, 1767, and Jan. 9, 1768.] I am, with love to Sister Merryweather, Your affectionate brother. To Miss G. Wood MY REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER,--We were this day most agreeably surprised to hear of your recovery before we had so much as heard of your illness It appears plain that the Lord has more for his labourer both to do and to suffer. For though a glorious share of both has fallen to thy lot, yet thy gracious Master seems resolved to qualify His faithful servant even for a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory! Our respects and best wishes are with you and yours. The Lord Jesus Christ be with all of us! I need not tell my brother that, if Shoreham can any way contribute to his health, all at Shoreham will rejoice to see him.--I am Yours most affectionately, VIN. PERRONET. LONDON, December 31, 1767. MY DEAR SISTER,--In my last (which, it seems, you did not receive) I gave you both two advices: To beware of that levity which many serious people think innocent if not commendable between married people. Let your intimacy incite you to watch over one another that you may be uniformly and steadily serious. Do not talk on trifles with one another any more than you would with strangers; but let your freest conversation be always such as tends to make you wiser and better. My little indisposition is passed away. Health we shall have, if health be best. I have Brother Gilbert’s of the 28th instant, and am obliged to you for your kind assistance. I knew nothing would be wanting on your part. [As to the debt. See letter of Nov. 24.] I purpose writing to several of our friends in Ireland. Peace be with all your spirits!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 61: 59. 1768 ======================================================================== 1768 To Samuel Levick LONDON, January 2, 1768. I can stay no longer. I wrote to Mr. Hoskins, Brother Trezize, Rd. Williams, Hitchens, Mitchell, Lovelace, Burrell, Eb--, Mary and Kath. Carmarthen, Brother Thomas, Mr. Thomas, Dyer, Brother Nance, Mitchell, Sister Launder, Brother Gundry, Nichols, Jo. Vinicombe, Rich. Permewan, and Jo. Bennets. The rest to you. Push home with rich and poor. Leave no stone unturned. Lose no time. Exert yourself, trusting in God. Give my printed letters whoever you judge. Therein you see your first plan. And let that go as far as it can go. But John Fenwick writes from Newcastle: ’We are all of opinion the debt may be cleared in one year. I will give 25. Robert Davison will give 25. John Morrison 25. Miss Dales 50.’ Let us undertake it in faith, and it will be done! This should be insisted on with men of substance. [See letter of Jan. 19.] I want an exact account of the debts in your circuit. Is Jos. Pasco alive Be all alive!--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Samuel Levick, At Mr. James Mitchell’s, In Redruth. To the Countess of Huntingdon LONDON, January 4, 1768. MY DEAR LADY,--I am obliged to your Ladyship and to Lady Buchan for such a mark of your regard as I did not at all expect. I purpose to return her Ladyship thanks by this post. That remark is very striking as well as just: If it is the Holy Spirit that bears witness, then all speaking against that witness is one species of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And when this is done by those who peculiarly profess to honour Him, it must in a peculiar manner grieve that blessed Spirit. Yet I have been lately surprised to observe how many who affirm salvation by faith have lately run into this; running full into Mr. Sandeman’s notion that faith is merely an assent to the Bible, and not only undervaluing but even ridiculing the whole experience of the children of God. But so much the more do I rejoice that your Ladyship is still preserved from that spreading contagion, and also enabled plainly and openly to avow the plain, old, simple, unfashionable gospel. I am glad to hear that your Ladyship has thoughts of being soon in town, but sorry that your health is not yet re-established. Yet certainly health we shall have, if health be best. For the Lord still ruleth in heaven and earth. Wishing your Ladyship many happy years, I remain, my dear Lady, Your very affectionate servant. To Christopher Hopper January 9, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I constitute you, Christopher Hopper by name, Lord President of the North. Enter upon your province, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland, Durham, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire, without delay. Pray dispatch letters to Jacob Rowell, Jo. Heslop, Richard Boardman, [Rowell was Assistant at the Dales, and Boardman at York: for Heslop, see letters of Sept. 26 and Oct. 1; and Boardman, letter of March 27, 1771.] and your other deputies without loss of time; and quicken them to put forth all their strength and make one push for all. But hold! John Fenwick writes to me: ’I will give 25!’ Do not abate him the five! No drawing back! I think the time is come for rolling this reproach from us. Your thought concerning the preachers is a noble one. If fifty of them set such an example, giving a little out of their little, such an instance would have an effect upon many. Let one stir up another. Spare no pains. Write east, west, north, and south. You have a ready mind and a ready pen; and it cannot be used in a better cause.--I am Yours affectionately. To James Oddie LONDON, January 12, 1768. DEAR JAMES,--Desire an old tried Scot, William Darney by name, to take a turn or two in the Dunbar Circuit; and I will desire William Minethorp, now near York (a good man and a good preacher), to go down into your circuit and supply his place. Then Alnwick will have the preaching on Sunday, which is highly expedient. If we pay the debt in one year (and there is a fine prospect), it is all along of your Newcastle people; for nobody else thought of it. Go on, go on, in God’s name!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, January 15, 1768. DEAR BROTHER,--Six or seven hundred pounds is brought to a Conference, of which five hundred at least pays debt. Then extraordinary demands are answered. How much remains for law I am now near three hundred pounds out of pocket, which I borrowed to pay Mr. Pardon. When I receive some more from Newcastle, [See previous letter.] I will send it to Bristol; probably very soon. It is highly probable one of the three will stand before the Lord. But, so far as I can learn, such a thing has scarce been for these thousand years before, as a son, father, grandfather, atavus, tritavus, preaching the gospel, nay, and the genuine gospel, in a line. You know, Mr. White, sometime Chairman of the Assembly of Divines, was my grandmother’s father. Look upon our little ones at Kingswood as often as you can. A word from you will be a quickening to them. O how many talents are we entrusted with! ’But what account can thy bad steward make’ Indeed, we have need to gird up the loins of our mind and run faster the small remainder of our race. ’One thing!’ Let us mind one thing only; and nothing great or small but as it ministers to it! Peace be with you and yours! Adieu. To Samuel Levick LONDON, January 19, 1768. DEAR SAMMY,--I think this is the least we can insist upon --that all our freemen neither directly nor indirectly take anything for the time to come. My little indisposition is passed over. [See letter of Dec. 31, 1767.] Now, up and be doing! Lose not a day. I desire you (1) exhort our wealthy members to act generously and make a push once for all; (2) encourage the middling ones to subscribe more or less according to the plan; (3) receive two mites from the willing poor; (4) take an exact account of the debts which lie upon the houses in your circuit; (5) before the 20th of next month send me an exact account both of the debts and of the money subscribed, which is to be paid at the spring visitation of the classes. Go on in faith.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Samuel Levick, At Mr. John Nance’s, In St. Ives, Cornwall. To Mrs. Moon LONDON, January 24, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--Formerly, when persons reproached me for doing thus and thus, I have very frequently said, ’In truth I have not done it yet; but by the grace of God I will.’ This seems to be the very case with you. You are accused for what you did not, but ought to have done. You ought to have informed me from time to time, not indeed of trifles or idle reports, but of things which you judged to be a real hindrance to the work of God. And God permitted you to be reminded of this omission by those who intended nothing less. Opposition from their brethren has been one cause why so many who were set free have not retained their liberty. But perhaps there was another more general cause: they had not proper help. One just saved from sin is like a newborn child, and needs as careful nursing. But these had it not. How few were as nursing fathers! How few cherished them as a nurse her own children! So that the greater part were weakened, if not destroyed, before their sinews were knit, for want of that prudent and tender care which their state necessarily required. Do all that you can to cherish them that are left; and never forget Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, January 28, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--I found a particular love to you from the time that you spoke so freely to me on that nice subject; especially when I found you had resolution to give up all for Christ, and even to pluck out the right eye and cast it from you. Use the same freedom still. Tell me from time to time anything that tries or troubles you. Certainly you will have trials of various kinds. Expect one after another, and conquer all through Him that loves you. Only hold fast your shield! Cast not away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward! Christ is yours! Yea, all He has and is is yours! And let all you are, soul and body, be His! Draw not back! Hang upon Him! Trust Him in all things! and love for His sake, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Ball, At Mr. Ball’s, Laceman, In High Wycombe. To Peggy Dale LONDON, January 30, 1768. MY DEAR PEGGY,--It is a certain truth that the witness of sanctification is a privilege which every one that is sanctified may claim. Yet it is not true that every one that is sanctified does enjoy this. Many who are really sanctified (that is, wholly devoted to God) do not enjoy it as soon as that work is wrought; and many who received it do not retain it, or at the least not constantly. Indeed, they cannot retain it in two cases: either if they do not continue steadily watching unto prayer; or, secondly, if they give way to reasoning, if they let go any parts of ’love’s divine simplicity.’ I am afraid this was your case: you did not remain simple; you gave way to evil reasoning. But you was as surely sanctified as you was justified. And how soon may you be so again The way, the new and living way, is open! Believe, and enter in!-- I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, January 31, 1768. DEAR JOSEPH,--Tommy Taylor we have tried. Therefore I do not desire to part with him. But was T. Dancer out of his wits How was it possible he could write to me about another master without first consulting you I understood what he wrote to be wrote by you all, and therefore immediately spoke to the young man and desired him to give warning where he was that he might be at liberty in March. Perhaps there is a Providence in this blunder. For if Mr. Williams is what he appears to be, he is deeply devoted to God. You shall have what money you want; if T. Lewis will draw upon Mr. Franks for it, not only sixty pounds, but (if need be) sixty to that. You should write to me often and not too briefly. I am, with love to Brother and Sister Hindmarsh and T. Taylor, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. If T. Lewis will not, do you draw on Mr. Franks. To Mr. Joseph Benson, At Kingswood School, Near Bristol. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, February 3, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--You did not willingly omit anything that was in your power. [See letters of May 17, 1766, and Nov. 12, 1768, to her] Therefore you have no reason to be uneasy on that account. Your father went to God in a good old age as a ripe shock of corn. Be you also ready; that, whenever our Lord cometh, He may find you watching! Undoubtedly God does sometimes show His children things to come in dreams or visions of the night. And whenever they bring us nearer to Him, it is well, whenever they are means of increasing our faith and holiness. Only we must take care not to depend upon them too much, and to bring all to the standard--the law and the testimony. I believe it would be a trial to you if you should hear I was called away. But you have a strong Helper in all trials. It might please God to calm your troubled mind by that particular outward representation; and let Him work in whatever manner He pleases. Peace and love are blessings, come how they will. These I hope you find increasing in you. Let your soul be all love, and it suffices.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Ann Bolton LONDON, February 13, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--The best and most desirable thing of all is that you should live and die wholly devoted to God, waiting upon Him without distraction, serving Him without carefulness, and studying one thing--to be holy both in body and spirit, an whole burnt sacrifice of love. If you have not steadiness and resolution for this, the next thing to be desired is that you may marry a man of faith and love, who has a good temper and a good understanding. The temptation you are now in was perhaps the most dangerous one you ever had in your life. God deliver you from that almost certain destruction which attends the being unequally yoked to an unbeliever! If you could come up to London before I leave it, which is to be the 7th of March, and had time and resolution to converse with those who are most alive to God, it might be an unspeakable help to you. If you do come, let me know exactly when and how and where you purpose to lodge. And may the God of love ’cover with His wings your head’ and keep you from all evil!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To James Oddie LONDON, February 14, 1768. DEAR JEMMY,--I require William Ellis [Oddie’s third colleague at Newcastle.] to go into the Dales (if he is not gone already) without delay. Otherwise I require you to forbid his preaching in any of our Societies. Push on the collection in God’s name! I think you will not easily stop short of seven hundred. [See letters of Jan. 12 and 15.] It is not right, Jemmy; it is not right. They envy the rooms of those poor girls, [The Misses Dale at the Orphan House.] and want at all hazards to thrust them out. I wrote to Molly Dale on Saturday in haste; but to-day I have wrote her my cooler thoughts. Peace be with you and yours.--Dear Jemmy, adieu To Miss March STROUD, March 14, 1768. There are innumerable degrees, both in a justified and a sanctified state, more than it is possible for us exactly to define. I have always thought the lowest degree of the latter implies the having but one desire and one design. I have no doubt but in that general outpouring of the Spirit God did give this degree of salvation, neither did it ever appear to me that had lost it; rather seemed to stand just on the threshold of Christian perfection, and I apprehend nothing would be more likely to hurt the soul than undervaluing the grace already received. Without any sin we may be in a sense pleased with the approbation of those we esteem and love. But here we have need of much prayer, lest this should degenerate into pride or vanity. I still say to you, as to an almost new-born babe, ’Dare to believe; on Christ lay hold!’ Without being solicitous about the name of what you have, ask and expect all you want! Is it not nigh, even at the door The knowledge of ourselves is true humility; and without this we cannot be free from vanity, a desire of praise being inseparably connected with every degree of pride. Continual watchfulness is absolutely necessary to hide this from stealing in upon us. But as long as we steadily watch and pray, we shall not enter into temptation. It may and will assault us on every side; but it cannot prevail. To John Fletcher BIRMINGHAM, March 20, 1768. DEAR SIR,--Yesterday Mr. Easterbrook informed me that you are sick of the conversation even of them who profess religion, ’that you find it quite unprofitable if not hurtful to converse with them three or four hours together, and are sometimes almost determined to shut yourself up as the less evil of the two.’ I do not wonder at it at all, especially considering with whom you have chiefly conversed for some time past--namely, the hearers of Mr. Madan and Mr. Romaine (perhaps I might add of Mr. Whitefield). The conversing with these I have rarely found to be profitable to my soul. Rather it has damped my desires, it has cooled my resolutions, and I have commonly left them with a dry, dissipated spirit. And how can we expect it to be otherwise For do we not naturally catch their spirit with whom we converse And what spirit can we expect them to be of, considering the preaching they sit under Some happy exceptions I allow; but, in general, do men gather grapes of thorns Do they gather constant, universal self-denial, the patience of hope, the labour of love, inward and outward self-devotion, from the doctrine of Absolute Decrees, of Irresistible Grace, of Infallible Perseverance Do they gather these fruits from Antinomian doctrine or from any that borders upon it Do they gather them from that amorous way of praying to Christ or that way of preaching His righteousness I never found it so. On the contrary, I have found that even the precious doctrine of Salvation by Faith has need to be guarded with the utmost care, or those who hear it will slight both inward and outward holiness. I will go a step farther: I seldom find it profitable for me to converse with any who are not athirst for perfection and who are not big with earnest expectation of receiving it every moment. Now, you find none of these among those we are speaking of, but many, on the contrary, who are in various ways directly or indirectly opposing the whole work of God; that work, I mean, which God is carrying on throughout the kingdom by andres agraumatoi kai idiwtai.[ Acts iv. 13: ’unlearned and ignorant men.’] In consequence of which His influence must in some measure be withdrawn from them. Again, you have for some time conversed a good deal with the genteel Methodists. Now, it matters not a straw what doctrine they hear, whether they frequent the Lock or West Street. They are (almost all) salt that has lost its savour, if ever they had any. They are throughly conformed to the maxims, the spirit, the fashions, and customs of the world. Certainly, then, Nunquam ad eos homines ibis quin minor homo redebis. [A Kempis’s Imitation, i. 20: ’One said, As oft as I have gone among men, I returned home less a man.’] But, were these or those of ever so excellent a spirit, you converse with them too long. ’Three or four hours’! One had need to be an angel, not a man, to converse four hours at once to any purpose. In the latter part of such a conversation we shall doubtless lose all the profit we had gained before. But have you not a remedy for all this in your hands In order to truly profitable conversation, may not you select persons clear both of Calvinism and Antinomianism, not fond of that luscious way of talking, but standing in awe of Him they love--persons who are vigorously working out their salvation, persons athirst for full redemption, and every moment expecting if not already enjoying it Though, it is true, these will commonly be poor and mean; seldom possessed of either riches or learning, unless there be now and then a rara avis in terris, [Juvenal’s Satires, vi. 165: ’A bird rarely seen on earth.’] a Miss March or Betty Johnson. [See headings to letters of March 4, 1760, and Dec. 15, 1763.] If you converse with these humbly and simply an hour at a time, with prayer before and prayer after, you will not complain of the unprofitableness of conversation or find any need of turning hermit. As to the conference at Worcester on lay-preaching, do not you observe almost all the lay preachers (1) are connected with me (2) are maintainers of universal redemption Hinc illae lacrymae! [Horace’s Epistles, 1. xix. 41:’Hence these tears.’] These gentlemen do not love me, and do love particular redemption. If these laymen were connected with them, or if they were Calvinists, all would be well. Therefore I should apprehend you will have two things to do: (1) urge the argument the strength of which I believe is in the second Appeal, and above all in the Letter to a Clergyman [See Works, viii. 136-200; and letter of May 4, 1748.]; (2) apply to the conscience, You do not love Mr. Wesley enough, you dove your opinions too much; otherwise this debate would never have arisen. For it is undeniable these quacks cure whom we cannot cure, they save sinners all over the nation. God is with them, God works by them, and has done so, for near these thirty years. Therefore the opposing them is neither better nor worse than fighting against God.--I am Your ever affectionate brother. To Robert Costerdine MANCHESTER, March 28, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Be not discouraged. Go on in faith, and you will gain more subscriptions before the Conference. [For the debts of the Connexion, see letters of Nov. 24 and Dec. 2, 1767, to him.] If God permit, I shall be at York on Friday, June 24; Mond. the 27, Pateley Bridge; Tu. 28, Skipton; W. 29, Otley; Th. 30, Parkgate; Sat. July 2, Keighley; Su. 3, Haworth; Mond. 4, Bradford. This is the best way I could think of to spend a few days. [This fills out the entry in the Journal, v. 277. He left Newcastle on June 13, and ’in the residue of the month visited most of the Societies in Yorkshire.’] But I can preach sometimes at noon.-- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. I commonly preach at six in the evening. To Mr. Costerdine, At Mr. Colbeck’s, In Keighley, Yorkshire. To Dr. Rutherforth To Christopher Hopper MANCHESTER, March 29, 1768. DEAR CHRISTOPHER,--I see no help for it. What must be must be. You must go point-blank to York, Leeds, and Bradford. Our rich men subscribe twenty shillings a year. And neither Brother Boardman, Brisco, Bumstead, nor Oliver can move them. They want a hard-mouthed man. Get you gone in a trice. Show them the difference. I beg of you either mend them or end them. Let this lumber be removed from among us.--I am Ever yours. To Ann Bolton LIVERPOOL, April 7, 1768. Indeed, my dear sister, the conversation I had with you at London [See letter of Jan. 25, 1770, where he speaks of another visit.] much increased my affection for you and my desire that you should not fall short of any blessing which our Lord has bought for you with His own blood. Certain it is that He loves you. And He has already given you the faith of a servant. You want only the faith of a child. And is it not nigh What is it you feel now That spark just kindling in your heart which enables you to say: Lord, I am Thine by sacred ties, Thy child, Thy servant bought with blood! Look up, my sister, my friend! Jesus is there! He is ever now interceding for you! Doubt not of it! Doubt not His love! Forget yourself, a poor, vile, worthless sinner. But look unto Jesus! See the Friend of Sinners! Your Friend; your ready and strong Saviour! It was not a small deliverance which you had in escaping the being joined to one who was not what he seemed.[See letter of Feb. 13.] If he had acted thus after you were married, it would almost have broke your heart. See how the Lord careth for you! Surely the hairs of your head are all numbered! If you can continue as you are, use it rather. If you should do otherwise, will not you consult me before you engage As to your health, I wish you would punctually follow the directions which I formerly gave you. But tell me if you find any new symptom. Perhaps you will not stay here long; but you cannot, shall not depart hence till your eyes have seen His salvation!--My dear Nancy, adieu. On Saturday se’nnight I expect to be at Whitehaven; on Saturday fortnight at Glasgow. Shall I not hear from you soon To Peggy Dale LIVERPOOL, April 7, 1768. MY DEAR PEGGY,--I do not well understand what letter you mean. I have answered (if I do not forget) every letter which I have received. And I commonly answer either of you [Herself or Miss Molly Dale.] within a day or two. In this respect I do not love to remain in your debt. In others I must always be so; for I can never pay you the affection I owe. Accept of what little I have to give. Mr. Law does well to insist on those sister graces, lowliness, meekness, and resignation. [A Serious Call to a Holy Life, xvi.- xxii.] These one would most importunately ask of God. And, indeed, without them love is only a name. Let your faith thus work by love, and it will make you fruitful in every good temper and word and work. I hope to be at Glasgow on Wednesday the 19th instant; at Aberdeen the 28th; at Edinburgh May 5; at Newcastle on Friday, May 20. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Robert Costerdine KENDAL, April 13, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If the debt of Colne house were given at Leeds Conference, it will be taken in of course. If it were not, I will lay Mr. Shaw’s paper before the ensuing Conference. On Monday, June 27, I hope to be at Pateley Bridge (coming from Tadcaster, where I expect to preach at noon--one might meet me at Tadcaster); Tuesday, 28th, at Skipton; Wednesday, 29th, at Otley; Saturday, July 2nd, Keighley. You may have the three volumes. Do not spare to speak when you visit the classes again, and many will enlarge their subscription. --I am Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton May 9, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--How far are you from holiness Nay, rather think how near you are to it! You are no farther from it than you are from faith, than you are from Christ. And how far is He from you Is He not nigh Is He not just now knocking at the door of your heart Hark! The Master calleth you! Thou dead soul, hear the voice of the Son of God, and live! What saith He to you Woman, be of good cheer! Thy sins are forgiven thee.--I am, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles EDINBURGH, May 14, 1768. DEAR BROTHER,--It is well Sally R is in peace. I have been long persuaded that if she continued to hinder him, God would, in mercy to them both, take her away. I am glad Mr. Fletcher has been with you. But if the tutor fails, what will become of our college at Trevecca Did you ever see anything more queer than their plan of institution Pray who penned it, man or woman I am afraid the visitor too will fail.[Fletcher was the visitor.] The archers here have sorely wounded Lord Buchan. [The Earl of Buchan died on Dec. 1, 1767, and his son succeeded him at the age of twenty-four.] But if Isaac stays with you in London, what have the Stewards of Bristol to do with him They may, then, easily find his equal; for, with regard to them, he is equal to--nothing. I am at my wits’ end with regard to two things--the Church and Christian Perfection. Unless both you and I stand in the gap in good earnest, the Methodists will drop them both. Talking will not avail. We must do, or be borne away. Will you set shoulder to shoulder If so, think deeply upon the matter, and tell me what can be done. Age, vir esto! nervos intendas tuos. [’Come, be a man! Stretch your nerves.’ The last three words are from Terence’s Eunuchus, II. iii. 19.] Peace be with you and yours! Adieu. To the Rev. Mr. Plenderlieth NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 23, 1768. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--Some years ago it was reported that I recommended the use of a crucifix to a man under sentence of death. I traced this up to its author, Dr. Stennett, an Anabaptist teacher. He was charged with it. He answered, ’Why, I saw a crucifix in his cell’ (a picture of Christ on the cross); ’and I knew Mr. Wesley used to visit him: so I supposed he had brought it.’ This is the whole of the matter. Dr. Stennett himself I never yet saw; nor did I ever see such a picture in the cell: and I believe the whole tale is pure invention. I had for some time given up the thought of an interview with Mr. Erskine, when I fell into the company of Dr. Oswald. He said, ’Sir, you do not know Mr. Erskine. I know him perfectly well. Send and desire an hour’s conversation with him, and I am sure he will understand you better.’ I am glad I did send. I have done my part, and am now entirely satisfied. I am likewise glad that Mr. Erskine has spoke his mind. I will answer with all simplicity, in full confidence of satisfying you and all impartial men. He objects, first, that I attack predestination as subversive of all religion, and yet suffer my followers in Scotland to remain in that opinion. Much of this is true. I did attack predestination eight-and-twenty years ago [See letter of April 30, 1739.]; and I do not believe now any predestination which implies irrespective reprobation. But I do not believe it is necessarily subversive of all religion. I think hot disputes are much more so; therefore I never willingly dispute with any one about it. And I advise all my friends, not in Scotland only, but all over England and Ireland, to avoid all contention on the head, and let every man remain in his own opinion. Can any man of candour blame me for this Is there anything unfair or disingenuous in it He objects, secondly, that I ’assert the attainment of sinless perfection by all born of God.’ I am sorry Mr. Erskine should affirm this again. I need give no other answer than I gave before, in the seventh page of the little tract [For A Plain Account of Christian Perfection and the sermon on The Lord our Righteousness, see letter of Feb. 28, 1766, to John Newton.] I sent him two years ago. I do not maintain this. I do not believe it. I believe Christian perfection is not attained by any of the children of God till they are what the Apostle John terms fathers. And this I expressly declare in that sermon which Mr. Erskine so largely quotes. He objects, thirdly, that I ’deny the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.’ Since I believed justification by faith, which I have done upwards of thirty years, I have constantly maintained that we are pardoned and accepted wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ hath both done and suffered for us. Two or three years ago Mr. Madan’s sister showed him what she had wrote down of a sermon which I had preached on this subject. He entreated me to write down the whole and print it, saying it would satisfy all my opponents. I was not so sanguine as to expect this: I understood mankind too well. However, I complied with his request: a few were satisfied; the rest continued just as they were before. As long as Mr. Erskine continues of the mind expressed in his Theological Essays, there is no danger that he and I should agree any more than light and darkness. I love and reverence him, but not his doctrine. I dread every approach to Antinomianism. I have seen the fruit of it over the three kingdoms. I never said that Mr. Erskine and I were agreed. I will make our disagreement as public as ever he pleases; only I must withal specify the particulars. If he will fight with me, it must be on this ground and then let him do what he will and what he can. Retaining a due sense of your friendly offices, and praying for a blessing on all your labours,--I remain, reverend and dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Henry Brooke SUNDERLAND, May 25, 1768. MY DEAR BRETHREN,--I know not what to say; the accounts I receive from Dublin are so contradictory to each other. In my last to T. Olivers I desired he would go immediately into Waterford Circuit. I wish Mr. Hilton would give me his cool judgement concerning the late transactions. I desire all the money subscribed in Ireland for the payment of the General Debt may be lodged in the hands of George Grant, James Martin, and James Freeman as trustees. But when this amounts to 100, let so much of the Dublin debt be paid without delay. See that you bear one another’s burthens.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. What is the present debt on Dublin house To Mr. Henry Brooke, Stafford Street, Dublin. To George Merryweather NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 6, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have a letter from Nathl. Smith, at Osmotherley, desiring me to preach there. But I do not see how I can. Pray consult with T. Lee or John Heslop concerning it. On Friday, 17th instant, I am to preach at Potto and Hutton; on Saturday evening at Whitby. Where is it of most importance to preach in the way At Stokesley, Guisborough, or elsewhere Fix it among you in time.-- I am Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 7, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--As there is nothing new in your disorder only an increase of the same symptoms, I believe, if you will observe the directions I formerly gave, this will help you more than an hundred medicines. Oily medicines would kill you quickly; so would anything that loads your stomach. You must take care to have air enough at night: it would not hurt you to have the window a little open. When you have that tickling cough, chew a small bit of bark (as big as half a peppercorn), swallow your spittle four or five times, and then spit out the wood. So much bark as this I can allow you, but no more, at the peril of your life. Try if red currants agree with you; if they do, eat as many as you can. O Nancy, I want sadly to see you: I am afraid you should steal away into paradise. A thought comes into my mind which I will tell you freely. If you go first, I think you must leave me your seal for a token: I need not say to remember you by, for I shall never forget you. Experience shows what is the best means of grace to you. Read and think of the love of God. That is your point. Jesus loves you! He is yours. Be not so unkind as to distrust Him! Cast your soul at His feet! Prisoner of hope, be bold! Come unto Him now and take the water of life freely! If you are able to write, write to me soon, directing to me at Mrs. Hudson’s in York. I want to know everything that concerns you. For you are exceeding near to, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bolton. At the Rev. Mr. Davis’s, In Evesham, Worcestershire. Cross Post. To his Brother Charles NORTON, NEAR STOCKTON, June 14, 1768. DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear from various persons so good an account of the work of God in London. You did not come thither without the Lord; and you find your labour is not in vain. [On July 16 Charles writes to his wife from London, where he is looking for a house, and tells her that ’on Thursday night the Foundery was crowded with serious hearers of every sort. My subject, " He is able to save to the uttermost all that," &c.’] I doubt not but you will see more and more fruit while you converse chiefly with them that are athirst for God. I find a wonderful difference in myself when I am among these and when I am among fashionable Methodists. On this account the North of England suits me best, where so many are groaning after full redemption. But what shall we do I think it is high time that you and I at least should come to a point. Shall we go on in asserting perfection against all the world Or shall we quietly let it drop We really must do one or the other; and, I apprehend, the sooner the better. What shall we jointly and explicitly maintain (and recommend to all our preachers) concerning the nature, the time (now or by-and-by), and the manner of it (instantaneous or not) I am weary of intestine war, of preachers quoting one of us against the other. At length let us fix something for good and all; either the same as formerly or different from it. Errwso. [’Farewell.’] To Jane Hilton YORK, June 25, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your conversation gave me much satisfaction. I rejoiced to find that you was sensible of your loss, and determined by the grace of God never to rest till you had recovered all which you once enjoyed. Nay, and you will recover it with increase; you will find a deeper communion with God, and a more full self-devotion than ever. An earnest of this was given you the other day. Hold that fast, and continually expect the rest. How did you find yourself on Thursday morning Had you not again a taste of the great salvation And how have you been since Are you still happy in God, and resolved not to rest till you are all devoted to Him See that you do not fall again into evil reasonings! Be simple before God! Continue instant in prayer; and watch against whatever you know by experience to be a weight upon your mind. How soon may you then have your whole desire! How soon may your heart be all love! Why not now All things are ready! Only believe! And speak freely to, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Hilton, In Beverley. To Jane Hilton GUISELEY, July 1, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--You must now expect temptations. Perhaps they will assault you on every side; for all the powers of hell are enraged at you and will use every art to move you from your steadfastness. But He that is for you is greater than all that are against you: only beware of evil reasoning! Hang simply on Him that loves you, and whom you love; just as a little helpless child. Christ is yours, all yours: that is enough. Lean your whole soul upon Him! Do you find a witness in yourself that He has cleansed your heart Do you feel this always And have you a constant sense of the loving presence of God You never need lose anything that God has given, so you keep close to Him. Be little and mean in your own eyes, glorying only in the Lord. And do not cease to pray for Your affectionate brother. You may direct to me at Epworth, near Thorne, Yorkshire. It is a pity but you should now read the Plain Account of Christian Perfection (I suppose you may get it at Hull) and the First Epistle of St. John. To Miss March July 5, 1768. I am more inclined to congratulate you than to condole with you upon your present situation. Many circumstances concurred to expose you to the greatest of all dangers-- that of being generally commended. It is therefore a peculiarly gracious providence whereby this danger is turned aside, and that without any particular fault or even imprudence on your part. You may now experience the truth of that fine reflection, ’Nothing is more profitable for us than to suffer reproach for a good action done with a single eye.’ Nevertheless you cannot be excused from speaking plain to Sarah Crosby and A[nn Foard]; and the sooner this is done the better, lest their want of judgement should produce more ill effects. Certainly you should labour to convince them that they were altogether in a fault. In any wise they should have spoke to you first; then, if you had not satisfied them, they might have gone farther. But what can be done for the poor young woman I am afraid lest she should be turned out of the way. You will hardly need that tract for a time, as you have Mr. Brainerd’s Life. There is a pattern of self-devotion and deadness to the world! But how much of his sorrow and pain had been prevented, if he had understood the doctrine of Christian Perfection! How many tears did he shed because it was impossible to be freed from sin! As you have not the same outward trials which many have, it is highly needful you should have some inward ones; although they need not be either many or long. If you walk closely with God, He is able to give any degree of holiness, either by pleasure or pain. S[ally] [Sarah Ryan died on Aug. 17.] continues with you a little longer to quicken you in the way. Why should not a living Christian be exactly of the same spirit with a dying Christian, seeing the difference between her life and ours is nothing when compared to eternity The last scene of life in dying believers is of great use to those who are about them. Here we see the reality of religion and of things eternal; and nothing has a greater tendency to solemnize the soul and make and keep it dead to all below. We are reasonable creatures, and undoubtedly reason is the candle of the Lord. By enlightening our reason to see the meaning of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit makes our way plain before us. To Walter Sellon WAKEFIELD, July 9, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you have undertaken the Redemption Redeemed. But you must in no wise forget Dr. Owen’s Answer to it; otherwise you will leave a loophole for all the Calvinists to creep out. The doctor’s evasions you must needs cut in pieces, either interweaving your answers with the body of the work under each head or adding them in marginal notes. Your ever affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton MY DEAR SISTER,--Coming here this afternoon, I found your welcome letter. I would have you write as often as you can. For you have need of every possible help; inasmuch as your grace is as yet young and tender, and all the powers of darkness are at work to move you from your steadfastness, But it is enough that Christ is yours; and He is wiser and stronger than all the powers of hell. Hang upon Him, and you are safe; lean on Him with the whole weight of your soul. Do you find now as clear an evidence of the invisible as of the visible world And are your thoughts continually fixed on the God of your salvation Do you pray without ceasing Does He preserve you even in your dreams Hold fast what you have, and look for more; for there is no end of His goodness. Mr. Robertshaw is to stay with you another year; and doubt not the Lord will stay with you for ever. Think always of Him; and think sometimes of Your affectionate brother. To-morrow I go hence; but I expect to be here again next week, and to stay here till Monday se’nnight. To Thomas Adam SWINFLEET, July 19, 1768. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--One of Wintringham informed me yesterday that you said no sensible and well-meaning man could hear and much less join the Methodists; because they all acted under a lie, professing themselves members of the Church of England while they licensed themselves as Dissenters. You are a little misinformed. The greater part of the Methodist preachers are not licensed at all; and several that are are not licensed as Dissenters. I instance particularly in Thomas Adams and Thomas Brisco. When Thomas Adams desired a license, one of the Justices said, ’Mr. Adams, are not you of the Church of England Why, then, do you desire a license’ He answered, ’Sir, I am of the Church of England; yet I desire a license, that I may legally defend myself from the illegal violence of oppressive men.’ T. Brisco being asked the same question in London, and the Justice adding, ’We will not grant you a license,’ his lawyer replied, ’Gentlemen, you cannot refuse it: the Act is a mandatory act. You have no choice.’ One asked the chairman, ’Is this true’ He shook his head, and said, ’He is in the right.’ The objection, therefore, does not lie at all against the greater part of the Methodist preachers; because they are either licensed in this form or not licensed at all. When others applied for a license, the Clerk or Justice said, ’I will not license you but as Protestant Dissenters.’ They replied, ’We are of the Church; we are not Dissenters: but if you will call us so, we cannot help it.’ They did call them so in their certificates, but this did not make them so. They still call themselves members of the Church of England; and they believe themselves so to be. Therefore neither do these act under a lie. They speak no more than they verily believe. Surely, then, unless there are stronger objections than this, both well-meaning and sensible men may, in perfect consistence with their sense and sincerity, not only hear but join the Methodists. We are in truth so far from being enemies to the Church, that we are rather bigots to it. I dare not, like Mr. Venn, leave the parish church where I am to go to an Independent meeting. I dare not advise others to go thither rather than to church. I advise all over whom I have any influence steadily to keep to the Church. Meantime I advise them to see that the kingdom of God is within them; that their hearts be full of love to God and man; and to look upon all, of whatever opinion, who are ike-minded, as their ’brother and sister and mother.’ O sir, what art of men or devils is this which makes you so studiously stand aloof from those who are thus minded I cannot but say to you, as I did to Mr. Walker (and I say it the more freely because Quid mea refert I am neither better nor worse, whether you hear or forbear), ’The Methodists do not want you; but you want them.’ You want the life, the spirit, the power which they have, not of themselves, but by the free grace of God; else how could it be (let me speak without reserve) that so good a man and so good a preacher should have so little fruit of his labour--his unwearied labour--for so many years Have your parishioners the life of religion in their souls Have they so much as the form of it Are the people of Wintringham in general any better than those of Winterton or Horton Alas! sir, what is it that hinders your reaping the fruit of so much pains and so many prayers Is it not possible this may be the very thing, your setting yourself against those whom God owns by the continual conviction and conversion of sinners I fear, as long as you in any wise oppose these, your rod will not blossom, neither will you see the desire of your soul, in the prosperity of the souls committed to your charge. I pray God to give you a right judgement in all things; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To John Mason PEMBROKE, August 6, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I would advise to make a longer trial of Kinsale. I am still in hope that good will be done there. And there has been considerable good done at Bandon; and will be more if the preachers do not coop themselves up in the house. But no great good will be done at any place without field-preaching. I hope you labour to keep the bands regular in every place, which cannot be done without a good deal of care and pains. Take pains likewise with the children and in visiting from house to house; else you will see little fruit of your labour. I believe it will be best to change the preachers more frequently.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother To the Stewards of the Foundery PEMBROKE, August 6, 1768. MY DEAR BRETHREN,--The thing you mention is of no small concern, and ought not to be determined hastily. Indeed, it would be easy to answer, if we considered only how to save money; but we are to consider also how to save souls. Now, I doubt whether we should act wisely in this respect were we to give up the chapel in Spitalfields. We have no other preaching-place in or near that populous quarter of the town; and a quarter which, upon one account, I prefer before almost any other--namely, that the people in general are more simple and less confused by any other preachers. I think, therefore, it would not be worth while to give up this if we could gain a thousand pounds thereby. I should look upon it as selling the souls of men for money; which God will give us in due time without this. That many who live near the Foundery would be glad of it I allow, because it would save them trouble. But neither can I put the saving of trouble in competition with the saving of souls.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton BRISTOL, August 20, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--I write often because I know you are yet weak and tender and in need of every help. I am not sorry that you have trials; they are intended to show you your own helplessness, and to give you a fuller confidence in Him who has all power in heaven and earth. You have reason to cast all your care upon Him; for He has dealt bountifully with you. When any trial comes, see that you do not look to the thing itself, but immediately look unto Jesus. Reason not upon it, but believe. See the hand of God in Shimei’s tongue. If you want advice in any point, write to me without delay. And meantime stay your whole soul upon Him who will never leave you nor forsake you. Tell Him simply all you fear, all you feel, all you want. Pour out your soul into His bosom. Do you feel no pride, no anger, no desire You will feel temptations to all; and the old deceiver will tell you again and again, ’That is pride, that is anger!’ But regard him not. And cast not away your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. Your affectionate brother. I am to spend a month or two in and near Bristol. To Lawrence Coughlan [August 27, 1768,] DEAR LAWRENCE,--By a various train of providences you have been led to the very place where God intended you should be. And you have reason to praise Him that He has not suffered your labour there to be in vain. In a short time how little will it signify whether we had lived in the Summer Islands or beneath The rage of Arctos and eternal frost! [See Prior’s Solomon, i. 264-5:’If any suffer on the polar coast The rage of Arctos and eternal frost.’] How soon will this dream of life be at an end! And when we are once landed in eternity, it will be all one whether we spent our time on earth in a palace or had not where to lay our head. You never learned, either from my conversation or preaching or writings, that ’holiness consisted in a flow of joy.’ I constantly told you quite the contrary: I told you it was love; the love of God and our neighbour; the image of God stamped on the heart; the life of God in the soul of man; the mind that was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ also walked. If Mr. Maxfield or you took it to be anything else, it was your own fault, not mine. And whenever you waked out of that dream, you ought not to have laid the blame of it upon me. It is true that joy is one part of ’the fruit of the Spirit,’ of the kingdom of God within us. But this is first ’righteousness,’ then ’peace,’ and ’joy in the Holy Ghost.’ It is true, farther, that if you love God with ’all your heart’ you may ’rejoice evermore.’ Nay, it is true still farther that many serious, humble, sober-minded believers, who do feel the love of God sometimes, and do then rejoice in God their Saviour, cannot be content with this, but pray continually that He would enable them to love and ’rejoice in the Lord always.’ And no fact under heaven is more undeniable than that God does answer this prayer; that He does, for the sake of His Son, and through the power of His Spirit, enable one and another so to do. It is also a plain fact that this power does commonly overshadow them in an instant, and that from that time they enjoy that inward and outward holiness to which they were utter strangers before. Possibly you might be mistaken in this; perhaps you thought you had received what you had not. But pray do not measure all men by yourself; do not imagine you are the universal standard. If you deceived yourself (which yet I do not affirm), you should not infer that all others do. Many think they are justified, and are not; but we cannot infer that none are justified. So neither, if many think they are ’perfected in love,’ and are not, will it follow that none are so. Blessed be God, though we set an hundred enthusiasts aside, we are still ’encompassed with a cloud of witnesses,’ who have testified, and do testify, in life and in death, that perfection which I have taught these forty years! This perfection cannot be a delusion, unless the Bible be a delusion too; I mean, ’loving God with all our heart and our neighbour as ourselves.’ I pin down all its opposers to this definition of it. No evasion! No shifting the question! Where is the delusion of this Either you received this love or you did not; if you did, dare you call it a delusion You will not call it so for all the world. If you received anything else, it does not at all affect the question. Be it as much a delusion as you please, it is nothing to them who have received quite another thing-- namely, that deep communion with the Father and the Son, whereby they are enabled to give Him their whole heart, to love every man as their own soul, and to walk as Christ also walked. O Lawrence, if Sister Coughlan and you ever did enjoy this, humble yourselves before God for casting it away; if you did not, God grant you may To James Morgan ST. JUST, September 3, 1768. DEAR JEMMY,--I have been thinking much of you; and why should I not tell you all I think and all I fear concerning you I think all that you said at the Conference [In Bristol on Aug. 16-19.] upon the subject of the late debate was right; and it amounted to no more than this,--’The general rule is, they who are in the favour of God know they are so. But there may be some few exceptions. Some may fear and love God, and yet not be clearly conscious of His favour; at least, they may not dare to affirm that their sins are forgiven.’ If you put the case thus, I think no man in his senses will be under any temptation to contradict you; for none can doubt but whosoever loves God is in the favour of God. But is not this a little misstating the case I do not conceive the question turned here. But you said, or was supposed to say, ’All penitents are in the favour of God,’ or ’All who mourn after God are in the favour of God.’ And this was what many disliked, because they thought it was unscriptural and unsafe as well as contrary to what we had always taught. That this is contrary to what we have always taught is certain, as all our hymns as well as other writings testify. So that, whether it be true or not, it is without all question a new doctrine among the Methodists. We have always taught that a penitent mourned or was pained on this very account, because he felt he was ’not in the favour of God,’ having a sense of guilt upon his conscience and a sense of the divine displeasure at the same time. Hence we supposed the language of his heart was, ’Lost and undone, for aid I cry.’ And we believed he was really lost and undone till God did Peace, righteousness, and joy impart, And speak forgiveness to his heart. I still apprehend this to be scriptural doctrine, confirmed not by a few detached texts, but by the whole tenor of Scripture, and more particularly by the Epistle to the Romans. But if so, the contrary to it must be unsafe, for that general reason, because it is unscriptural. To which one might add this particular reason,--it naturally tends to lull mourners to sleep; to make them cry, ’Peace, peace,’ to their souls, ’when there is no peace.’ It directly tends to damp and still their convictions, and to encourage them to sit down contented before Christ is revealed to them and before the Spirit witnesses with their spirits that they are the children of God. But it may be asked, ’Will not this discourage mourners’ Yes, it will discourage them from stopping where they are; it will discourage them from resting before they have the witness in themselves, before Christ is revealed in them. But it will encourage them to seek Him in the gospel way--to ask till they receive pardon and peace. And we are to encourage them, not by telling them that they are in the favour of God though they do not know it (such a word as this we should never utter in a congregation at the peril of our souls), but we should assure them, ’Every one that seeketh findeth, every one that asketh receiveth.’ If a man does not know the pardoning love of God for himself, I would ask, How or by what means are you to know it for him Has God given you to search the heart and try the reins of your hearers Can you infallibly know the real state of that man’s mind Can you be certain that no secret sin stands between God and his soul Are you sure he does not regard iniquity in his heart I am afraid you have not been sufficiently wary in this, but have given occasion to them who sought occasion. But this is not all. I doubt you did not see the hand of God in Shimei’s tongue. ’Unto you it was given to suffer’ a little of what you extremely wanted--obloquy and evil report. But you did not either acknowledge the gift or the Giver. You saw only Mr. T. Olivers, not God. O Jemmy, you do not know yourself. You cannot bear to be continually steeped in poison --in the esteem and praise of men; therefore I tremble at your stay in Dublin. It is the most dangerous place for you under heaven! All I can say is, God can preserve you in the fiery furnace, and I hope He will.--I am, dear Jemmy, Yours affectionately. To his Wife NEWLYN, September 5, 1768. MY DEAR LOVE,--I can make allowances for faintness and weakness and pain. I remember when it was my own case at this very place, and when you spared no pains in nursing and waiting upon me, till it pleased God to make you the chief instrument of restoring my strength. [For this illness at Newlyn in July 1753, see Journal, iv. 77. The ’we’ in the entries for July 12 and 18 evidently included his wife, to whom he had been married rather more than two years. It was apparently the beginning of the serious illness which sent him into retirement at Lewisham, where he wrote his own epitaph on Nov. 26.] I am glad you have the advice of a skilful physician. But you must not be surprised or discouraged if you do not recover your strength so soon as one might wish, especially at this time of the year. What is chiefly to be desired is that God may sanctify all His dispensations to you: that all may be means of your being more entirely devoted to Him whose favour is better than strength or health or life itself.--I am, dear Molly, Your ever affectionate Husband. To Lady Maxwell REDRUTH, September 9, 1768. MY DEAR LADY,--It is impossible for me to give you pain without feeling it myself. And yet the manner wherein you receive my plain dealing gives me pleasure too. Perhaps you never had so uncomplaisant a correspondent before. Yet I think you hardly ever had one who had a more tender regard for you. But it is this very thing which lays me under a constraint to tell you all I hear or fear concerning you, because I cannot be content that you should be a Christian after the common rate. No. I want you to have all the mind that was in Christ and in everything to walk as He walked. To live like an angel here below, unblameable in spotless love. What a comfort it is when we can have confidence in each other! I rejoice that you can speak freely even upon so delicate a subject. You may be assured that no eye but mine shall see your letter. One cannot be too wary in things of this kind; some men are so weak, and others so wicked. I give entire credit to everything you say, particularly concerning Mr. H.[’H.’ is Christopher Hopper.]; and I join with you in thinking there must be some mistake in the person who informed me of that circumstance. I do not believe he uttered such a word. I cannot think him capable of it. I am now entirely easy upon that head, being persuaded that, through the power of Christ strengthening you, you will stand fast both in the inward and outward liberty wherewith He has made you free. I am glad to hear Lady Baird [See letter of April 29, 1769.] has the courage to cast in her lot with a poor, despised people. In what instance do you apprehend Lady Baird to be in danger of enthusiasm When I know more particularly, I will take an opportunity of either speaking or writing. I suppose a copy of the strange account of Eliz. Hobson [For the account of Elizabeth Hobson’s apparitions, see letter of Sept. 12, 1782, to a Quaker.] was sent you from Newcastle from my papers. Not long after, the former half of these papers, eight pages out of sixteen, was taken away, none can tell how to this day. What I could remember, I wrote down again. But I question whether my memory served me as to every circumstance, and must therefore ask of you a copy of what was lost. If you please, Mr. Thompson [William Thompson was at this time Wesley’s Assistant in Edinburgh.] can transcribe it for me. The thing is now brought, I hope, to a final issue. She has met him at Boyldon Hill, when he took his leave with, ’I shall see you no more, in time or eternity.’ How much happiness is it for us that we hope to see each other both in time and in eternity! ’Nor shorter space true love can satisfy.’ That you may be daily more athirst both for holiness and glory is the prayer of, my dear Lady, Your affectionate servant. I am now setting my face toward Bristol. To George Merryweather BRISTOL, September 26, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have appointed Richard Boardman [Boardman was Assistant in the Dales, and took the place of Rowell at Yarm.] to supply (for the present at least) the place of Jacob Rowell. I desire John Heslop [Heslop was second preacher at Yarm in 1767. He had evidently been paying attention to a lady there. See letter of Oct.1.] may preach at Yarm no more. Quietly let him sink into nothing. And the less he preaches in other places the better till he comes again to his senses. Indeed, if anything of so notorious a kind occurs, I will thank any steward for preventing such a preacher from doing any more hurt till he has an answer from me.--I am, with love to Sister Merryweather, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton BRISTOL, September 30, 1768. Indeed, Jenny, you hardly deserve to hear from me. What, put me off with a letter of two lines! See that you make me amends by the length of your next; or else I will be angry at you, if I can. You, as it were, ask my advice. But I know nothing of the matter: you should have spoken to me when I saw you. Is the person a believer Is he a Methodist Is he a member of our Society Is he clear with regard to the doctrine of Perfection Is he athirst for it If he fails in any of these particulars, I fear he would be an hindrance to you rather than an help. Was not inordinate affection to him one cause of your losing the pure love of God before If it was, you have a great reason to be afraid lest it should again rob you of that pearl. Has it not already Have you all the life you had two months ago Is your soul still all love Speak freely, my dear Jenny, to Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, October 1, 1768. Truly, Christopher, I am at my wits’ end. I know not what can be done. Possibly you may instruct me. The poor man is an incorrigible coxcomb. His last exploit with Mr. Oastler’s niece has pinned the casket. I cannot imagine what can be done with him or how he can be trusted anywhere. He can be in no part of the South or West of England; neither my brother nor many others could suffer it. There is no vacancy in the North of England; and wherever he has been there, they are sick of him. I ask you again, Where can he be, where he will not do mischief In any part of Scotland or of Ireland If the time was come for my voyage to Ireland, I would take him with me, and drop him there.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Hall KINGSWOOD, October 6, I 768. DEAR PATTY,--You do not consider, money never stays with me: it would burn me if it did. I throw it out of my hands as soon as possible, lest it should find a way into my heart. Therefore you should have spoken to me while I was in London, and before Miss Lewen’s money flew away. [Wesley had settled some disputed points with Miss Lewen’s father, and received on Nov. 2, 1767, the 1,000 legacy which she left him. See Journal, v. 226-7; Stamp’s Orphan House, pp. 111-112; Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 589-90.] However, I know not but I may still spare you five pounds, provided you will not say, ’I will never ask you again,’ because that is more than you can tell; and you must not promise more than you can perform. I scarce know what to say with regard to the other affair. It is a delicate point. Is she sure of her temporal affairs Remember her whom Lawrence Coughlan [See letters of Aug. 27, 1768, and Feb. 25, 1785 (to John Stretton).] married and ruined. Let me not have another blot of the same kind. Let her take care to tread upon firm ground. Oh how busy are mankind! and about what trifles! Things that pass away as a dream! Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, but to love and serve God.--I am, dear Patty, Your ever affectionate. To Jane Hilton BRISTOL, October 8, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--You need never be afraid of ’wearying my patience,’ unless it be by your silence. There is no danger of your writing too often or too much; whatever comes from you is welcome. I can easily believe the description you give is just; therefore there are only two particulars remaining: First, Have you both the consent of your parents Without this there is seldom a blessing. Secondly, Is he able to keep you I mean in such a manner as you have lived hitherto. Otherwise, remember I When poverty comes in at the door, love flies out at the window. Do you find as much as ever of the spirit of prayer and of continual watchfulness Are you always sensible of the presence of God in the greatest hurry of business Have you power over wandering thoughts And do you find as much union of spirit as ever with, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Jenny Hilton, At Mr. Francis Hilton’s, In Beverley, Yorkshire. To Joseph Benson WYCOMBE, November 7, 1768. DEAR JOSEPH,--You have now twenty more volumes of the Philosophical Transactions. Dr. Burton’s Latin and Greek Poems you have in the study.[At Kingswood School.] Malebranche [Included in the list of studies for fourth year. See History of Kingswood School, p. 66.] and some other books are coming. Logic you cannot crack without a tutor: I must read it to Peter and you, if we live to meet. It would not be amiss if I had a catalogue of the books at Kingswood; then I should know the better what to buy. As fast as I can meet with them at sales, I shall procure what are yet wanting. But beware you be not swallowed up in books: an ounce of love is worth a pound of knowledge.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, November 12, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--You may always direct to me in London, and the letter will be sent to me wherever I am. There is at present a better prospect at Henley than there has been for several years; and I trust you will see more fruit at Wycombe than there has lately been. Stir up the gift of God that is in you! Willingly catch all opportunities of warning every one and exhorting every one, if by any means you may save some! Cast off every weight! Beware of everything that damps or deadens your soul! If you may be free from the cares and entanglements of another state of life, use it rather.[Referring to an offer of marriage from an ungodly young man which she had refused.] Surely you are happier if you so abide. Now you have but one care: keep yourself in the love of God, in His pure love, by growing therein. Rejoice, pray, give thanks evermore. Cleave closer to Him that loves you; and for His sake love, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, November 12, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--I believe Mr. Rankin [Rankin had been Assistant at Epworth for two years, and was now in Cornwall.] will write soon. You did well to write to me. I am always glad to hear from you, more than from most other persons. I can hardly believe John Harrison’s [Harrison was a ’Still’ brother at Epworth. See Journal, iii. 5, 19.] story. Perhaps one ought not to believe it without having the accuser and accused face for face, especially if the girl has behaved well while she has been with you. It may be you did not pray for her, and then anger would easily arise. You must trust God with Mr. Woodhouse, [See letter of Feb. 3, 1768.] and He will do all things well. There is very little danger in any sore throat if, as soon as it begins, you apply an handful of nettles boiled, and repeated if need be after six hours. I have known one cured at the beginning by drinking a pint and an half of cold water and steeping his feet in hot water. But all strong drinks are hurtful. I have not lately heard from John Standring. [Standring, then travelling in South Lancashire, appears in the Minutes in 1766. He was greatly beloved by those among whom he laboured. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 400.] Do you now retain the love you had and the spirit of prayer And are you still able to give your whole heart to God Cleave to Him, and what can hurt you And write freely to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To John Mason LONDON, November 15, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--For one preacher to stay long at one place is neither profitable for him nor for the people. If there is only one preacher at Limerick, he must duly visit the country Societies. As David Evans is now gone over to Waterford, Brother Bourke will be at liberty. So either he or you should go without delay and relieve John Hilton at Londonderry. If any deny the witness of sanctification and occasion disputing in the select society, let him or her meet therein no more. I hope the singing goes on well.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To George Cussons LONDON, November 18, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--When you seek God with fasting added to prayer, you cannot seek His face in vain. This has been exceedingly blessed in various parts, and the revival of God’s work has begun at the very time. You would do well to have several meetings of this kind as well as frequent meetings for prayer. Undoubtedly the visits paid you by Dr. Conyers, by Mr. Venn, and Mr. King [John King, Rector of Pertonhall, Beds (1752-1800), Cowper’s schoolfellow. See Journal, v. 61, 63n.] were so many answers to prayer; and He will not withhold from you any manner of thing that is good. It is by patient continuance in well doing, in using all the grace which is already given you, that you are to seek the whole gift of God, the entire renewal of your soul, the full deliverance from sin. And do not think it far off: this is the voice of unbelief. He is nigh that sanctifieth: only believe, and feel Him near. This is what you should continually insist on, the nearness of the promise. And, indeed, if it is to be received by naked faith, by consequence it may be received now.-- I am, dear George, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton LONDON, November 26, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--There seems to have been a particular providence in Hannah Harrison’s coming to Beverley, especially at that very time when a peace-maker was so much wanting; and it was a pledge that God will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good. The words of our Lord Himself show us what we are to expect from ’those of our own household.’ But all this likewise shall be for good. ’It is given to you to suffer’ for Him; and all will turn to your profit, that you may be more largely a partaker of His holiness. Do you feel, when you are tried in a tender point, no temper contrary to love Grief there may be; but is there no resentment or anger Do you feel invariable calmness of spirit Do you perceive nothing but pity and tender goodwill both at the time and afterwards Write to me of the trials you meet with. You may always direct to London, and the letter will come safe. Expect more faith and love daily. Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, December 1, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Last year Mr. H.[See letter Of Nov. 24, 1767.] was much persuaded that by means of the Yearly Subscription our whole debt of above eleven thousand pounds would be paid within two years. Many of our brethren were more sanguine still. They were persuaded that, by generously exerting themselves and giving a large sum at once, it would be paid in one year. I did not expect this; but I would not contradict, because I would not discourage them. The event was as I foresaw. By the noble effort which many of our brethren made most of the pressing debts are already discharged, amounting in the whole to near five thousand pounds. But a debt of above seven thousand pounds remains upon us still; and what can be done with regard to this I will tell you what occurs to my mind. Many of our brethren chose to subscribe yearly ten, five, three, two guineas or less. I doubt not but these will cheerfully pay the residue of their subscription, and perhaps some of them will add a little thereto, as they see the great occasion there is for it. A few delayed subscribing or contributing, because they ’wanted to see the event,’ supposing the design to be impracticable and that nothing ’would come of it.’ As it now appears that great good has come of it, that many burthens are already removed, I cannot but earnestly exhort all these now at least to set their shoulders to the work. Now at least let them exert themselves for my sake, for the gospel’s sake, and for the sake of their still afflicted brethren who groan under a load which they cannot well bear and yet cannot remove without our assistance. Several generously contributed at once in hopes of paying the whole debt; of them nothing more can be required but their prayers that others may be as open-hearted as themselves. Nevertheless, if of their own free goodwill they see good to add a little to their former benefaction, this as well as the former is lent unto the Lord, and what they lay out shall be paid them again. Ought I not to add that there were some of our brethren who did not answer my expectations I knew they were able to assist me largely; and I flattered myself they were not less willing than able, as they owed me their own souls also, and this was the first favour of the kind which I had requested of them. Let me be excused from saying any more of what is past. Let them now drop all excuses and objections, and show they love me and their brethren and the work of God not in word only but in deed and in truth. Let me have joy over you, my brother, in particular. You have a measure of this world’s goods. You see your brother hath need. I have need of your help, inasmuch as the burthens of my brethren are my own. Do not pass by on the other side, but come and help as God has enabled you. Do all you can to lighten the labour and--strengthen the hands of Your affectionate brother.[An identical letter, addressed to Mr. Mark Middleton, was in the hands of Mr. George Stampe, dated Dec. 7, 1768.] To Christopher Hopper LONDON, December 3, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Regard not custom, but reason.[Hopper was the preacher in the Birstall Circuit.] I wish you would (1) Nowhere begin preaching later than seven in the evening; (2) Preach nowhere unless they can and will procure you a tolerable lodging; (3) Change the stewards as soon as may be, whoever is pleased or displeased; (4) Execute our discipline in every point without fear or favour; (5) Expect no thanks from Richard Taylor nor any man else for doing him good.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 4, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot yet convince you of one thing (and it is a thing of importance), that you may make greater progress in valuable knowledge by reading those books (particularly if read in that order) than you can by reading any other books which are now extant in England. It follows that your friend B-- in this respect is not your friend. For he puts you out of your way; he retards you in the attainment of the most useful knowledge. He gratifies your curiosity (a bad principle too) at the expense of your improvement. It is better for you to read these books than his; which (if they are not hurtful or dangerous at least) do not lead directly to the end you propose. Choose the best way.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather LEWISHAM, December 10, 1768. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The matter is short: all things in divine worship must ’be done decently and in order.’ Two must never pray at the same time, nor one interrupt another. Either Alice Brammah must take advice or the Society must be warned to keep away from her. These are the very things which were the beginning of poor George Bell’s fall.--I am, with love to Sister Merryweather, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, December 11, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am afraid lest you should straiten yourself; and I was not in haste. Yet we have such a number round about us here that I have a ready call for what I have to spare. I am glad Brother Taylor’s affair has been heard: it seems all parties are now pretty well satisfied. If we live till next autumn, the yearly Conference is to be at Leeds. It will be a little strange if you do not see me then, though it were twice three miles from Gildersome. You have no reason to fear, but as your day so your strength shall be. Hitherto the Lord has helped you. He has delivered; and you may be assured that He will yet deliver. He gave, and He took away: but still you can praise Him, since He does not take His Spirit from you. I hope you find no shyness in Brother Lee or Hopper. If there be, you are to overcome evil with good. I shall alw ays be glad to hear from you or Sally Crosby. I trust neither life nor death will part you from, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bosanquet, At Mr. James Rhodes’s, In Leeds. To his Brother Charles LONDON, December 17, 1768. DEAR BROTHER,--I thank you for your reproof; there is reason in what you say. If there was not evil, there was the appearance of evil. [Two hours on Tuesday and four hours on Thursday I listened with both my ears. John Downes, his wife, John Jones, and William Evans vehemently accused. William Garrat answered (though interrupted an hundred times keenly enough) point by point. When the hearing was over, the strongest thing of all was, we seemed all agreed in our verdict, --(1) that he had spoken several hot and improper things; (2) that he had done wrong in leaving his master [Mr. Dear.] on so short warning; and yet (3) that there had been no dishonesty, either on the one part or the other. [’How, then, came the man to break’ Why--, (1) in four years’ time he earned six hundred pounds; (2) within that time he expended (including a few bad debts) about seventeen hundred and fifty.] Matters have not been well carried out at Liverpool. But what can’t be cured must be endured. Why, you simpleton, you are cutting me out a month’s work. Nay, but I have neither leisure nor inclination to write a book. I intend only (1) to leave out what I most dislike; (2) to mark what I most approve of; (3) to prefix a short preface. And I shall run the hazard of printing it at Bristol. There you yourself can read the proof-sheets. You do well with regard to my sister Emily. What farther is wanting I will supply. I hear nothing from or of our friend [Mrs. Wesley] at Newcastle. I have no time for Handel or Avison now. Peace be with you and yours. Adieu. I am now a mere Fellow of a college again. To Joseph Benson SHOREHAM, December 22, 1768. MY DEAR JOSEPH,--You do not quite take my meaning yet. [See letter of Dec. 4.] When I recommend to any one a method or scheme of study, I do not barely consider this or that book separately but in conjunction with the rest. And what I recommend I know; I know both the style and sentiments of each author, and how he will confirm or illustrate what goes before and prepare for what comes after. Now, supposing Mr. Stonehouse, [Dr. James Stonehouse, lecturer of All Saints’, Bristol. See Tyerman’s Whitefield, ii. 195; and for James Rouquet, letter of March 30, 1761.] Rouquet, or any other to have ever so great learning and judgement, yet he does not enter into my plan. He does not comprehend my views nor keep his eye fixed on the same point. Therefore I must insist upon it, the interposing other books between these till you have read them through is not good husbandry. It is not making your time and pains go so far as they might go. If you want more books, let me recommend more, who best understand my own scheme. And do not ramble, however learned the persons may be that advise you so to do. This does indulge curiosity, but does not minister to real improvement, as a stricter method would do. No; you would gain more clearness and strength of judgement by reading those Latin and Greek books (compared with which most of the English are whipped syllabub) than by fourscore modern books. I have seen the proof, as none of your Bristol friends have done or can do. Therefore I advise you again, keep to your plan (though this implies continual self-denial) if you would improve your understanding to the highest degree of which it is capable.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Hilton SHOREHAM, December 22, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not remember that I ever found a fault in you before. But I do now. I must blame you. Why are you so short You can tell me all that is in your heart. And what should hinder you Suppose I was now sitting by you, would you need to hide anything And sometimes we can write what we cannot speak. But, either in writing or speaking, there need be no reserve between us. You mention trials. But this is a general word. Would it not ease your mind to be more particular Are your trials mostly inward or outward Are they from those of your own household Can any one lay disobedience to your charge Or do they only say you are proud and stubborn Let them say everything they can. Still look unto Jesus! Commune with Him in your heart! Let your eye be singly fixed on Him; your whole soul shall be full of light!--I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Jenny Hilton, At Mr. Hilton’s, In Beverley. To Hannah Ball LONDON, December 24, 1768. Nothing can be more certain than that God is willing to give always what He gives once, and that therefore, whatever you experience now, you may enjoy to your life’s end. . . . Watch and pray, and you will not enter into temptation. . . . Be the success more or less, never be weary of well doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. . . . To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, December 28, 1768. MY DEAR SISTER,--To hear from you is always agreeable to me; and at present there is no hindrance. In this house we have no jarring string; all is peace and harmony. [Mrs. Wesley was away from the Foundery.] Right precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. And to hear particular accounts of this kind is exceedingly helpful to those they leave behind. Therefore I wanted as particular an account as Sally Crosby or you can give. [Of the death of Sarah Ryan. See letter of Dec. 11.] T. Lee is of a shy, backward, natural temper, as well as of a slow, cool speech and behaviour; but he is a sincere, upright man; and it will be worth all the pains to have a thorough good understanding with him. Peace be with your spirits!-- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bosanquet, At Gildersome Hall, near Leeds. To a Friend To Dr. Brown [1768.] SIR,--Since I had the pleasure of waiting upon you, I [have] been often reflecting on the account given us of the Indians in Paraguay. It is about four and twenty years since I read the first account of them, translated from a French author. It then made much the same impression on my mind, which I believe it has now made on yours. Permit me, Sir, to speak my free thoughts concerning it, which I shall be glad to alter, upon better information. I am throughly persuaded that true, genuine religion is capable of working all those happy effects which are said to be wrought there; and that, in the most ignorant and savage of the human-kind. I have seen instances of this: no Indians are more savage than were the colliers of Kingswood; many of whom are now an humane, hospitable people full of love to God and man; quiet, diligent in business; in every state content; every way adorning the Gospel of God their Saviour. But the difficulty with me lies here. I am not persuaded, that the Romish Missionaries (very few excepted) either know, or teach, true, genuine religion. And of all their Missionaries, generally speaking, the Jesuits are the worst. They teach nothing less than the true genuine religion of Jesus Christ. They spend their main strength in teaching their converts, so called, the opinions and usages of their Church. Perhaps the most religious that ever was among them, was their ’East Indian Apostle,’ Francis Xavier. And from his own Letters (four volumes of which I had) it plainly appears, that (whether he knew it himself or no) he never taught one tittle of the religion of the heart, but barely opinions and externals. Now what virtue, what happiness can possibly spring from such a root as this Allowing then, that the Paraguay converts have peace and plenty, allowing they have moral honesty, allowing they have an outward form of religion (and thus far I know not but their guides may bring them), I cannot believe they have gone one step farther, or that they know what True Religion is. Do their instructors experience the inward Kingdom of God Righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost And if not, are they likely to lead others, any farther than they have gone themselves Can they point out The Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind, Each Prayer accepted, and each Wish resigned 7 Desires composed, Affections ever even; Tears that delight, and Sighs that waft to Heaven [Pope, Eloisa and Abelard, p. 207, quoted in Earnest Appeal, 3.] And without this, who can be happy Who can avoid feeling many dull, heavy hours Let the Indians eat, drink, dance, play: all this will not fill up the blanks of life. Their highest enjoyments will carry them no farther than ’Sauntring Jack and Idle Joan’ [An Epitaph, 1. 2: ’Without love, hatred, joy, or fear, They led-a kind of-as it were.’] in Prior. What can carry them any farther but heart-religion, ’Fellowship with the Father and with the Son’! O may you and yours always experience this better part, which alone takes away the weariness of life, which alone gives that heart-felt, that unceasing joy, the pledge and earnest of Life Eternal!--I am, sir, Your very humble servant. Edited by Jerry James (Pastor), and converted to HTML by Trent Friberg. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 62: 60. 1769 ======================================================================== 1769 To Joseph Benson [LONDON], January 2, 1769. You forget John Jones, Mr. Sellon, and Mr. Rouquet were far better scholars than Mr. Parkinson; and T. Simpson, yea and P. Price [See letter of Nov. 7, 1768.] (when he was well) were very properly qualified. But change of masters it is impossible to prevent, unless we could bribe them with much money, which I neither can nor will. The case lies here: A master may be weary on other accounts, but he certainly will if he do not grow in grace. Again, the devil is more deeply concerned against this school than against any other in England. If I cannot get proper masters for the languages, I shall let the school drop at the Conference. I will have another kind of school than that at Trevecca or none at all. I would within this year but for want of two things--time and money. So we must creep till we can fly. Again, in another letter: Your grand point is, Bring the boys into exact order, and that without delay. Do this at all hazards. I think we have found another master. In the meantime let John Whitehead learn all he can. [Whitehead was then stationed as a preacher in Bristol. see letter of Jan. 27, 1770, to him.] To Christopher Hopper LONDON, January 5, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If Joseph Cownley or you have a mind to step over to New York, I will not say you nay. I believe it would help your own health and help many precious souls. Tho. Taylor is very well at Alnwick. However, if you could raise a little money for his family I should be glad. Now let us see what you can do in the Grand Affair, the Lord being your Helper. I shall doubt whether your name be Christopher Hopper if Birstall Circuit does not subscribe more [Another hand has written above this in faded ink, ’Towards paying the General Debt.’] this year than the last. And take honest Tommy Lee and Daniel Bumstead by the hand. Go on in the name of the Lord. Speak, and speak again. Take no denial. Be as active as Sister Hopper would be if she was in your place. You love to do whatever contributes to the comfort of Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton January 12, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--That you have been exceedingly tempted is no bad sign. It puts you upon your guard. It makes you more sensible of your own weakness, and shows you where your strength lies. But take care of reasoning against yourself and against Him that loves you. See Him willing as well as able to save! Willing to save you now. Do not shrink back! Do not stagger at His promise, or fancy it to be far off. The word is nigh thee: look up, and take knowledge of His love. Believe, and thou shalt be saved. I believe Henry Tucker will call upon you in a few days, and, if it would be of use, will procure what he spoke of [Probably some medicine he had recommended.]. I was pleasing myself with the hopes of seeing you next week, and had laid out all my journey. But I had forgotten the day which we have desired all our brethren to observe as a day of thanksgiving. I must not be out of London then. So both you and I have need of patience. Your last visit [See letters of April 7, 1768, and Feb. 4, 1769, to her.] endeared you to me exceedingly. I hope it will not be the last. You say nothing about your health: so I am in hopes it rather grows better than worse. Pray do not stay a month before you write again to, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. My dear Nancy, adieu! To Miss Bolton, At Mr. Bolton’s, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Samuel Levick LONDON, January 19, I 769. DEAR SAMMY,--Let there now be an honest contention between Tommy Rankin and you which shall be most diligent with regard to the General Debt. Undoubtedly the Eastern Circuit shall be assisted out of the collection made in the Western, provided they do all they can themselves. Go on in faith, and you will prosper in this and all things. The comfort is that whatever you want is already purchased for you. All is ready. For Christ is ready. And He is yours. --I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Sam. Levick, At Mr. Nehem. Jane’s, [See letter of Feb. 9, 1765.] In Plymouth Dock. To Ann Bolton LONDON, February 4, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--You may be assured it is not want of inclination which keeps me from calling at Witney. [He had been kept in London.] But my time falls short. On Monday, March 6, I am to leave London to preach at Bath on Tuesday evening; in the residue of the week to visit the classes at Bristol; and on the Monday following to set out for Ireland. So that my time is little enough for my work, though I go the shortest way I can. With regard to yourself, you make me say more than I intended to say. I could not but admire your behaviour in London [See letter of Jan. 12.]: so affectionate, and yet so prudent. If we live till the latter end of the year, I hope we shall spend a little more time together. And surely it will be useful, not hurtful. But in the meantime take care of your health. Colds [See letter of Feb. 12.] are dangerous things to you, particularly at this time of the year. Ride as much as possible. Drink the bran water, and follow the other advices I have given you from time to time. I hope your having a convenient place for preaching will be much for the furtherance of the gospel. A blessing is ready for many; for you in particular. I say still, Dare to believe! Believe, and feel Him near! Put forth your hand and touch Him! Is He not standing at the door of your heart And do not forget, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. PS.--Don’t think of sending me anything; your love is sufficient. To Robert Costerdine LONDON, February 6, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--By the former rule of Conference you must not undertake any building till two-thirds of the money it will cost are subscribed. Now, I doubt you would hardly with all your strength be able to procure one-third at Doncaster. If you read publicly on any Sunday that letter from New York, you may then receive what the hearers are willing to give. I am not at all sorry that our brother Southwell [Serjeant Southwell, of Kendal, with whom Wesley spent a comfortable evening on March 21, 1767. See Journal, v. 201.] purposes settling at New York. On the 6th of March I am to set out for Bristol and Ireland.--I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Edward Bolton LONDON, February 12, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--A preaching-house can’t be too light or too airy. Therefore your windows must be large. And let them be sashes, opening downward; otherwise the air coming in would give the people cold. I do not know but it might be best to have either a paved or a boarded floor. And see that whatever is done be done neat and strong. It is the Lord’s work, and He will provide. I will give you ten pounds towards it; for which you may draw upon Mr. Franks when you please. [See Journal, v. 345.] I hope my dear Nancy is recovered from her cold. Don’t let her omit riding. [See letters of Feb. 4, 1769, and Jan. 25, 1770.] And make the best use of both her advice and example; for you know not how soon she may be taken away.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, February 15, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--You are not incapable of speaking just what you feel, just what nature and grace dictate. And you need never think of any difference between us; for we love one another. And it is a true observation, Love, like death, makes all distinctions void. [Prior’s Solomon, ii. 242. See letter of Aug. 9, 1772.] Think we are just sitting by each other as when I saw you last at Owston. And write just as you would speak to me-- as free, or, if you can, more freely. Meantime stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. Let temptations come as they will. Let them fly all round you. But they cannot enter unless you please. What temptations do you find the most troublesome Sometimes the most troublesome are not the most dangerous. But no danger can hurt you while you watch and pray: so long you are unconquerable. I know not why your name is not in the paper, if you are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. O be bold for a good Master!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Mrs. Woodhouse, Owston, Lincolnshire. To Robert Costerdine NORWICH, February 18, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If Jer. Cocker now lives in any known sin, he must not be in our Society. If he does not, you did not act wisely in putting him out of it. Stewards are not to govern our Societies; it is no part of their office. This belongs to the Assistant only, under my direction. I myself directed before that Jer. Cocker should have another trial. And you did not do well in running your head against me to please any man living. I say again, unless he now lives in sin, give him another trial.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Philothea Briggs LONDON, February 25, 1769. DEAR PHILLY,--You have no need to take thought for the morrow: as your day so your strength will be. With regard to little compliances, I should be of Miss March’s mind; only, if we begin, we know not where we shall stop. If you plead your conscience for not complying with anything, you must use the most mild and respectful expressions you possibly can, and God will order all things well. You will want no help which is in the power of, dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Jane Hilton LONDON, March I, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--I rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things. I believe you do not willingly lose any opportunity of speaking for a good Master. I apprehend you should particularly encourage the believers to give up all to God, and to expect the power whereby they will be enabled so to do every day and every moment. I hope none of your preachers speak against this, but rather press all the people forward. Do you now feel anything like anger, or pride, or selfwill, or any remains of the carnal mind Was your second deliverance wrought while I was at Beverley at the time of the sermon or after it You did not tell me in what manner you found the change, and whether it has continued without any intermission from that moment. Certainly there never need be any decay; there never will if you continue watching unto prayer. Continue to pray for Your affectionate brother. To John Valton LONDON, March 1, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Wherever you are I do not doubt but you will find something to do for God. But I think you are not always to stay at Purfleet; a larger field of action is prepared for you. Indeed, the time is not yet fully come. For the present, therefore, labour where you are. But be ready, that, whenever our Lord shall call, you may reply, ’Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God.’--I am Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, March 3, 1769. MY DEAR LADY,--To be incapable of sympathizing with the distressed is not a desirable state. Nor would one wish to extirpate either sorrow or any other of our natural passions. And yet it is both possible and highly desirable to attain the same experience with the Marquis De Renty, who on occasion of his lady’s illness told those who inquired how he could bear it, ’I cannot say but my nature is deeply affected with the apprehension of so great a loss. And yet I feel such a full acquiescence in the will of God, that, were it proper, I could dance and sing.’ I have heard my mother say, ’I have frequently been as fully assured that my father’s spirit was with me as if I had seen him with my eyes.’ [Dr. Annesley died in 1696, just before his daughter moved from South Ormsby to Epworth.] But she did not explain herself any farther. I have myself many times found on a sudden so lively an apprehension of a deceased friend that I have sometimes turned about to look; at the same time I have felt an uncommon affection for them. But I never had anything of this kind with regard to any but those that died in faith. In dreams I have had exceeding lively conversations with them; and I doubt not but they were then very near. It gives me pleasure to hear that you did not neglect our own preaching in order to attend any other. The hearing Mr. F. at other times I do not know that any could blame; unless you found it unsettled your mind, or weakened your expectation of an entire deliverance from sin. And this, I apprehend, it did not. You never ’take up too much of my time.’ To converse with you even in this imperfect way is both agreeable and useful to me. I love your spirit, and it does me good. I trust God will still give you that hunger and thirst after righteousness till you are satisfied therewith. And who knows how soon--I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Mrs. Crosby CHESTER, March 18, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--The westerly winds detain me here, I care not how long: good is the will of the Lord. When I am in Ireland, you have only to direct to Dublin and the letter will find me. I advise you, as I did Grace Walton [See letter of Sept. 8, 1761, to her.] formerly, (1) Pray in private or public as much as you can. (2) Even in public you may properly enough intermix short exhortations with prayer; but keep as far from what is called preaching as you can: therefore never take a text; never speak in a continued discourse without some break, about four or five minutes. Tell the people, ’We shall have another prayer-meeting at such a time and place.’ If Hannah Harrison [See letters of Nov. 26, 1768, and March 31, 1781 (to Lancelot Harrison).] had followed these few directions, she might have been as useful now as ever. As soon as you have time, write more particularly and circumstantially; and let Sister Bosanquet do the same. There is now no hindrance in the way; nothing to hinder your speaking as freely as you please [His wife was not near to open his letters.] to, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To John Valton DUBLIN, March 23, 1769, MY DEAR BROTHER,--Certainly the Lord is preparing you for a more extensive work and showing that He can and will give you a mouth. Take care you do not cleave to any person or thing I God is a jealous God. And stay where you are as long as you can stay; but do not resist when He thrusts you out into His harvest. That God has called you to a more extensive work I cannot doubt in the least. [See letter of March 1 to him.] He has given you an earnest of it at Stroud; and your weakness of soul or body is no bar to Him. Leave Him to remove that when and as it pleases Him. But I doubt concerning the time; it does not seem to be fully come. At present you are to do all you can where you are, and to be always hearkening to His voice and waiting till He makes plain the way before your face.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton (Jane Hilton) LISBURN, April 9, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--I thank Brother Barton [Miss Hilton had recently married William Barton, of Beverley. See letter of Sept. 30, 1768.] for his letter. Both of you have now more need than ever continually to watch and pray that you enter not into temptation. There will be a great danger of so cleaving to each other as to forget God, or of being so taken up with a creature as to abate your hunger and thirst after righteousness. There will be a danger likewise of whiling away time, of not improving it to the uttermost, of spending more of it than needs in good sort of talk with each other which yet does not quicken your souls. If you should once get into an habit of this, it will be exceeding hard to break it off. Therefore you should now attend to every step you take, that you may begin as you hope to hold on to the end. And beware you are not entangled with worldly care any more than worldly desire. Be careful for nothing, but in everything make your request known to God with thanksgiving. Your affectionate brother. To Richard Steel LONDONDERRY, April 24, 1769. DEAR BROTHER,--I shall now tell you the things which have been more or less upon my mind ever since I have been in the North of Ireland. If you forget them, you will be a sufferer, and so will the people; if you observe them, it will be good for both. 1. To begin with little things. If you regard your health, touch no supper but a little milk or water gruel. This will entirely by the blessing of God secure you from nervous disorders; especially if you rise early every morning, whether you preach or no. 2. Be steadily serious. There is no country upon earth where this is more necessary than Ireland; as you are generally encompassed with those who with a little encouragement would laugh or trifle from morning to night. 3. In every town visit all you can from house to house. I say ’all you can,’ for there will be some whom you cannot visit; and if you examine, instruct, reprove, exhort as need requires, you will have no time hanging on your hands. It is by this means that the Societies are increased wherever Thomas Ryan [Thomas Ryan was Assistant at Armagh in 1767. See Journal, iv. 500.] goes: he is preaching from morning to night; warning every one, that he may present every one perfect in Christ Jesus. 4. But on this and every other occasion avoid all familiarity with women. This is deadly poison both to them and you. You cannot be too wary in this respect; therefore begin from this hour. 5. The chief matter of your conversation as well as your preaching should doubtless be the weightier matters of the law. Yet there are several (comparatively) little things which you should earnestly inculcate from time to time; for ’he that despiseth small things shall fall by little and little.’ Such are,-- (1) Be active, be diligent; avoid all laziness, sloth, indolence. Fly from every degree, every appearance of it; else you will never be more than half a Christian. (2) Be cleanly. In this let the Methodists take pattern by the Quakers. Avoid all nastiness, dirt, slovenliness, both in your person, clothes, house, and all about you, Do not stink above ground. This is a bad fruit of laziness; use all diligence to be clean, as one says, Let thy mind’s sweetness have its operation Upon thy person, clothes, and habitation.[George Herbert’s The Temple, ’The Church Porch,’ stanza 62.] (3) Whatever clothes you have, let them be whole; no rents, no tatters, no rags. These are a scandal to either man or woman, being another fruit of vile laziness. Mend your clothes, or I shall never expect you to mend your lives. Let none ever see a ragged Methodist. (4) Clean yourselves of lice. These are a proof both of uncleanness and laziness: take pains in this. Do not cut off your hair, but clean it, and keep it clean. (5) Cure yourself and your family of the itch: a spoonful of brimstone will cure you. To let this run from year to year proves both sloth and uncleanness. Away with it at once. Let not the North be any longer a proverb of reproach to all the nation. (6) Use no tobacco unless prescribed by a physician. It is an uncleanly and unwholesome self-indulgence; and the more customary it is the more resolutely should you break off from every degree of that evil custom. (7) Use no snuff unless prescribed by a physician. I suppose no other nation in Europe is in such vile bondage to this silly, nasty, dirty custom as the Irish are. But let Christians be in this bondage no longer. Assert your liberty, and that all at once: nothing will be done by degrees. But just now you may break loose through Christ strengthening you. (8) Touch no dram. It is liquid fire. It is a sure though slow poison. It saps the very springs of life. In Ireland, above all countries in the world, I would sacredly abstain from this, because the evil is so general; and to this and snuff and smoky cabins I impute the blindness which is so exceeding common throughout the nation. I might have inserted under the second article what I particularly desire wherever you have preaching--namely, that there may be a little house. Let this be got without delay. Wherever it is not, let none expect to see me.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell LONDONDERRY, April 29; 1769. MY DEAR LADY,--A while ago I was concerned at hearing from Edinburgh that you were unwell [Lady Maxwell had been confined to her house by sickness in March, but was now restored.]; although I could not doubt but it was ordered well by an unerring Providence as a means of keeping you dead to all below and of quickening your affections to things above. And, indeed, this is the rule whereby the inhabitants of a better world judge of good and evil. Whatever raises the mind to God is good, and in the same proportion as it does this. Whatever draws the heart from its centre is evil, and more or less so as it has more or less of this effect. You have accordingly found pain, sickness, bodily weakness to be real goods, as bringing you nearer and nearer to the fountain of all happiness and holiness. And yet it is certain nature shrinks from pain, and that without any blame. Only in the same moment that we say, ’If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,’ the heart should add like our great Pattern, ’Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ Lady Baird [See letter of Sept. 9, 1768.] I did not see before I left London; and Lady K. B. I did not understand. She was exceedingly civil, and I think affectionate; but perfectly shut up, so that I knew no more of her state of mind than if I had never seen her.--I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Miss March May 1769. By comparing your own outward state with Miss Thornton’s [See letter of Aug. 12.] you now see clearly the advantages you enjoy: you have nothing external to hinder your waiting upon God without carefulness and without distraction. None has a right to interrupt you while you are exercised in things divine and labouring to be holy in body and spirit. You may have just so much and no more connexion with any one as experience shows is profitable for you. O stand fast in this liberty, glorifying God with all you have and all you are! It is remarkable that St. Paul places this the last of all, that ’love endureth all things ’; and this is the sum of his wish with regard to the Colossians, ’that they might be strengthened unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness.’ They who have attained this are ripe for the inheritance and ready to salute their friends in light. There is a time when we grow up towards this, even without any sensible increase; as in the parable, the seed groweth and springs up he knoweth not how. At many times, indeed, we do know how the power of the Highest suddenly overshadows us, while either the first or the pure love is shed abroad in our hearts. But at other times He confirms and increases that love in a gradual and almost insensible manner. Death has had a large commission this year with regard to our Societies in Ireland as well as England. Just as I left Dublin [He left on April 3.] four or five of our members there were taken away in four or five days; three elder, and two in the bloom of youth, one of whom had been filled with love for some years. They all witnessed a good confession at the last, and died in full assurance of hope. Nancy Rogers, [See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 223; and for Jane Cooper, letter of Sept. 11, 1765.] whom I saw just before I left the town, breathed the very spirit of Jane Cooper. I think their kindred spirits are now acquainted with each other better than you and I are, but not better than we shall be when we meet together in the paradise of God. To Peggy Dale [NEWMARKET], May 20, 1769. The hearing from my dear Peggy at this critical time gives me a particular satisfaction. I wanted to know how you bore such a trial, a wound in the tenderest part. You have now a first proof that the God whom you serve is able to deliver you in every trial. You feel, and yet conquer. We conquer all when we can say, ’Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ I hope you are delivered not only from repining with regard to her, but from reasoning with regard to yourself. You still see the more excellent way and are sensible of the advantages you enjoy. I allow some single women have fewer advantages for eternity than they might have in a married state. But, blessed be God, you have all the advantages which one can well conceive. You have affectionate, wise, and pious friends deeply experienced in the way of God. You have leisure and opportunity for every good work and for improvement in all holiness. O may you improve every advantage to the uttermost! And give more and more comfort to, my dear Peggy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson CORK, May 27, 1769, DEAR JOSEPH,--You have now (what you never had before) a clear, providential call to Oxford. [He entered at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, and kept some of his terms whilst Head Master at Trevecca.] If you keep a single eye and have courage and steadiness, you may be an instrument of much good. But you will tread on slippery ground, and the serious persons you mention may do you more hurt than many others. When I was at Oxford, I never was afraid of any but the almost Christians. If you give way to them and their prudence an hair’s breadth, you will be removed from the hope of the gospel. If you are not moved, if you tread in the same steps which my brother and I did, you may be a means under God of raising another set of real Bible Christians. How long the world will suffer them (whether longer than they did us or not) is in God’s hand. With regard to Kingswood School, I have one string more: if that breaks, I shall let it drop. I have borne the burthen one-and-twenty years; I have done what I could: now let someone else do more.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis CORK, May 30, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER BENNIS,--Some years since, I was inclined to think that one who had once enjoyed and lost the pure love of God must never look to enjoy it again till they were just stepping into eternity. But experience has taught us better things. We have now numerous instances of those who had cast away that unspeakable blessing and now enjoy it in a larger measure than ever. And why should not this be your case Because you are unworthy So were they. Because you have been an unfaithful steward So they had been also; yet God healed them freely: and so He will you. Only do not reason against Him. Look for nothing in yourself but sin and unworthiness. Forget yourself. Worthy is the Lamb; and He has prevailed for you. You shall not die, but live-- live all the life of heaven on earth. You need nothing in order to this but faith. And who gives this He that standeth at the door. I hope to see you at Limerick on Monday evening; probably we shall be at Brough soon after one o’clock. [On Monday, June 5, Wesley writes: ’Having been much importuned to give them a day or two more, I rode to Limerick. . . . On Thursday, the 8th, I once more took my leave of this loving people.’ See Journal, v. 319.] And I pray let there never more be any reserve between you and, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To John Mason CORK, May 30, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--By last Friday’s post we sent you word that I hoped to see you at Limerick [Mason was stationed there.] once more. We purpose with God’s leave to set out early on Monday morning, and hope to reach Brough soon after one. O let us work while the day is! Our Father worketh hitherto.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Howell Powell, Bandon CORK, June 3, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If Mr. Freeman [James Freeman of Dublin. See letter of June 7, 1762.] complies with your proposal, you cannot avoid removing to Castle Townsend, and it will be a clear providential token that God calls you to that place. I have sent you a few little tracts by the bearer. Wishing you all health of soul and body, I remain, Your affectionate brother. Brother Dillon will probably be in Bandon next week. To John Furz () ATHLONE, June 25, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Brother Langdon and you are not much mistaken concerning Thomas Wride. A great part of the accusation against Thomas Wride is owing to prejudice. But it is only his own zeal and activity and patiently blameless behaviour which can effectually speak for him. He may, if he has an horse, come to the Conference, and I will try him another year.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To an Irish Lady TULLAMORE, June 27, 1769. DEAR MADAM,--When I had the pleasure of conversing with you some years since, you had a regard both for me and the people called Methodists. If I am rightly informed, you are now of another mind. May I ask, When did that change begin Was it at your last journey to Dublin Whenever it was, suffer me to ask, What were the reasons of it I will tell you what I conjecture, and I do it in writing because I may not have an opportunity of talking with you; because I can write more freely than I could speak; because I can now say all I have to say at once; whereas, if we were talking together, I might probably forget some part; and because you may by this means have the better opportunity of calmly considering it. I conjecture (to tell you just what rises in my heart) that this change was owing to several causes. Some admired and commended you as a person of uncommon sense and uncommon attainments in religion. Others told you at large from time to time all the real or supposed faults of the Methodists, in particular the jars which had lately been in Dublin on account of Mr. Morgan and Olivers. This naturally tended to breed and increase pride on the one hand and prejudice on the other. Riches increased; which not only led you step by step into more conformity to the world, but insensibly instilled self-importance, unwillingness to be contradicted, and an overbearing temper. And hence you was of course disgusted at those who did not yield to this temper and blamed that conformity. Perhaps some of these professed or expected to be perfected in love; they at least believed perfection. Now, this you seemed to hate with a perfect hatred; and on that account disliked them the more. Permit me to add a few words on each of these heads. And first, would it not be well if you started back from every appearance of admiration (which you know is deadly poison), whether on account of your sense or piety and if you utterly discountenanced all who directly or indirectly commended you to your face yea, and all who told you of the jars or faults of the Methodists, or indeed of any absent person Should you not earnestly strive and pray against thinking highly of your own understanding or attainments in religion Otherwise this, by grieving the Holy Spirit, would expose you to still more prejudice; especially towards those who might seem to vie with you in religion, if not in understanding. Can you be too sensible how hardly they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven Yea, or into the kingdom of an inward heaven into the whole spirit of the gospel How hard is it for these (whether you do or no) not to conform too much to the world! how hard not to be a little overbearing, especially to inferiors! Is it right to be disgusted at those who fear you conform too far, who do not sink down before you--nay, perhaps oppose your judgement or blame your practice And with regard to perfection. Have not they that hold it the same right to be angry with you for denying it as you with them for affirming it But what is it you are angry at What is it you object to Let us understand the question before we dispute about it. By Christian Perfection I mean (1) loving God with all our heart. Do you object to this I mean (2) an heart and life all devoted to God. Do you desire less I mean (3) regaining the whole image of God. What objection to this I mean (4) having all the mind that was in Christ. Is this going too far I mean (5) walking uniformly as Christ walked. And this surely no Christian will object to. If any one means anything more or anything else by perfection, I have no concern with it. But if this is wrong, yet what need of this heat about it, this violence--I had almost said fury--of opposition, carried so far as even not to lay out anything with this man or that woman who professes it ’Nay,’ says Mrs. --, ’I did not refrain from it for this only, but for their espousing Mr. Olivers’s cause against Mr. Morgan.’ Worse and worse! What! are people to starve (at least for me), unless they think as I think or like whom I like Alas, what religion, what humanity, what common sense is this But I have done. I have once for all taken upon myself a most unthankful office. I have spoken with all plainness and simplicity, and now leave the event to God. May He open your heart, that you may discern His holy and acceptable and perfect will, that you may have a right judgement in all things, and evermore rejoice in His holy comfort.--I am, dear madam, Your affectionate servant. To John Whitehead COOLALOUGH, July 4, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--One from every circuit must be at Conference; but it may be either Brother Whitwell [William Whitwell was Whitehead’s colleague at Bristol.] or you. I think the money need not be brought; only let us have exact accounts, and lists of the Societies. When you mentioned, first your apprehension that you could manage the Kingswood School, and then your thoughts concerning Nancy Smith, [Mr. Smith was an apothecary at Bristol (Journal, iii. 254). Did Whitehead marry his daughter] it seemed to me that there might be a providential connexion between the one and the other--though not to the exclusion of James Hindmarsh: that I never thought of. Good will follow from the disagreement of Brother Proctor and Palmer. I should be apt to believe a dying woman. Be zealous! Be watchful!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Bennis DUBLIN, July 24, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--If the reading over your papers has no other effect, this it certainly has--it makes me love you abundantly better than I did before: I have now a more intimate knowledge of you; I enter more into your spirit, your tempers and hopes and fears and desires, all which tends to endear you to me. It is plain one of your constant enemies, and the most dangerous of all, is evil reasoning. Accordingly the thing which you chiefly want is Christian simplicity. Brother Bourke [The Assistant at Limerick.] and you should carefully watch over each other in that respect, and let each deal faithfully with the other; let there be no reserve between you; encourage one another also to pray for and expect the continual and direct witness of the Spirit. They are by no means the best part of our preachers in any sense who doubt of this. I know but of one who had experienced the work that doubted concerning the witness-- namely, James Oddie [See letter of March 29, 1766.]; and I am afraid that for some time he has experienced neither the one nor the other. Two of your written books I send back by that lovely woman Jenny Moore [Mrs. Moore, of Augher. She received these safely after some delay. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 200.]; the third I must borrow a little longer. My dear friend, remember Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LEEDS, July 30, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--You see, God gives you a token for good. But I doubt whether your sister will recover. It is probable He gives her this reprieve both that she may be ripe for glory and that she may bear a faithful testimony to Him before He calls her hence. So she has not a moment to lose. With regard to her paralytic disorder, I wonder they have not advised bathing; that often avails when nothing else will. After the Conference I have to traverse all Wales; so that I do not expect to see Bristol before September. I have then all the West of England to visit, which will take me up at least six weeks longer. In October, if it please God to prolong my life, I am in hope of seeing you at Witney. I was almost afraid you had forgotten me; but I think you will not soon. I think death itself will not separate you from, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To the Travelling Preachers LEEDS, August 4, 1769. MY DEAR BRETHREN,--1. It has long been my desire that all those ministers of our Church who believe and preach salvation by faith might cordially agree between themselves, and not hinder but help one another. After occasionally pressing this in private conversation wherever I had opportunity, I wrote down my thoughts upon the head and sent them to each in a letter. Out of fifty or sixty to whom I wrote, only three vouchsafed me an answer. [See heading to letter of April 19, 1764.] So I give this up: I can do no more. They are a rope of sand; and such they will continue. 2. But it is otherwise with the travelling preachers in our Connexion. You are at present one body. You act in concert with each other and by united counsels. And now is the time to consider what can be done in order to continue this union. Indeed, as long as I live there will be no great difficulty. I am under God a centre of union to all our travelling as well as local preachers. They all know me and my communication. They all love me for my work’s sake; and therefore, were it only out of regard to me, they will continue connected with each other. But by what means may this connexion be preserved when God removes me from you 3. I take it for granted it cannot be preserved by any means between those who have not a single eye. Those who aim at anything but the glory of God and the salvation of men, who desire or seek any earthly thing, whether honour, profit, or ease, will not, cannot continue in the Connexion: it will not answer their design. Some of them, perhaps a fourth of the whole number, will secure preferment in the Church. Others will turn Independents, and get separate congregations, like John Edwards and Charles Skelton. [Edwards, an able Irishman, left Wesley about 1753, having adopted Calvinistic views, and settled at Leeds, where he attracted ’a very considerable and respectable congregation, who erected him a very large and commodious chapel.’ He died about 1784. See letter of Nov. 20, 1755; and for Skelton, July 17, 1751.] Lay your accounts with this, and be not surprised if some you do not suspect be of this number. 4. But what method can be taken to preserve a firm union between those who choose to remain together Perhaps you might take some such steps as these:-- On notice of my death, let all the preachers in England and Ireland repair to London within six weeks. Let them seek God by solemn fasting and prayer. Let them draw up articles of agreement to be signed by those who choose to act in concert. Let those be dismissed who do not choose it in the most friendly manner possible. Let them choose by votes a committee of three, five, or seven, each of whom is to be Moderator in his turn. Let the Committee do what I do now; propose preachers to be tried, admitted, or excluded; fix the place of each preacher for the ensuing year and the time of the next Conference. 5. Can anything be done now in order to lay a foundation for this future union Would it not be well, for any that are willing, to sign some articles of agreement before God calls me hence Suppose something like these:-- ’We, whose names are under-written, being throughly convinced of the necessity of a close union between those whom God is pleased to use as instruments in this glorious work, in order to preserve this union between ourselves, are resolved, God being our Helper,-- ’I. To devote ourselves entirely to God; denying ourselves, taking up our cross daily, steadily aiming at one thing--to save our own souls and them that hear us. ’II. To preach the old Methodist doctrines, and no other, contained in the Minutes of the Conferences. ’III. To observe and enforce the whole Methodist discipline laid down in the said Minutes.’ To Robert Wilkinson LEEDS, August 5, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I believe God calls you to labour in a quieter part of His vineyard--namely, in the North of Ireland, in the Augher Circuit, among a simple, earnest, loving people. Your best way is to carry your own horse over from Whitehaven, or rather Portpatrick, where you have a short and sure passage; then ride on to the widow Cumberland’s in Lisburn, and any of our preachers whom you meet with will direct you to Charlemount or Augher. Be all in earnest!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse BRADFORD, August 5, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--If the trials you have met with had only produced that effect, a free intercourse between you and Sister Hutton, I should think they had been of unspeakable service. For how valuable is a tried friend! If you find any hurt with regard to your health, there is a medicine in the Primitive Physick which I never remember to have failed in any single instance. But above all see that your soul receives no hurt. Beware of murmuring. David saw God’s hand in Shimei’s tongue, and therefore he was quiet. I send you John Ellis again, and I hope you will be free with him. Was John Shaw shy Then be not like him when you write or speak to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton BIRSTALL, August 6, 1769. Indeed, Jenny, I began to be jealous of you. I began to be almost afraid that a new situation in life and worldly cares had cooled the affection which you once had. I am glad to find the case is not so, but that you still retain your former friendship. Indeed, why should not the word ’Love never faileth’ have place in this as in other instances In your last you said something which I did not understand. Last year you certainly was saved from sin. And this you testified for several months. Have you since then doubted of it Do you suppose you never received that blessing If you did, when or how did you lose it [See letter of Sept. 9.] Send me as particular an account as you can, that I may be able to form a more certain judgement. Wherever I am, you need only direct to the Foundery. Peace be with your spirits!--My dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Miss March CARMARTHEN, August 12, 1769. At some times it is needful to say, ’I will pray with the Spirit and with the understanding also.’ At other times the understanding has little to do, while the soul is poured forth in passive prayer. I believe we found the answer to many prayers at the Conference, particularly on the last two days. At the conclusion all the preachers were melted down while they were singing those lines for me,-- Thou who so long hast saved me here, A little longer save; Till, freed from sin and freed from fear, I sink into a grave. Till glad I lay my body down, Thy servant’s steps attend; And, oh, my life of mercies crown With a triumphant end! Various scriptures show that we may pray with resignation for the life or ease of a friend: it is enough that every petition be closed with, ’Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ It is true that a believer knows the devices of Satan to be many and various. But the Apostle means more than this--namely, that those who have the unction of the Holy One are thereby enabled to discern his devices whenever they occur, and to distinguish them from the influences of the good Spirit, how finely soever they are disguised. To answer for ourselves is often a cross; and we had much rather let people think and talk as they please: but it is a cross we must often take up; otherwise we ’walk not charitably ’ if we do not ’reprove our brother ’; if we ’suffer sin upon him ’ we ’hate our brother in our heart.’ If Miss Thornton be arrived at London, I wish you would take the first opportunity of conversing with her. She will have more need of a faithful friend now than ever she had in her life. I expect she will hear reasons upon reasons why she ought as a point of duty to conform a little to the world, to have a few trifling acquaintance, and not to be so particular in her dress. Now, as you have heard all these things before, and have been enabled by the grace of God to discover Satan even with his angel’s face, and to stand firm against all his assaults, you will be better able to assist and confirm her if you seek her before she is much shaken. It has a little surprised me that several who are, I believe, filled with love, yet do not desire to die. It seems as if God generally does not give this desire till the time of death approaches. Perhaps in many it would be of little use. First let them learn to live. Doubtless that rest was given ’to support you under your sickness.’ Yet that is no reason why it should be ever taken away: it was certainly a degree of that rest which remaineth for the people of God. But it may be called by this or any other name; names are of little consequence: the thing you need never let go. You may live in and to Jesus; yea, and that continually, by simple faith and holy, humble love. Let Mary Thornton [Miss Thornton was now living with Miss March. See Methodist Magazine, 1805, p 37; and letter in May 1769, also July 6, 1770.] be as sensible as ever she will or can be of her own helplessness and poverty. But let her not cast away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward. She did experience the pure love of God; let none take advantage from her being tried by fire (if it should be so) to reason her out of it. That general promise, ’In blessing I will bless thee,’ certainly contains all the promises, whether relating to this life or the next; and all are yours! Peace be multiplied upon you! To Mary Yeoman, of Mousehole, Cornwall ST. Ives, September 2, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your case is not peculiar. I have known many who were just as you are now; and the same God who delivered them is as ready to deliver you. I advise you to continue in the way whether you find any benefit or not. Pray, as you can, though you are ever so cold or dead. Hear the preaching; keep to your class. The Lord is at hand; He will abundantly pardon.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton BRISTOL, September 9, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--Now I understand you well; but I did not understand you before. I thought you meant that you had not now the love that you had once. [See letter of Aug. 6.] I am glad to find that I was mistaken, and that you still retain that precious gift of God. Undoubtedly you may retain it always; yea, and with a continual increase. You may have a deeper and deeper fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. You may have more and more of the mind which was in Him and be more fully renewed in His likeness. You should send me word from time to time what your present experience and your present trials are. Peace be with your spirits!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Edward Spencer FROME, September 13, 1769. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I expect to be at Bradford on Tuesday and Wednesday next. In returning from thence to Bath to-morrow se’nnight, the 21st instant, I will preach if you please in your church. I remember preaching some years since at Combe Grove. [On Sept. 17 and 19 and Oct. 1, 1764. See Journal, v. 94-8.] Peace be with you and yours.-- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To Mr. -- BRISTOL, September, 17, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope you will not be disappointed any more. On Thursday se’nnight I propose with God’s leave to preach at Pill at three o’clock.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis BRISTOL, September 18, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--I wrote a longer letter to you than I usually do before I set out from Dublin: where or how it stopped I cannot imagine. [She evidently received it. See letter of July 24.] I think of you every day; indeed, I do not know that I ever loved you so well as since I was at Limerick last. [June 5-8. See note in letter of May 30 to her.] The more we are acquainted with each other the more we ought to love one another. I hope Brother Bourke and you faithfully endeavour to help each other on. Is your own soul all alive, all devoted to God Do you find again what you found once And are you active for God Remember you have work to do in your Lord’s vineyard; and the more you help others the more your soul will prosper.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse BRISTOL, October 4, 1769. How long is it since Mr. Whitelamb died What disease did he die of Did he lie ill for any time Do you know any circumstances preceding or attending his death Oh, why did he not die forty years ago, while he knew in whom he had believed! Unsearchable are the counsels of God, and His ways past finding out. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Mrs. Barton NORWICH, November I, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--Have you been tried with bodily weakness or with outward afflictions If with the latter, have you found a deliverance from them It is certain, in every temptation He will make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it. When you are tempted, it is an unspeakable blessing that there is nothing in your heart which joins with the temptation. And there never need be more: the enemy is thrust out, and cannot re-enter if you continue to watch and pray. Continue likewise to be useful in your generation; as you have time, do good unto all men. Snatch all the opportunities you can of speaking a word to any of your neighbours. Comfort the afflicted, support the weak, exhort the believers to go on to perfection. Never be weary of well doing; in due time you shall reap if you faint not.--I am, dear Jenny, To Mrs. Jane Barton, In Norwood, Beverley, Yorkshire. Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton November 1, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not advise you to reason whether you have faith or not, but simply to look up to Him that loves you for whatever you want. And He cannot withhold from you any manner of thing that is good. Oh how nigh is He to deliver you out of all temptation and to supply your every need. Only trust Him in all things, and you shall praise Him in all things.--I am, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball November 5, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--Need I tell you that I found a particular satisfaction in my late conversations with you Perhaps you observed such a freedom in my behaviour as I never showed to you before. Indeed, it seemed to me as if I had just recovered a dear friend whom I had been in fear of losing. But you sweetly relieved me from that fear and showed me that your heart is as my heart. Do you still find a clear deliverance from pride, from anger, from your own will, and from the love of earthly things Have you an uninterrupted sense of the presence of God as a loving and gracious Father Do you find your heart is continually ascending to Him And are you still enabled in everything to give thanks You must expect various trials. We know nature is variable as the wind. But go on. Be never weary of well doing; in due time you shall reap if you faint not.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson NORWICH, November 5, 1769. DEAR JOSEPH,--I heard that tale, and answered pointblank, ’It is mere invention.’ However, I wrote to inquire at the school, so you did well to send a real account both to me and to Ireland. [See letter of Jan. 2.] ’This gives any one enough of Kingswood School.’ [Benson had used these words in his letter to Wesley.] ’Ah! simple Master Shallow!’ as Shakespeare has it, should not I then have enough of it long ago You put me in mind of Sir John Phillips’s [Sir John was a devout Christian who attended the Religious Societies in London. He was a benefactor of the Holy Club and one of the Georgia Trustees. See Journal, i. 186, 297; viii. 278-82, 301.] exclamation when a puff of smoke came out of the chimney, ’Oh, Mr. Wesley, these are the trials which I meet with every day.’--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop IPSWICH, November 5, 1769. DEAR MISS BISHOP,--When I was last in Bath, [About Sept. 21.] Mr. Hodsal told me Miss Bishop would be glad to see me. But as I did not know you at all, and I had not an hour to spare, I did not think of it any farther till yesterday, when I heard from Miss March, who gave me a particular account of your situation. We have had a Society in Bath for about thirty years, sometimes larger and sometimes smaller. [See Wes. Meth. Mag. 1846, pp.1088-1825. The chapel was then in Avon Street.] It was very small this autumn, consisting only of eleven or twelve persons, of whom Michael Hemmings was leader. I spoke to these one by one, added nine or ten more, divided them into two classes, and appointed half of them to meet with Joseph Harris. But if you are willing to cast in your lot with us, I had rather that those single women in both classes who desire it should meet with you and any others who are not afraid of the reproach of Christ. In that little tract A Plain Account of the People called Methodists you see our whole plan. [See letter in Dec. 1748 to Vincent Perronet.] We have but one point in view--to be altogether Christians, scriptural, rational Christians. For which we well know, not only the world, but the almost Christians, will never forgive us. From these, therefore, if you join heart and hand with us, you are to expect neither justice nor mercy. If you are determined, let me know. But consider what you do. Can you give up all for Christ the hope of improving your fortune, a fair reputation, and agreeable friends Can He make you amends for all these Is He alone a sufficient portion I think you will find Him so. And if you was as entirely devoted to God as my dear Jenny Cooper was, you would never have cause to repent of your choice either in time or in eternity. I never had one thought of resigning up our room to any person on earth. What I wrote to Lady Huntingdon [See letter of Nov. 22.] was, ’I am willing your preachers should have as full and free use of it as our own.’ I could not go any farther than this: I have no right so to do. I hope you will send me as particular an account as you can of all that has lately passed and of the present state of things. The more freely you write, the more agreeable it will be to Your affectionate brother. PS.--You may direct to London. To Miss Bishop, In the Vineyard, Bath. To Professor John Liden, of Lund LONDON, November 16, 1769. To answer those questions throughly would require a volume. It is partly done in the little tracts: on the points wherein they are defective I will add a few words as my time permits. 1. There are many thousand Methodists in Great Britain and Ireland which are not formed into Societies. Indeed, none are but those (or rather a part of those) who are under the care of Mr. Wesley. These at present contain a little less than thirty thousand persons. 2. The places at which there is constant preaching (three or four times a week at least) are the Foundery near Moorfields, the French Church [in West Street] near the Seven Dials (at these two places there is preaching every morning and evening), the French Church in Spitalfields, the Chapel in Snowsfields, Southwark, the Chapel in Wapping, and one not far from Smithfield. 3. They have many schools for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, but only one for teaching the higher parts of learning. This is kept in Kingswood, near Bristol, and contains about forty scholars. These are all boarders, and might be abundantly more, but the house will not contain them. The Rules of Kingswood School give an account of the books read and the method pursued therein. 4. I believe some of the best preachers are James Morgan, Peter Jaco, Jos. Cownley, T. Simpson, John Hilton, John Pawson, Alex. Mather, Tho. Olivers, Sam. Levick, Duncan Wright, Jacob Rowell, Christopher Hopper, Dan. Bumstead, Alexander M’Nab, and William Thompson. Each of these preachers has his food wherever he labours and twelve pounds a year for clothes and other expenses. If he is married, he has ten pounds a year for his wife. This money is raised by the voluntary contributions of the Societies. It is by these likewise that the poor are assisted where the allowance fixed by the laws of the land does not suffice. Accordingly the Stewards of the Societies in London distribute seven or eight pounds weekly among the poor. 5. Mr. Whitefield is a Calvinist, Messrs. Wesley are not; this is the only material difference between them. And this has continued without any variation ever since Mr. Whitefield adopted those opinions. The consequences of that difference are touched upon in the letter sent two or three years ago to the persons named therein. 6. There are only three Methodist Societies in America: one at Philadelphia, one at New York, and one twelve miles from it. There are five preachers there; two have been at New York for some years. Three are lately gone over. Mr. Whitefield has published a particular account of everything relative to the Orphan House [in Georgia]. 7. The most eminent writers against the Methodists are the late Bishop of London (Dr. Gibson), Dr. Church, the Bishop of Gloucester (Dr. Warburton), and Bishop Lavington. Bishops Gibson and Lavington were throughly convinced of their mistake before they died. I believe Dr. Church was so too. None, I think, but Mr. Perronet has wrote for the Methodists. 8. No Moravians belong to their Societies. They have no considerable settlements in England but at London, Bedford, and Pudsey, a little town near Leeds, in Yorkshire. They make a profound secret of everything relating to their community. What I know of them I have published in the Journals. The Count’s house at Chelsea is a palace for a prince. Truly they are wise in their generation. To Peggy Dale LONDON, November 17, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not. That particular branch of wisdom, readiness of thought, he is as willing to give as any other; yea, and ready utterance whenever it will be for His glory and the furtherance of His kingdom. And if you want more courage and boldness in His cause, make your requests known to Him with thanksgiving. Perhaps He will first answer you by giving you a deeper sense of want, with an increase of desire and resignation together. And afterwards you shall have the petition which you asked of Him. But there is one rule which our Lord constantly observes,--’Unto him that hath shall be given.’ ’Unto him that uses what he hash.’ Speak, therefore, as you can; and by-and-by you shall speak as you would. Speak, though, with fear; and in a little time you shall speak without fear. Fear shall be swallowed up in love!--I am, my dear Peggy, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, November 19, 1769. Indeed, Joseph, I am not well pleased at all. You seem quite ruffled and discomposed because a story was invented of you (if it was from invention; for your taking it so deeply makes me fear it was not). I thought it kindest to reprove you rather in jest than in earnest, and this very thing you take ill! What, are you seeking to pick a quarrel with me Well, if you require me to be serious, I will be serious. I am ashamed you should have it to learn still that if you are a Christian you are to expect men will say all manner of evil of you falsely. So they have done of me for at least these forty years. You was not of this spirit when you came into that House. [Wesley thought Kingswood was spoiling him.] Honour and power have done you no good; I am sorry for you, but I know not how to help you. If you will go, you must go. To Various Friends LONDON, November 20, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Two years ago many of our brethren, who considered the number of the people called Methodists and the circumstances which a great part of them were in, believed we should pay off the debt at once. I myself was fully persuaded that between twenty and thirty thousand people were well able to do this; but I was not at all persuaded that they were willing. However, I said little upon that head, being unwilling to weaken the hands of those who were of another mind. It was a good step which was made the first year. Upwards of 5,000 were contributed; by which means the most pressing debts were paid, and many of our brethren were firmly persuaded we should make an end of the whole the second year. I well knew the Methodists could do this; but I saw no reason to think they would. And when the collection was brought in, amounting to above 2,000, it was full as much as I expected. ’But what can be done this third year 5,000 remain unpaid. Are the Methodists able to clear this in one year’ Yes; as well as they are able to clear 50. But are they willing That I cannot tell: I am sure a few of them are; even of those who have a large measure of worldly goods; yea, and of those who are lately increased in substance, who have twice, perhaps ten or twenty times, as much as when they saw me first. Are you one of them Whether you are or not, whether your substance is less or more, are you willing to give what assistance you can to do what you can without hurting your family ’But if I do so, I cannot lay out so much in such and such things as I intended.’ That is true. But will this hurt you What if, instead of enlarging, you should for the present contract your expenses spend less, that you may be able to give more Would there be any harm in this ’But neither can I lay up so much.’ This likewise is most true. But is it ill husbandry to lay up treasure in heaven Is that lost which is given to God Whether you go to Him soon, or whether He gives you a few years longer here--in either case is it not wise to lay up for yourself a good foundation, that you may attain eternal life ’But I thought we should have paid the debt in one year, and so need no farther collections.’ I never thought so. I knew it might be paid in one year, but never expected it would. There is more likelihood of its being paid this year. It will, if our brethren exert themselves: do you, for one; let nothing be wanting on your part. Yet do not imagine ’we shall need no farther collections.’ Indeed we shall, though we owed not one shilling. Do not you remember the original design of the Yearly Subscription [See Works, viii. 335-6.] Paying our debts is but one branch of the design. It answers several other valuable ends equally necessary. It enables us to carry the gospel through the three kingdoms. And as long as we pursue that glorious design, this subscription will be necessary; though it is true, when once this burthen is removed, a far smaller contribution will suffice. However, let the morrow take thought for the things of itself: to-day do what you can, for the love of God, of your brethren, of the cause of God, and of Your affectionate brother. PS.--This is the letter, a copy of which I intend sending this or next post to each of the chief persons in your circuit. You will second it in good earnest. Try what you can do, going on in the cheerfulness of faith. Probably you will take in subscriptions by Christmas, and receive what is subscribed between Easter and Midsummer. Be not weary in well doing; you shall reap if you faint not. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, November 20, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If she will return of her own accord, I will receive her with open arms. But I will not hire her to return. I think that would be foolish, nay sinful. [Mrs. Wesley often left him and returned again in answer to his entreaties. She was with her daughter in Newcastle. See letters of Dec. 17, 1768, and Jan. 15, 1770.] Brother Fazzard was a good man, though for some years his head was a good deal wrong. I hope Brother Greenwood continues right, and is no longer puzzled by the smooth speakers. If you love the souls or bodies of men, recommend everywhere the Primitive Physick and the small tracts. It is true most of the Methodists are poor; but what then Nine in ten of them would be no poorer if they were to lay out an whole penny in buying a book every other week in the year. By this means the work of God is both widened and deepened in every place.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Valton LONDON, November 21, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is a great thing to be open to the call of God. It really seems as if He were now calling you. When I wrote last, you was not willing to go out; and probably He is now thrusting you out into His harvest. If so, take care you be not disobedient to the heavenly calling. Otherwise you may be permitted to fall lower than you imagine.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, November 22, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is exceedingly strange. I should really wonder (if I could wonder at any weakness of human nature) that so good a woman as Lady Huntingdon, and one who particularly piques herself on her catholic spirit, should be guilty of such narrowness of spirit. Let it teach us a better lesson! [Henry Venn was then preaching to crowded audiences in the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapel at Bath. See letter of Dec. 26.] Let us not vary in thought or word from the old Methodist principle, ’Whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother.’ We have other instances of persons who now enjoy the peace of God and yet do not know the time when they received it. And God is sovereign: He may make what exceptions He pleases to His general rule. So this objection is easily set aside; and so is that of your age. The Spirit of the Lord can give understanding either in a longer and shorter time. And I doubt not but He will give you favour in the eyes of your sisters. You have only to go on in simplicity, doing the will of God from the heart and trusting in the anointing of the Holy One to teach you of all things. I am glad you are acquainted with the Miss Owens. [Wesley says on Sept. 16, 1772: ’I went to Publow, which is now what Leytonstone was once. Here is a family indeed. Such mistresses, and such a company of children, as, I believe, all England cannot parallel!’ See Journal v. 484; and letter of Aug. 22, 1772.] Encourage one another to be altogether Christians. Defy fashion and custom, and labour only To steer your useful lives below By reason and by grace. Let not the gentlewoman entrench upon the Christian; but be a simple follower of the Lamb. I expect to hear soon what has occurred since you wrote last. And I hope you will always speak without any reserve to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bishop, In the Vineyard, Bath. To Professor John Liden, of Lund THE FOUNDERY, November 30, 1769. DEAR SIR,--Though I hope shortly to have the pleasure of seeing you, yet I cannot but write a line to return you thanks for your favour of the 24th instant. If any other of the tracts which we have written or published would be acceptable to you, I will order them to be sent to Mr. Ley’s, or any other place which you are pleased to appoint. Never was there anything which I less desired or expected some years since than virum volitare per ora, [Virgil’s Georgics, iii. 9: ’To hover on the lips of men.’] having from my infancy loved silence and obscurity. But we came not into the world to do our own will. Happy are we if we are always ready to do and to suffer the will of Him that sent us! Desiring a remembrance in your prayers, I remain, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Robert Bell LONDON, December 2, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Upon the first moving of the thing, Mr. Ball seemed cold, saying he had just procured the same favour for another. But he added, ’Do you make a point of this’ I told him I did. ’Then,’ said he, ’I will do what I can.’ So I hope there is little reason to doubt but the thing will soon be accomplished. You have cause to bless God upon many accounts; particularly for the friendliness of your collector and supervisor; above all, for His revealing His love in your heart and giving you a word to speak in His name.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Bell, Officer of Excise, In Longtown, Cumberland. To John Valton LONDON, December 2, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Certainly you are not called to go out now. I believe you will be by-and-by. Your inabilities are no bar; for when you are sent you will not be sent a warfare at your own cost. Now improve the present hour where you are. [See letter of Nov. 21. ’This letter,’ says Valton, ’was as pleasant as the grapes of Eshcol to my soul.’ ]--I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 3, 1769, DEAR JOSEPH,--You must not expect that I should answer particularly a letter of a sheet long. I have only time to take notice briefly of two or three of the mistakes it contains. [See letter of Nov. 19.] 1. I have been told an hundred times, ’You love those that flatter you, and hate all that deal plainly and honestly with you.’ [See letters of March 25, 1764, and Sept. 12, 1766.] For J. Oliver told Jo. Hilton, who (with many others) cordially believed it. But nothing under heaven can be more false. What man did I ever love like T. Walsh What woman do I now regard like Miss Bosanquet And what human creatures have dealt so plainly and honestly with me What preacher now deals so plainly with me as John Fenwick and whom do I love and trust more 2. The first spring of the reproach cast on Kingswood School was not any mismanagement there. It was the hatred of good which is in the devil and his children. Therefore even Mr. Parkinson never did or could escape it. Therefore a fresh flood of it has been poured out even since you was there. 3. This you had reason to expect, and therefore ought not to have been surprised, much less discouraged at it. For this I gently reproved you in my first letter. That reproof you took heinously ill, and reproached me for unmercifulness and want of sympathy. This I should think was extremely wrong. 4. ’Is this all the thanks I receive for serving you’ Nay, I think the thanks are due to me. When I first sent you to Kingswood, it was to serve you at least as much as myself. Nay, it was not to serve myself at all. For what is the school to me It has been and may be of use to many. But it is no more to me than to you or Lady Huntingdon. There are other mistakes in your letter (which is all wrote in a spirit of discontent), but I have no time to point them out. You told me you would stay at the school till March. Till then you should be as much at Kingswood as you can.-- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, December 24, 1769. MY DEAR SISTER,--Some of the trials which you must frequently have are of a delicate nature. You will need much of the wisdom from above, or you would suffer loss under them. Those who are very near to you were (and probably are still) prejudiced against William Fallowfield beyond all sense and reason. And how extremely difficult it is for you not to drink in a little of their spirit! Only what is ill-will in them may in you be a simple error of judgement. Yet there is danger lest it should weaken your soul and insensibly lead you to some wrong temper. I believe you may speak without reserve to Brother Howard. [Robert Howard, Assistant at York, was received on trial as a preacher in 1768, and ceased to travel in 1770.] He is a cool, thinking man. But does he preach Christian perfection clearly and explicitly Which of your other preachers does Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 26, 1769. DEAR JOSEPH,--Every man of sense who reads the rules of the school may easily conclude that a school so conducted by men of piety and understanding will exceed any other school or academy in Great Britain or Ireland. In this sentiment you can never be altered. And if it was not so conducted since you was there, why was it not You had power enough. You have all the power which I have. You may do just what you please. Dirue, edifica; muta quadrata rotundis.[Horace’s Epistles, i. 100: Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis (’He pulls down,he builds,he changes square things to round’)] And I will second you to the uttermost. Trevecca is much more to Lady Huntingdon than Kingswood is to me. It mixes with everything. It is my college, my masters, my students. I do not speak so of this school. It is not mine, but the Lord’s. I look for no more honour than money from it. But I assure you you must not even mutter before her anything of deliverance from all sin. Error errorum, as Count Zinzendorf says; ’heresy of heresies.’ ’I will suffer no one in my Society that even thinks of perfection.’ However, I trust you shall not only think of but enjoy it. I am glad you defer your journey.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Walter Sellon LONDON, December 30, 1769. MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is not yet determined whether I should go to America or not. I have been importuned some time; but nil sat firmi video. [’I see nothing sufficiently strong.’ See letter of Jan. 25, 1770.] I must have a clear call before I am at liberty to leave Europe. You should heat your milk, but never let it boil. Boiling robs it of the most nutritious particles. Take care to keep always your body moderately open, and your stomach will not often complain. Mr. Viner did you great honour. Do not make too much haste in dealing with Elisha Coles. I am afraid the treatise will be too short. And pray add a word to that lively coxcomb Mr. Toplady, not only with regard to Zanchius, but his slander on the Church of England. You would do well to give a reading to both his tracts. He does certainly believe himself to be the greatest genius in England. Pray take care, or notus sit pro suis virtutibus. [’Let him be known in proportion as he deserves.’ ] Mr. Johnson [Thomas Johnson, the Assistant in Lincolnshire East. The Minutes for 1769 give details of the way in which 2,458 19s. 7d. was used in discharging debts.] was grievously short in not mentioning that ’other thing’ at the Conference or not till all the money was gone. However, the matter is not much. I think we can procure you thirty pounds in February. I believe you strengthen the hands of our preachers all you can. You will find Billy Minethorp a right man. His resolution in the late affair was admirable. I have scarce ever seen such another instance in the kingdom.--I am Your affectionate brother. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 63: 61. 1770 ======================================================================== 1770 THE CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY JANUARY 1, 1770, TO DECEMBER 28, 1771 PRINCIPAL EVENTS 1770 May 5. Letter from Dr. Wrangel. Aug. Doctrinal Minutes at the Bristol Conference. Sep. 30. Death of George Whitefield. Nov. 18. Wesley preaches Whitefield’s funeral sermon. 1771 Jan. 17. Benson dismissed from Trevecca. Jan. 23. Mrs. Wesley leaves him. Sep. 4. Francis Asbury sails for America. Fletcher’s First and Second Check to Antinomianism published. Wesley issues the first five volumes of his collected Works. THE CALVINISTIC CONTROVERSY JANUARY 1, 1770, TO DECEMBER 28, 1771 To Mrs. Crosby LONDON, January 1, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Whereunto you have attained hold fast. You never need let it go. Nothing is more certain than that God is willing to give always what He gives once. If, therefore, He now gives you power to yield Him your whole heart, you may confidently expect the continuance of that power till your spirit returns to God, provided you continue watching unto prayer, denying yourself, and taking up your cross daily. Only beware of evil reasoning! Hang upon Him that loves you as a little child; living to-day, and trusting Him for to-morrow.[See letter of Jan. 2.]--I am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To a Nobleman: The Earl of Dartmouth (?) [January 1], 1770. DEAR SIR,--I bless God that you are not disgusted at the great plainness with which I wrote. Indeed, I know not but it might be termed roughness; which was owing partly to the pressure of mind I then felt, and partly to my being straitened for time: otherwise I might have found softer expressions. I am thankful likewise for your openness; which obliges me to be open and unreserved, and to say all I mean, and that in the most simple manner, on each of the articles that lie before us. I must do this even with regard to my fellow labourers, lest I should seem to mean more than I do. But I am sensible this is a tender point, and one so extremely difficult to treat upon that I should not venture to say one word did I not know to whom I speak. What I mean is this: From many little circumstances which have occurred, I have been afraid (just so far it went) that those clergymen with whom you are most acquainted were jealous of your being acquainted with me. I was the more afraid when I heard the sudden exclamation of one whom you well know, ’Good God! Mr. Wesley is always speaking well of these gentlemen, and they can never speak well of him.’ But I am entirely satisfied by that full declaration which you make: ’I do not know of any impression that has been made upon me to your disadvantage.’ I had once the opportunity of speaking a few minutes to you on the head of Christian Perfection; and I believe you had not much objection to anything which was then spoken. When I spoke nearly to the same effect to one of the late Bishops of London, Bishop Gibson, he said earnestly, ’Why, Mr. Wesley, if this is what you mean by perfection, who can be against it?’ I believe verily there would need no more than a single hour, spent in free and open conversation, to convince you that none can rationally or scripturally say anything against the perfection I have preached for thirty years. The union which I desire among the persons I mentioned is an entire union of heart, constraining them to labour together as one man in spreading vital religion through the nation. But this I do not hope for, though I know a few who would cordially rejoice therein. The union which I proposed is of a lower kind: I proposed that they should love as brethren and behave as such. And I particularized what I think is implied in this, I imagined in so plain a manner, as was hardly possible without great skill to be either misunderstood or misrepresented. I really do not conceive what ambiguity there can be in any part of this proposal, or what objection can lie against our going thus far, whether we go farther or no. With regard to you, I have frequently observed that there are two very different ranks of Christians, both of whom may be in the favour of God--an higher and a lower rank. The latter avoid all known sin, do much good, use all the means of grace, but have little of the life of God in their souls and are much conformed to the world. The former make the Bible their whole rule, and their sole aim is the will and image of God. This they steadily and uniformly pursue, through honour and dishonour, denying themselves, and taking up their cross daily; considering one point only--’How may I attain most of the mind that was in Christ, and how may I please Him most?’ Now, I verily believe never was a person of rank more prepared for this state than you were the first time I had the pleasure of seeing you. Nay, I doubt not but you pant after it now; your soul is athirst to be all devoted to God. But who will press you forward to this? Rather, who will not draw you back? It is in this respect that I think one that uses plain dealing is needful for you in the highest degree; so needful, that without this help you will inevitably stop short: I do not mean stop short of heaven, but of that degree of holiness, and consequently of happiness both in time and eternity, which is now offered to your acceptance. It is herein that I am jealous over you. I am afraid of your sinking beneath your calling, degenerating into a common Christian, who shall indeed be saved, but saved as by fire. I long to see both you and your lady a little more than common Christians--Christians of the first rank in the kingdom of God, full of all goodness and truth. I want you to be living witnesses of all gospel holiness! And what shal1 hinder if you seek it by faith? Are not all things ready? The Lord God give you to experience that all things are possible to them that believe! O God, let all their life declare, How happy these Thy servants are; How far above these earthly things; How pure when washed in Jesu’s blood; How intimately one with God, A heaven-born race of priests and kings! --I am, honoured sir, Your friend and servant. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, January 1, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Indeed, there is no happiness without Him for any child of man. One would rather choose to be pained and restless whenever He withdraws His presence. He has permitted that difference which prevents your finding comfort even in a near relation, that you may seek it with a free and disengaged heart in Him who will never deceive your hope. This will endear and sweeten every cross, which is only a painful means of a closer union with Him. The neglect of others should incite you to double diligence in private prayer. And how knowest thou, O woman, but thou shalt gain thy husband? [Mr. Woodhouse was evidently not in sympathy with his wife’s Methodism.] You have already many blessings. You are surrounded with them. And who can tell if He may not add this to the rest? I pray, tell me from time to time all that is in your heart. Use no reserve with, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorpe, Yorkshire. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, January 2, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--You know I am not much given to suspect the worst; I am more inclined to hope than fear. Yet I cannot but fear that they who make those sage remarks do not always speak with a single eye. But what are they afraid of? There is little danger now of any wrong intercourse between you and me. Indeed, we love one another and can trust one another; and there is good reason that we should. God seemed to mark us out for it long ago, and perhaps lately more than ever. You may now speak all that is in your heart, and with all simplicity. Keep your place. Keep the reins in your own hand. It is best for her, [Mrs. Crosby.] best for you, and best for all. You ought not to suffer any interruption or any forming of parties. I suppose you have Instructions for Members of Religious Societies. I know nothing equal to them in the English tongue. It would be well diligently to inculcate those instructions on all under your roof. The moment any are justified, they are babes in Christ, little children. When they have the abiding witness of pardon, they are young men. This is the characteristic of a young man. It was not this, but much more, even salvation from inward sin, which above five hundred in London received. True, they did not (all or most of them) retain it; but they had it as surely as they had pardon. And you and they may receive it again. [See letter of Jan. 1 to Mrs. Crosby.] How soon!--I am, my dear friend, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bosanquet, Gildersome Hall, Near Leeds. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, January 15, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is not strange if the leading of one soul be very different from that of another. The same Spirit worketh in every one; and yet worketh several ways, according to His own will. It concerns us to follow our own light, seeing we are not to be judged by another’s conscience. A little time will show who hinders and who forwards the welfare of the family. And I hope you will have steadiness to pursue every measure which you judge will be to the glory of God. I am glad you find your temporal difficulties are lessened. Beware of increasing your expenses. I advise you not to take any other child till all these expenses are over. [See previous letter, and Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, p. go: ’I lessened my family all I could by putting out some of the bigger children to trades or servants’ places; but much expense attended it.’] ’Tis pity but you had an electric machine. [Wesley procured an electric apparatus in Nov. 1756, and was greatly impressed with ’the virtue of this surprising medicine.’ See Journal, iv. 49, 190.] It would prevent much pain in a family and supersede almost all other physic. I cure all vomiting and purging by warm lemonade. She is there still [His wife, who was in Newcastle. See letter of Nov. 20, 1769, to Christopher Hopper.]; and likely so to be, unless I would hire her to return, which I dare not do. I will not buy a cross, though I can bear it. Many are much stirred up here and are greatly athirst for pure love. I am sure you tasted it once, though you was reasoned out of it. How soon may you find it again! Simple faith is all we want. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, January 16, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--There is reason to believe that this has been indeed a festival time all over the kingdom. While a Sacheverell madness has spread far and wide, God gives us the spirit of love and of a sound mind. I think verily, if we could procure those premises upon reasonable terms, together with such a servitude or security (are these synonymous terms?) as you mention, it would be a noble acquisition, and might tend much to the furtherance of the work of God in Edinburgh. If all the Assistants would exert themselves with regard to the Yearly Collection as heartily as Christopher Hopper, a great deal might be done. We must have farther proof of William.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton LEWISHAM, January 25, 1770. Nancy, Nancy! I had almost said, I wish I could be angry at you; but that would not be an easy thing. I was wondering that you never wrote. I doubt your love is grown cold. Let it not be six weeks before I hear from you again. You find I can chide if you provoke me. You surprise me with regard to the books. I have spoke to Mr. Franks twice; and twice he told me he had sent them. I doubt he sent them among the other books without directing them particularly to you. I shall see that matter set right. You must not leave off riding [See letter of Feb. 12, 1769.] if you would have tolerable health. Nothing is so good for you as exercise and change of air. It was upon that as well as other accounts that I wanted you to come up to London. I do not know whether the objection of ’giving offence’ need to affright you from it. I wish you had a week to spare before I go out of town. [She had once before come up to London to meet him. See letter of April 7, 1768.] If I should be called to America [See letters of Dec. 30, 1769, and See Feb. 17, 1770.] (though I determine nothing yet), it might be a long time before we meet again. In every temptation there will be a way made to escape that you may be able to bear it. Do not stay a month longer before you write to, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. I have a room or two to spare now. To Joseph Benson LONDON, January 27, 1770. DEAR JOSEPH,--All is well. We have no need to ’dispute about a dead horse.’ If the school at Trevecca is the best that ever was since the world began, I am glad of it, and wish it may be better still. But do not run away with any of my young men from Kingswood: that I should blame you for. I have wrote already to T. Simpson, [The Head Master. see letter of Jan. 2, 1769.] and will write again. Do all the good you can in every place.--I am Your affectionate brother. To John Whitehead LONDON, January 27, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Tell John Hilton ’wherever Mr. Wesley is he labours to strengthen the hands of the Assistant and does nothing without advising with him.’ So I do nothing here without advising with John Pawson. [Pawson was the Assistant in London and Hilton at Bristol.] I believe his doing otherwise was chiefly through inadvertence. Therefore come to an explanation as soon as possible. Brother Hitchens [William Hitchens, a native of Bisveal near Redruth, was for some time an itinerant preacher; but he married and settled as a hatter in Bristol. He laboured as a local preacher for many years. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 190-1.] complains you broke through the plan of preaching which I fixed and did not allow him his turn. But, however this was, Wick must not lose its turn. I solemnly promised Mr. Haynes it should not, and allowed the preacher the use of my mare once a fortnight. Neglect another place rather than that. Give my kind love to Brother and Sister Thomas. [Barnabas Thomas, the second preacher at Bristol, a Cornishman, had become a preacher in 1764. see letter of March 25, 1785.] I thank him for his letter. You should give Mr. Shirley [The Hon. Walter Shirley, Rector of Loughrea, and cousin to Lady Huntingdon, had evidently been teaching Calvinism in Wesley’s preaching house. See letter of Nov. 27.] an hint not to contradict me when he preaches in my house. I hope you spend a little time (you and Brother Thomas) with our children at Kingswood. Who are your new class-leaders? --I am, with love to Sister Whitehead, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Whitehead, At the New Room, In Bristol. To Dr. Wrangel [LONDON, January 30, 1770.] The last time, the last words however important, are commonly remembered. Notwithstanding your intentions of revisiting this country, I consider it as very unlikely. The distracted state of your own, the various events which may take place, the thousand circumstances which may happen, lead me to regard this opportunity as the last I may ever have of addressing you--at least of seeing you; and I wish it to be worthy of recollection. The length of our acquaintance, indeed, will not authorize the subject of this letter or the recommendation of the enclosed book. Let the interest I take in your welfare excuse it. Or should you ascribe this interest to the weakness of superstition or the folly of enthusiasm, deem it not the impertinence of zeal. I have often thought of you--thought of you as possessing everything which the world calls enviable or delightful: health, friends, leisure. Permit me with the solicitude more properly belonging to a matron than to myself--permit me to entreat you to look beyond all these for happiness. The dangers of prosperity are great; and you seem aware of them. If poverty contracts and depresses the mind, riches sap its fortitude, destroy its vigour, and nourish its caprices. But the chief disadvantage of an elevated situation is this: it removes us from scenes of misery and indigence; we are apt to charge the great with want of feeling, but it is rather want of consideration. The wretched are taught to avoid, and the poor fear to accost them; and in the circles of perpetual gaiety they forget that these exist. You need not be reminded that there is no rank in life which exempts us from disappointment and sorrow in some kind or degree; but I must remind you there is but one belief which can support us under it. Neither hypocrisy nor bigotry, neither the subtle arguments of infidels nor the shameful lives of Christians have yet been able to overturn the truths of Revealed Religion. They contain all that is cheering--all that is consoling to the mind of man--that is congenial to the heart and adapted to his nature. You admit their importance; you reverence their mysteries: cherish their influences. The book which I have taken the liberty to enclose was written by a gentleman as much distinguished for literature and taste as for piety. The style alone might recommend it: you will find none of the cant and narrowmindness of sects and parties in any of its pages. Give it one serious perusal. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, February 17, 1770. MY DEAR LADY,--To us it may seem that uninterrupted health would be a greater help to us than pain or sickness. But herein we certainly are mistaken; we are not such good judges in our own cause. You may truly say, ’Health I shall have if health be best.’ But in this and all things you may trust Him that loves you. Indeed, nervous disorders are, of all others, as one observes, enemies to the joy of faith. But the essence of it, that confidence in a loving, pardoning God, they can neither destroy nor impair. Nay, as they keep you dead to all below, they may forward you therein, and they may increase your earnestness after that pure love which turns earth into paradise. It will be by much pains and patience that you will keep one in high life steadfast in the plain, old way. I should wish you to converse with her as frequently as possible. Then I trust God will use you to keep alive the fire which He has kindled. I am in great hopes that chapel will be of use; but it will not be easy to procure a converted clergyman. A schoolmaster will be more easily found; although many here are frighted at the name of Scotland. A diligent master may manage twenty or perhaps thirty children. If one whom I lately saw is willing to come, I believe he will answer your design. I have some thoughts of going to America [See letters of Jan. 25 and Feb. 21 (to George Whitefield).]; but the way is not yet plain. I wait till Providence shall speak more clearly on one side or the other. In April I hope to reach Inverness and to take Edinburgh in my way back to England. But let us live to-day! What a blessing may you receive now! Now let your heart with love o’erflow, And all your life His glory show! --I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Walter Sellon LEWISHAM, February 21, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Do not make too much haste. Give everything the last touch. It will be enough if the papers meet me at Manchester before the end of March. I believe it will be the best way to bestow a distinct pamphlet on that exquisite coxcomb. [Toplady. See letters of Dec. 30, 1769, and June 24, 1770] Surely wisdom will die with him! I believe we can easily get his other tract, which it would be well to sift to the very foundation, in order to stop the mouth of that vain boaster. I am to set out for Bristol March 5, and from Bristol March 12.--I am Your affectionate brother. To George Whitefield LEWISHAM, February 21, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Keen informed me some time since of your safe arrival in Carolina; of which, indeed, I could not doubt for a moment, notwithstanding the idle report of your being cast away, which was so current in London. I trust our Lord has more work for you to do in Europe as well as in America. And who knows but before your return to England I may pay another visit to the New World? [See letters of Feb. 17 and Dec.14.] I have been strongly solicited by several of our friends in New York and Philadelphia. They urge many reasons, some of which appear to be of considerable weight. And my age is no objection at all; for I bless God my health is not barely as good but abundantly better in several respects than when I was five-and-twenty. But there are so many reasons on the other side that as yet I can determine nothing; so I must wait for farther light. Here I am: let the Lord do with me as seemeth Him good. For the present I must beg of you to supply my lack of service by encouraging our preachers as you judge best, who are as yet comparatively young and inexperienced, by giving them such advices as you think proper, and, above all, by exhorting them, not only to love one another, but, if it be possible, as much as lies in them to live peaceably with all men. Some time ago, since you went hence, I heard a circumstance which gave me a good deal of concern--namely, that the College or Academy in Georgia had swallowed up the Orphan House. Shall I give my judgement without being asked? Methinks friendship requires I should. Are there not, then, two points which come in view--a point of mercy and a point of justice? With regard to the former, may it not be inquired, Can anything on earth be a greater charity than to bring up orphans? What is a college or an academy compared to this? unless you could have such a college as perhaps is not upon earth. I know the value of learning, and am more in danger of prizing it too much than too little. But still, I cannot place the giving it to five hundred students, on a level with saving the bodies, if not the souls too, of five hundred orphans. But let us pass on from the point of mercy to that of justice. You had land given and collected money for an Orphan House; are you at liberty to apply this to any other purpose--at least, while there are any orphans in Georgia left? I just touch upon this, though it is an important point, and leave it to your own consideration whether part of it at least might not properly be applied to carry on the original design. In speaking thus freely on so tender a subject, I have given you a fresh proof of the sincerity with which I am Your ever affectionate friend and brother. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, March 2, 1770. DEAR MATTHEW,--The way you propose for clearing the circuit [Lowes was Assistant in the Dales Circuit.] is, I think, the very best which can be devised. Only let your fellow labourers second you heartily, and the thing will be done. Four or five circuits exerted themselves nobly. Had all the rest done the same our burthen would have been quite removed. Well, we will fight till we die.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Barton TEWKESBURY, March 15, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--I rejoice to hear that you stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free; and the more because, although many taste of that heavenly gift, deliverance from inbred sin, yet so few, so exceeding few, retain it one year, hardly one in ten, nay one in thirty. Many hundreds in London were made partakers of it within sixteen or eighteen months; but I doubt whether twenty of them are now as holy and as happy as they were. And hence others had doubted whether God intended that salvation to be enjoyed long. That many have it for a season, that they allow, but are not satisfied that any retain it always. Shall not you for one? You will, if you watch and pray and continue hanging upon Him. Then you will always give matter of rejoicing to, dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Barton, In Norwood, Beverley, Yorkshire. To Mrs. Marston BROADMARSTON, March 16, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--I want to ask you several questions. At what time and in what manner was you justified? Did you from that time find a constant witness of it? When and how was you convinced of the necessity of sanctification? When did you receive it, and in what manner? Did you then find the witness of it? Has it been clear ever since? Have you not found any decay since that time? Do you now find as much life as ever you did? Can you give God your whole heart? In what sense do you ’pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks’? Do you find a testimony in yourself that all your words and actions please Him? You have no need to be nice or curious in answering these questions. You have no occasion to set your words in order; but speak to me just as you would do to one of your sisters. The language of love is the best of all. One truly says,-- There is in love a sweetness ready penned: Copy out only that, and save expense. [George Herbert’s The Temple, ’Jordan.’] You have love in your heart; let that teach you words. Out of the abundance of the heart let the mouth speak. I shall then know better how to advise you. I have a great concern for you, and a desire that you should never lose anything which God has wrought, but should receive a full reward. Stand fast in the name of the Lord and in the power of His might!-- I am Your affectionate brother. You may direct to me at the preaching-house in Manchester To Mary Bosanquet MACCLESFIELD, March 26, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am now moving northward. In about a fortnight I expect to be at Whitehaven, and a week after at Glasgow, in the beginning of May at Aberdeen, and May 11 at Edinburgh. To exert your faith is the very thing you want. Believe, and enter in. The experience of Eliz. Jackson has animated many. It is the very marrow of Christianity; and if it be diligently spread among our believers it may be of unspeakable use. It is certainly right to pray whether we can pray or no. God hears even when we hardly hear ourselves. She saw it so through the advice and importunity of Clayton Carthy. [See letter of June 12, 1759.] And God permitted it. So all is well. With regard to us, I do not at present see any danger either on one side or the other. You have need of a steady guide, and one that knows you well. If my brother had not given Mrs. Gaussen that fatal advice, ’to keep from me,’ she would not have fallen into the hands of others. [See letter of Sept. 25, 1757.] I am glad Richd. Taylor is of use. [Manager of Miss Bosanquet’s estate in Yorkshire.] He will be more and more so, if he continues simple of heart, speaks explicitly of full redemption, and exhorts believers to accept it now. The same rule it will be well for you to observe in conversation with all that are in earnest! Peace be with your spirit! My dear sister, adieu! To Miss Bosanquet, At Gildersome Hall, Near Leeds. To Mrs. Marston CHESTER, April 1, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--As I had not time to converse with you as I would at Worcester, I was exceedingly glad to see you at Wednesbury. [Wesley had been at Worcester on March 14 and 15, and at Wednesbury on the 21st. See letters of March 16 and Aug. 11.] It was the very thing I desired. And surely our Lord will withhold from us no manner of thing that is good. I am glad that you can both speak and write to me freely; it may often be of service to you, especially if God should suffer you to be assaulted by strong and uncommon temptations. I should not wonder if this were to be the case: though perhaps it never will; especially if you continue simple --if, when you are assaulted by that wicked one, you do not reason with him, but just look up for help, hanging upon Him that has washed you in His own blood. Do you now find power to ’rejoice evermore’? Can you ’pray without ceasing’? Is your heart to Him, though without a voice? And do you ’in everything give thanks’? Is your whole desire to Him? And do you still find an inward witness that He has cleansed your heart? Stand fast, then, in that glorious liberty wherewith Christ has made you free!--I am, dear Molly, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be in Glasgow about the 17th of this month. To Mrs. Bennis WHITBHAVEN, April 12, 1770. DEAR SISTER,--If two or three letters have miscarried, all will not; so I am determined to write again. How does the work of God go on at Limerick? Does the select society meet constantly? And do you speak freely to each other? What preachers are with you now? [The Minutes for 1769 give: ’Feb. 1--Let Thomas Taylor go to Limerick.’ He was stationed at Cork, and Richard Bourke at Limerick. See letter of June 13.] Do you converse frankly and openly with them without any shyness or reserve? Do you find your own soul prosper? Do you hold fast what God has given you? Do you give Him all your heart? And do you find the witness of this abiding with you? One who is now in the house with me has not lost that witness one moment for these ten years. [Was this Joseph Guilford, the Assistant there?] Why should you lose it any more? Are not the gifts of God without repentance? Is He not willing to give always what He gives once? Lay hold, lay hold on all the promises.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton ARBROATH, May 8, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Two things are certain: the one, that it is possible to lose even the pure love of God; the other, that it is not necessary, it is not unavoidable--it may be lost, but it may be kept. Accordingly we have some in every part of the kingdom who have never been moved from their steadfastness. And from this moment you need never be moved: His grace is sufficient for you. But you must continue to grow if you continue to stand; for no one can stand still. And is it not your Lord’s will concerning you that you should daily receive a fresh increase of love? And see that you labour so much the more to comfort the feeble-minded, to support the weak, to confirm the wavering, and recover them that are out of the way. In June I hope to see you. Peace be with your spirits! --I am Your affectionate brother. To Richard Bourke EDINBURGH, May 12, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I doubt not your going into Waterford Circuit was for good. It is well the house at Kilkenny is at length getting forward. But the General Collection, out of which I propose to assist our brethren, is not brought in until the Conference; and I myself seldom have any money beforehand. I live, as I may say, from hand to mouth. As to the preachers, I think it very hard if Ireland cannot allow a maintenance to the preachers in Ireland. But, indeed, your case is peculiar. Exclusive of what they are to allow for your wife, I will allot her five pounds (English) for you.--I am Yours affectionately. Endorsed in another hand: Received the contents from Miss Mary Holland, June 11, 1771. To Thomas Robinson NEWCASTLE, May 22, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope to be at Scarborough on Monday, June 18, and on Wednesday the 20th at Hull. If you can show me how to take Burlington [Bridlington.] in my way to Hull on the 20th, I shall be glad to call upon you. Perhaps one of you will meet me at Scarborough.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis YARM, June 13, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Just now we have many persons all over England that are exactly in the state you describe. They were some time since renewed in love, and did then rejoice evermore; but after a few years, months, or weeks, they were moved from their steadfastness; yet several of these have within a few months recovered all they had lost, and some with increase, being far more established than ever they were before. And why may it not be so with you? The rather because you do not deny or doubt of the work which God did work in you, and that by simple faith. Surely you should be every day expecting the same free gift; and He will not deceive your hope. But how is this with respect to Waterford? [See letter of July 27.] They would, and they would not: I sent two preachers to that circuit; why did they not keep them? W. L--wrote word that there was neither employment nor maintenance for two, and therefore wished leave to return to England. Let me hear more from you on this matter. If you can guard Brother Saunderson against pride and the applause of well-meaning people, he will be a happy man and an useful labourer. I hope Brother M--- has not grown cold. Stir up the gift of God which is in you!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, June 20, 1770. DEAR MISS BISHOP,--At present you are exactly in your place; and I trust no temptation, inward or outward, shall ever induce you to depart from the work, to which God has called you. You must expect to be pushed to both extremes by turns--self-confidence and too much diffidence. But it is certain the former is the more dangerous of the two; and you need all the power of God to save you from it. And He will save you to the uttermost, provided you still retain the sense of your poverty and helplessness. It is a good prayer, Show me, as my soul can bear, The depth of inbred sin! And just so He will deal with you; for He remembers that you are but dust. But you should not wait to be thus and thus convinced in order to be renewed in love. No: pray now for all the mind which was in Christ; and you shall have more and more conviction as it pleases Him. Mr. Spencer [See letters of Sept. 13, 1769, and Oct. 12, 1771.] and Glynne are of excellent spirits, notwithstanding their opinion. I hardly know their fellows. Love is all we want; let this fill our hearts, and it is enough. Peace be with your spirit,--I am Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather YORK, June 24, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Augustus Toplady I know well. But I do not fight with chimney-sweepers. He is too dirty a writer for me to meddle with. I should only foul my fingers. I read his title-page, and troubled myself no farther. I leave him to Mr. Sellon. He cannot be in better hands. [See letter of Feb. 21 to Walter Sellon.] As long as you are seeking and expecting to love God with all your heart, so long your soul will live.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Miss March DAWGREEN, July 6, 1770. When things are viewed at a distance, one would be apt to imagine that no degree of sorrow could be found in an heart that rejoices evermore; that no right temper could be wanting, much less any degree of a wrong temper subsist, in a soul that is filled with love. And yet I am in doubt whether there be any soul clothed with flesh and blood which enjoys every right temper and in which is no degree of any wrong one, suppose of ill-judged zeal, or more or less affection for some person than that person really deserves. When we say, ’This is a natural, necessary consequence of the soul’s union with a corruptible body,’ the assertion is by no means clear till we add, ’because of the weakness of understanding which results from this union’; admitting this, the case is plain. There is so close a connexion between right judgement and right tempers as well as right practice, that the latter cannot easily subsist without the former. Some wrong temper, at least in a small degree, almost necessarily follows from wrong judgement: I apprehend when many say, ’Sin must remain while the body remains,’ this is what they mean, though they cannot make it out. You say, ’My silence usually proceeds from my views and thoughts of myself as a Christian.’ Bishop Fenelon [Archbishop of Cambria, 1695-1715.] says, ’Simplicity is that grace which frees the soul from all unnecessary reflections upon itself.’ See here one sort of simplicity which you want! When I speak or write to you, I have you before my eyes, but, generally speaking, I do not think of myself at all. I do not think whether I am wise or foolish, knowing or ignorant; but I see you aiming at glory and immortality, and say just what I hope may direct your goings in the way and prevent your being weary or faint in your mind. Our Lord will order all things well for Sister Thornton. [See letters of Aug. 12, 1769, and April 14, 1771, to Miss March.] What can hurt those that trust in Him? To Mrs. Bennis ASHBY, July 27, 1770. DEAR SISTER,--Will you ever find in yourself anything but unfitness? Otherwise your salvation would be of works, not of grace. But you are frequently sick of a bad disease--evil reasoning; which hinders both your holiness and happiness. You want the true Christian simplicity, which is indeed the highest wisdom. Nothing is more clear, according to the plain Bible account, than sanctification, pure love reigning in the heart and life. And nothing is more plain than the necessity of this in order to feel happiness here and hereafter. Check all reasoning concerning these first principles, else you will exceedingly darken your soul; and go on denying yourself, and taking up your cross, until you Sink into perfection’s height, The depth of humble love. If the preachers on Waterford Circuit had punctually adhered to the plan which I fixed, the horse would have been no burthen; but the misfortune is every dunce is wiser than me. However, at your desire I will send a second preacher into the circuit after Conference; but the preachers must change regularly. It would never do to let one man sit down for six months with a small Society; he would soon preach himself and them as lifeless as stones. Your alteration of the circuit so as to take in poor, dead Clonmel I much approve, and hope Sister L-- [See letter of June 13] will be made a blessing to the few there. I rejoice at Sisters P and B--’s happy release. [Mrs. Bennis had told him that both died triumphantly.] Is not this worth living for? Still draw near to the fountain by simple faith, and take all you want; but be not slothful in your Lord’s vineyard.--My dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Rebecca Yeoman LONDON, August 4, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--I was glad to hear from you; and especially to hear that you are still athirst for God. O beware of setting up any idol in your heart! Give all to Him; for He is worthy. You did exceeding right in going to Jane Johnson. There is no end of shyness if we stand aloof from each other. In this case we have only to overcome evil with good; and they are wisest that yield first. Promises of that kind are of no force. The sooner they are broken the better. You should take Molly Strologer in to board. Oh self-will! How few have conquered it! I believe it is a good providence for your account: she can pay but few visits. She fears God and wishes to save her soul; and the visiting those that are Otherwise-minded will not profit her: she wants nothin but Christ. Surely you may tell anything to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To George Merryweather LONDON, August 7, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have the credit of stationing the preachers. But many of them go where they will go for all me. For instance, I have marked down James Oddie and John Nelson for Yarm Circuit the ensuing year. Yet I am not certain that either of them will come. They can give twenty reasons for going elsewhere. Mr. Murlin says he must be in London. ’Tis certain he has a mind to be there. Therefore so it must be: for you know a man of fortune is master of his own notions.--I am, with love to Sister Merryweather and Mr. Waldy, [See letter of Jan. 24, 1760.] Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Marston LONDON, August 11, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--I thought it long since I heard from you, and wanted to know how your soul prospered. Undoubtedly as long as you are in the body you will come short of what you would be, and you will see more and more of your numberless defects and the imperfection of your best actions and tempers. Yet all this need not hinder your rejoicing evermore and in everything giving thanks. Heaviness you may sometimes feel; but you never need come into darkness. Beware of supposing darkness, that is unbelief, to be better than the light of faith. To suppose this is one of the gross errors of Popery. ’He that followeth me,’ says our Lord, ’shall not walk in darkness.’ That you are tempted a thousand ways will do you no hurt. In all these things you shall be more than conqueror. I hope the select society [For the origin of the select society, see the letter to Vincent Perronet in Dec. 1748, sect. VIII.1-4.] meets constantly and that you speak freely to each other. Go on humbly and steadily, denying yourselves and taking up your cross daily. Walk in the light as He is in the light, in lowliness, in meekness, in resignation. Then He will surely sanctify you throughout in spirit, soul, and body. To hear from you is always a pleasure to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. I am going to Bristol. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, August 12, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--’He that feareth God,’ says the Apostle, ’and worketh righteousness,’ though but in a low degree, is accepted of Him; more especially when such an one trusts not in his own righteousness but in the atoning blood. I cannot doubt at all but this is your case; though you have not that joy in the Holy Ghost to which you are called, because your faith is weak and only as a grain of mustard seed. Yet the Lord has done great things for you already: He has preserved you even in the dangerous season, even In freshest pride of life and bloom of years, from ten thousand snares to which a young woman of a pleasing form and behaviour and not an ill temper would naturally be exposed, and to which your own heart would surely have yielded had you not been preserved by His gracious power. He has given you resignation in pain and sickness. He has made you more than conqueror, even a gainer thereby. And have not you abundant reason to praise Him, to put your whole trust in Him, and firmly to expect all His great and precious promises? The spirit of your last letter engages me much. I dearly love seriousness and sweetness mixed together. Go on, my dear Nancy, in the same path, and you will be nearer and nearer to Your affectionate brother. To James Freeman BRISTOL, August 19, 1770. DEAR JEMMY,--It is lost labour. It will not do. It is vain for any man to attempt it, to make me think any ill of James Freeman [See letter of June 7, 1762.] or Tho. Garrett. [Thomas Garrett, a native of Holland, was one of the oldest members in Dublin. He died in 1776. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 123, 303.] I know them too well. I did hear reports of that kind; but I regarded them not. I would fain hope that Mr. Townsend [Rector of Pewsey. See letter of Aug. 1-3, 1767. He preached against Arminianism.] will behave better in Dublin than he did in Edinburgh. However, he will do little hurt, if you stand fast in one mind, striving together for the hope of the gospel.--I am, dear Jemmy, Your affectionate brother. Letter addressed to Mrs. Jane Freeman, Near the Linen Hall, In Lisburn, Ireland. To Mrs. Marston ST. IVES, August 26, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your last gave me a particular satisfaction, because I was jealous over you. I was afraid lest you, like some others, should have received that dangerous opinion that we must sometimes be in darkness. Wherever you are, oppose this, and encourage all who now walk in the light to expect not only the continuance but the increase of it unto the perfect day. Certain it is that, unless we grieve the Holy Spirit, He will never take away what He has given. On the contrary, He will add to it continually, till we come to the measure of the full stature of Christ. I am glad the select society meets constantly. See that you speak freely to each other. And do not speak of your joys and comforts only; this is well-pleasing to flesh and blood: but speak also of your sorrows and weaknesses and temptations; this is well-pleasing to God, and will be a means of knitting you together by a bond that shall never be broken. I hope you lose no opportunity of speaking a word for God, either to them that know Him or them that do not. Why should you lose any time? Time is short. Work your work betimes! To-day receive more grace and use it! Peace be with your spirit!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Richard Locke BRISTOL, September 14, 1770. Milton justly supposes that if ever angelic minds reasoned on ’freewill entire, foreknowledge absolute,’ they would ’find no end, in wandering mazes lost.’ [Paradise Lost, ii. 560-1.] How much less can an human mind reconcile them! Men have no line to fathom such a depth. We may, however, rest in this: Yet my foreknowledge causes not their fault, Which had no less been certain unforeknown. [Ibid., iii. 118-19: ’Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.’] I believe you will find some light on the head by reading that little tract Predestination Calmly Considered. [Published by Wesley in 1752. See Works, x. 204-59.] The illustrators, Mr. Harwood, [Edward Harwood, D.D. (1729-94), Presbyterian minister at Bristol 1765. His Introduction to New Testament Studies gained him his degree in 1768.] Leibnitz, Clark, Montesquieu, and above all that wretched man Voltaire, would only unhinge and perplex your mind. Hall, Scot, Sharp, Whitby, [Daniel Whitby, D.D. (1638-1726), Prebendary of Salisbury; a voluminous theological writer.] and Fleetwood are good writers; so are Locke, Hooper, and Mosheim in their several ways, but far less useful than Baxter and Law. Dr. South, Knight, and Taylor are some of the finest writers in the English tongue--if you mean Dr. James Knight of St. Sepulchre’s. But I believe the best way for you would be to read only a few select authors. Then (mixing reading with prayer) you would not only find good desires, but they would be brought to good effect.--I am Your servant for Christ’s sake. To Mr. Richard Locke, At Burnham, Near Bridgewater. To Miss March BRISTOL, September 15, 1770. To use the grace given is the certain way to obtain more grace. To use all the faith you have will bring an increase of faith. But this word is of very wide extent: it takes in the full exercise of every talent wherewith we are entrusted. This comprises the whole compass both of inward and outward religion. That you may be able steadily and effectually to attend to this you have need of that prayer, ’Give me understanding, that I may keep Thy law; yea, that I may keep it with my whole heart.’ This is to ’make the best of life,’ which cannot be done without growing in grace. I believe it would help you to read and consider the sermon on Self-Denial in the fourth volume, [See Works, vi. 103--14.] and that on Universal Conscientiousness in the Christian Library. A sense of wants and weaknesses, with various trials and temptations, will do you no real hurt, though they occasion heaviness for a time and abate your joy in the Lord. It is wrong so to attend to this as to weaken your faith; and yet in the general it is not wrong ’to form your estimate of the state of your soul from your sensations’--not, indeed, from these alone, but from these in conjunction with your words and actions. It is true we cannot judge of ourselves by the measure of our joy, the most variable of all our sensations, and frequently depending in a great degree on the state of our blood and spirits. But if you take love, joy, peace, meekness, gentleness, and resignation together, I know no surer rule whereby to judge of your state to Godward. What is the difference between ’the frame of my mind and the state of my soul’? Is there the difference of an hair’s breadth? I will not affirm it. If there be any at all, perhaps it is this: the frame may mean a single, transient sensation; the state, a more complicated and lasting sensation, something which we habitually feel. By frame some may mean fleeting passions; by state, rooted tempers. But I do not know that we have any authority to use the terms thus or to distinguish one from the other. He whose mind is in a good frame is certainly a good man as long as it so continues. I would therefore no more require you to cease from judging of your state by your frame of mind than I would require you to cease from breathing. Unless you deal very closely with those committed to your care, you will not give an account of them with joy. Advices and admonitions at a distance will do little harm or good. To those who give in to dress you might read or recommend the Advice to the Methodists on that head. It would be proper to go to the root of the matter once or twice; then to let it sleep, and after a few weeks try again. A Methodist using fine or gay apparel must suffer loss in her soul, although she may retain a little life; but she never will attain an high degree either of holiness or happiness. [See Works, xi. 466-77; and letter of Feb. 26, 1776.] To Joseph Thompson BRISTOL, September 23, 1770. DEAR JOSEPH,--You are in the right. The most proper time for making the division is in the Quarter Day. I can confide in your prudence as well as impartiality in greater things than these. Be diligent in the books everywhere and exact in every point of discipline.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Locke BRISTOL, October 4, 1770. Your last gave me a good deal of satisfaction. I am glad your mind is more settled, [See letter of Sept. 14.] and hope you will not rest till you are not only almost but altogether a Christian. I have always observed that where there is a cheerful, clean, convenient house for preaching, there will not want hearers. It would therefore be well if such an one could be built at Highbridge. What you purpose giving towards it is considerable. If Mr. Mason [John Mason, Assistant in Devonshire. He was extensively read, especially in botany, and natural history in general. He died on March 27, 1810.] judges the rest of the money could be raised in the neighbourhood, the sooner it were done the better. I wish you all happiness; and am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson BRISTOL, October 5, 1770. DEAR JOSEPH,--You need no apology for your writing; the more frequently and freely you write, the better. I cannot doubt but your neighbour means well; but he is a thorough enthusiast, and has hardly one clear conception of anything, natural or spiritual. Mr. Keard, from Aberdeen, and Mr. Wootton (our new writing-master, a man of an excellent spirit) are at Kingswood. But does Mr. J-- know the price?-- sixteen pounds a year. Does he know the rules of the school? Again: of what age are the children? I will take none that is above nine years old: now especially, because I will not have our children corrupted; nine of whom, together with our three maid servants, have just now experienced a gracious visitation, and are rejoicing in a pardoning God. [Wesley says, ’Fifteen of the boys gave me their names; being resolved, they said, to serve God.’ see Journal, v. 388-92.] I am glad you had the courage to speak your mind on so critical an occasion. At all hazards do so still, only with all possible tenderness and respect. She is much devoted to God and has a thousand valuable and amiable qualities. There is no great fear that I should be prejudiced against one whom I have intimately known for these thirty years. [The countess of Huntingdon.] And I know what is in man; therefore I make large allowance for human weaknesses. But what you say is exactly the state of the case. They are ’jealous of their authority.’ Truly there is no cause: Longe mea discrepat illi et vox et ratio. [Horace’s Satires, 1. vi. 92-3: ’My language and judgement are far different from that.’] I fear and shun, not desire, authority of any kind. Only when God lays that burthen upon me, I bear it for His and the people’s sake. ’Child,’ said my father to me when I was young, ’you think to carry everything by dint of argument. But you will find by-and-by how very little is ever done in the world by clear reason.’ [See Clarke’s Wesley Family, ii. 321.] Very little indeed! It is true of almost all men, except so far as we are taught of God,-- Against experience we believe, We argue against demonstration; Pleased while our reason we deceive, And set our judgement by our passion. Passion and prejudice govern the world, only under the name of reason. It is our part, by religion and reason joined, to counteract them all we can. It is yours in particular to do all that in you lies to soften the prejudices of those that are round about you and to calm the passions from which they spring. Blessed are the peace-makers! You judge rightly: perfect love and Christian liberty are the very same thing; and those two expressions are equally proper, being equally scriptural. ’Nay, how can they and you mean the same thing? They say you insist on holiness in the creature, on good tempers, and sin destroyed.’ Most surely. And what is Christian liberty but another word for holiness? And where is this liberty or holiness if it is not in the creature? Holiness is the love of God and man, or the mind which was in Christ. Now, I trust, the love of God is shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto you. And if you are holy, is not that mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus? And are not the love of God and our neighbour good tempers? And, so far as these reign in the soul, are not the opposite tempers, worldly-mindedness, malice, cruelty, revengefulness, destroyed? Indeed, the unclean spirit, though driven out, may return and enter again; nevertheless he was driven out. I use the word ’destroyed’ because St. Paul does; ’suspended’ I cannot find in my Bible. ’But they say you do not consider this as the consequence of the power of Christ dwelling in us.’ Then what will they not say? My very words are: ’None feel their need of Christ like these; none so entirely depend upon Him. For Christ does not give light to the soul separate from, but in and with, Himself. Hence His words are equally true of all men in whatever state of grace they are: "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me: without" (or separate from) "Me ye can do nothing." For our perfection is not like that of a tree, which flourishes by the sap derived from its own root; but like that of a branch, which, united to the vine, bears fruit, but severed from it is "dried up and withered."’ At length veris vincor [’I am conquered by the truth.’]: I am constrained to believe (what I would not for a long time) these are not the objections of judgement, but of passion; they do not spring from the head, but the heart. Whatever I say, it will be all one. They will find fault because I say it. There is implicit envy at my power (so called), and a jealousy rising therefrom. Hence prejudice in a thousand forms; hence objections springing up like mushrooms. And, while those causes remain, they will spring up, whatever I can do or say. However, keep thyself pure; and then there need be no strangeness between you and, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, October 13, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You are quite right. If a man preach like an angel, he will do little good without exact discipline. I am glad honest William Hodgson has been of use; and hope you have made him and his brother friends. I will trust you for letting any place be six or eight weeks without preaching. Let this evil be removed, and the congregations will increase on Wednesdays as well as Sundays. Pray warn your young man continually (and yourself), ’Not too long or too loud!’ I am right glad honest R. Roberts has preached at the Cross. ’Go thou and do likewise.’ I leave both the vicar and the curate in your hands. I have no concern with them. I let them drop. Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might!--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Matthew Lowes LONDON, October 13, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Health you shall have, if health be best: if not, sickness will be a greater blessing. I am glad you have Dr. Wilson near. A more skilful man, I suppose, is not in England. If you should continue weak (as I did from November to March), good is the will of the Lord. You are not a superannuated preacher; but you are a supernumerary. I believe one of your boys is rejoicing in the love of God.--I am, with love to Sister Lowes, dear Matthew, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Crosby BEDFORD, October 26, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--I congratulate you both upon your sickness and your recovery from it. Do not all things work together for good to them that love God? Now redeem the little uncertain time that is given you; perhaps fifteen years, perhaps not so many months. Deal very faithfully and freely with my dear M. Bosanquet and with Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton NORWICH, November 5, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--For many years I had a kind of scruple with regard to praying for temporal things. But three or four years ago I was throughly persuaded that scruple was unnecessary. Being then straitened much, I made it matter of prayer; and I had an immediate answer. It is true we can only ask outward blessings with reserve, ’If this is best; if it be Thy will.’ And in this manner we may certainly plead the promise, ’All these things shall be added to you.’ I hope the little debates which were some time since in the Society at Beverley are at an end, and that you all now continue in love and bear one another’s burthens. You had for a long time an hard part to act between the contending parties; but as God preserved you from anger and from a party spirit, you suffered no loss thereby. Beware of suffering loss from another quarter, from worldly care. This is a dangerous enemy. You had need steadily to cast your care on Him that careth for you. To Him I commit you and yours; and am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Barton, In Norwood, Beverley, Yorkshire. North Post. To Mary Bishop NORWICH, November 5, 1770. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP,--I am glad you had such success in your labour of love. In all things you shall reap if you faint not. And the promise is, ’They shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.’ I hope the building is begun, [See letter of Nov. 27.] and will be finished as soon as possible. What temper are your neighbours in? Do they bear with you? And do you confirm your love toward them? How does our little Society prosper? Are you all united in love? And are you all aware of that bane of love, tale-bearing and evil-speaking? Are the congregations as large as they have been for some time? Herein we may well say, What hath God wrought! See, I ask you many questions, because I have a mind you should say a great deal to me. How does your own soul prosper? Do you retain that little spark of faith? Are you going forward, and have you as strong a desire as ever to increase with all the increase of God? See the Lord, thy Keeper, stand, Omnipotently near! Lo, He holds thee by thy hand, And banishes thy fear! O trust Him, love Him, and praise Him! And for His sake love, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bishop, Near the Countess of Huntingdon’s Chapel, In Bath. To Ann Bolton LONDON, November 16, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--To see even the superscription of a letter from you always gives me pleasure. I am glad you are still waiting for the kingdom of God: although as yet you are rather in the state of a servant than of a child. But it is a blessed thing to be even a servant of God! You shall never have cause to be ashamed of His service. What I peculiarly advise is, that you will never omit private duties, whatever hurry you may be in, and however dull and dry your soul may be: still they shall not be without a blessing. And therein you will receive power against that temptation, which to your tender spirit may be the most dangerous of any. On Sunday I am to preach a funeral sermon for that blessed man Mr. Whitefield at the Tabernacle and at Tottenham Court Chapel. [See next letter.] If it is an help or comfort to you, write often to, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, November 18, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--It always gives me pleasure to hear from you, and to know that your soul prospers; so does the work of God in various places, and I hope in Lincolnshire. It certainly will if Mr. Ellis is exact in discipline. It is sure none is a member of a Methodist Society that has not a ticket. This is a necessary thing; but it is only a small one. The great point is to conform to the Bible method of salvation--to have the mind which was in Christ, and to walk as Christ walked. I hope all your three preachers insist upon this, which is the very essence of Christian perfection. And why should note my dear friend, in spite of a thousand temptations, experience this every day? This morning I am to preach Mr. Whitefield’s funeral sermon at the chapel in Tottenham Court Road and at the Tabernacle in the evening. It is true it will be impossible, humanly speaking, for my voice to fill either of those places; especially if it is as full as a beehive, and consequently as hot as an oven. But nothing is impossible with God. Let us trust Him, and He will do all things well!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, Owston Ferry. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, November 24, 1770. DEAR SAMMY,--According to your account the very same difficulty subsists to this day. Your mother is not willing; and I told you before, this is in my judgement an insuperable bar. I am fully persuaded that a parent has in this case a negative voice. Therefore, while matters continue thus, I do not see that you can go any farther. Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, November 27, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--Let them remember to make the aisles on the side of the room, [See letter of Nov. 5 to her.] and to place the forms in the middle crossways, with a rail running across from the pulpit downward, to part the men from the women. And I particularly desire there may be no pews and no backs to the forms. I could not advise our people to hear Mr. Shirley, [The Hon. Walter Shirley. See letter of Jan. 27, to John Whitehead.] but still less to hear the Moravians. Their words are smoother than oil, but yet they are very swords. I advise them by all means to go to church. Those that leave the Church will soon leave us. I know not that you have anything to do with fear. Your continual prayer should be for faith and love. I admired an holy man in France who, considering the state of one who was full of doubts and fears, forbade him to think of his sins at all, and ordered him to think only of the love of God in Christ. The fruit was, all his fears vanished away and he lived and died in the triumph of faith. Faith is sight--that is, spiritual sight: and it is light, and not darkness; so that the famous Popish phrase, ’The darkness of faith,’ is a contradiction in terms. O beware of all that talk or write in that unscriptural manner, or they will perplex if not destroy you. I cannot find in my Bible any such sin as legality. Truly we have been often afraid where no fear was. I am not half legal enough, not enough under the law of love. Sometimes there is painful conviction of sin preparatory to full sanctification; sometimes a conviction that has far more pleasure than pain, being mixed with joyful expectation. Always there should be a gradual growth in grace, which need never be intermitted from the time we are justified. Don’t wait, therefore, for pain or anything else, but simply for allconquering faith. The more freely you write, the more satisfaction you will give to, my dear Molly, Yours affectionately. PS.--I should think she [Lady Huntingdon. See letter of March 8, 1771.] would not be so unwise as to give any copy of that letter. To Miss Bishop, Near the Countess of Huntingdon’s Chapel, In Bath. To Walter Churchey LONDON, November 29, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have done well in showing your respect to the memory of that blessed man. His works shall follow him, and his name will be had in remembrance unto many generations, were it only for that excellent institution the Orphan House in Georgia. I understand from our common friend, Mr. Bold, [See letter of May 6, 1774, to Charles Wesley.] that your situation is critical indeed. But what have Mr. Thomas and you to do but to continue instant in prayer? Then, suppose that your eye is single, that you simply pursue the glory of God in the good of souls, He will from time to time clear up all difficulties and make plain the way before your face.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Walter Churchey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To Joseph Benson LONDON, November 30, 1770. DEAR JOSEPH,--For several years I had been deeply convinced that I had not done my duty with regard to that valuable woman; that I had not told her what I was throughly assured no one else would dare to do, and what I knew she would bear from no other person, but possibly might bear from me. But, being unwilling to give her pain, I put it off from time to time. At length I did not dare to delay any longer, lest death should call one of us hence. So I at once delivered my own soul, by telling her all that was in my heart. It was my business, my proper business, so to do, as none else either could or would do it. Neither did I take at all too much upon me; I know the office of a Christian minister. If she is not profited, it is her own fault, not mine; I have done my duty. I do not know there is one charge in that letter which was either unjust, unimportant, or aggravated, any more than that against the doggerel hymns which are equally an insult upon poetry and common sense. We had a good time both at the Tabernacle and Tottenham Court Chapel. The congregations were immense. Perhaps not a third part could come within hearing; and they were more quiet than could well have been expected. The sermon will be published on Monday and sent down to Bristol. Mr. Keen and Hardy, his executors, have, I apprehend, the whole and sole disposal of the Tabernacle, Tottenham Court Chapel, and all the other houses which were occupied by Mr. Whitefield. The Chapel and Tabernacle are supplied by Mr. Joss and Brooksbank, and Mr. Neale administers the sacrament there. I find no such sin as legality in the Bible: the very use of the term speaks an Antinomian. I defy all liberty but liberty to love and serve God, and fear no bondage but bondage to sin. Sift that text to the bottom, and it will do the business of poor H--and all his disciples: ’God sent His own Son in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.’ Justitia legis, justitia legalis! [’The righteousness of the law is legal righteousness.’] Here is legality indeed! I am glad you come a little nearer the good old Emperor’s advice, Thn twn bibliwn diyan ripte. [Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, II. sect. 3: ’Throw away that thirst for books.’ See letter of March 14, 1756] That thirst is the symptom of an evil disease; and crescit indulgens sibi dirus hydrops. [Horace’s Odes, II. ii. 13; ’His own indulgence makes the dreadful dropsy grow.’] What is the real value of a thing but the price it will bear in eternity? Let no study swallow up or entrench upon the hours of private prayer. Nil tanti. [’Nothing is of so much importance.’] Simplify both religion and every part of learning as much as possible. Be all alive to God, and you will be useful to men!--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Marston LONDON, December 14, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--If I live till spring, and should have a clear, pressing call, I am as ready to embark for America [See letters of Feb. 21, 1770 (to Whitefield), and July 13, 1771 (to Miss March).] as for Ireland. All places are alike to me; I am attached to none in particular. Wherever the work of our Lord is to be carried on, that is my place for to-day. And we live only for to-day; it is not our part to take thought for to-morrow. You expect to fight your way through. But I think the preachers understand you and can receive your report; and so do most of your sisters. What forces, then, can Satan raise up against you? You can speak to me without reserve; for you know I love you much. Abundance of deficiencies must remain as long as the soul remains in this house of clay. So long the corruptible body will more or less darken and press down the soul. But still your heart may be all love, and love is the fulfilling of our law. Still you may rejoice evermore; you may pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks. Peace be multiplied unto you!--I am, dear Molly, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton SEVENOAKS, December 15, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is true there is a danger, and that continually, of thinking too much of yourself. But there is another danger to which you are more immediately exposed: thinking too little of the grace of God which is given you. Instantly resist all reasoning on that head, whether you are in a state of acceptance. As surely as you are in the body hold this fast, by His free almighty grace; and then Expect His fullness to receive And grace to answer grace. It might be of use to you to read again with much prayer the sermon on The Repentance of Believers, which will show you just where you are now, and The Scripture Way of Salvation. [See Works, v. 156-70, Vi. 43-54.] In one sense faith is all you want. If thou canst believe, are not all things possible to him that believeth? What may you not receive to-day? at this hour? at this very moment? Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, December 21, 1770. MY DEAR BROTHER,--We are sure God is wise in all His ways and gracious in all His works. But many times the reasons of them are past finding out. We can only say, ’It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good.’ I wish that good young man Mr. Hill could be prevailed upon to cast in his lot among us. He is upright of heart, and bids very fair to be an useful labourer in our Lord’s vineyard.-- I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 28, 1770. DEAR JOSEPH,--What a blessing it is that we can speak freely to each other without either disguise or reserve! So long as we are able to do this we may grow wiser and better every day. One point I advise you to hold fast, and let neither men nor devils tear it from you. You are a child of God; you are justified freely through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Your sins are forgiven! Cast not away that confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. Now, can any be justified but by faith? None can. Therefore you are a believer; you have faith in Christ; you know the Lord; you can say, ’My Lord and my God.’ And whoever denies this may as well deny that the sun shines at noonday. Yet still ten thousand lusts remain, And vex your soul, absolved from sin; Still rebel nature strives to reign, And you are all unclean, unclean! This is equally clear and undeniable. And this is not only your experience, but the experience of a thousand believers beside, who yet are sure of God’s favour as of their own existence. To cut off all doubt on this head, I beg you to give another serious reading to those two sermons Sin in Believers and The Repentance of Believers. [Works, v. 144-70.] ’But is there no help? Is there no deliverance, no salvation from this inbred enemy?’ Surely there is; else many great and precious promises must fall to the ground. ’I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you.’ ’I will circumcise thy heart’ (from all sin), ’to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.’ This I term sanctification (which is both an instantaneous and a gradual work), or perfection, the being perfected in love, filled with love, which still admits of a thousand degrees. But I have no time to throw away in contending for words, especially where the thing is allowed. And you allow the whole thing which I contend for--an entire deliverance from sin, a recovery of the whole image of God, the loving God with all our heart, soul, and strength. And you believe God is able to give you this--yea, to give it you in an instant. You trust He will. O hold fast this also--this blessed hope, which He has wrought in your heart! And with all zeal and diligence confirm the brethren, (1) in holding fast that whereto they have attained-- namely, the remission of all their sins by faith in a bleeding Lord; (2) in expecting a second change, whereby they shall be saved from all sin and perfected in love. If they like to call this ’receiving the Holy Ghost,’ they may: only the phrase in that sense is not scriptural and not quite proper; for they all ’received the Holy Ghost’ when they were justified. God then ’sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ O Joseph, keep close to the Bible both as to sentiment and expression! Then there will never be any material difference between you and Your affectionate brother. This morning I have calmly and coolly read over my letter to Lady Huntingdon. [See letter of Nov. 30.] I still believe every line of it is true. And I am assured I spoke the truth in love. It is great pity any who wish her well should skin over the wounds which are there searched. As long as she resents that office of true esteem her grace can be but small! To Ann Bolton LONDON, December 29, 1770. MY DEAR SISTER,--You did well to write without delay; it may be a means of strengthening you. To confess the work of God is one of the appointed ways of retaining whatever He has wrought. That you are assaulted on every side is a good sign: so much the more will you cry to the strong for strength; so much more will you Hang upon His arm and feel Your utter helplessness. I am glad of your interviews just at this time with my dear Hannah Ball. Nothing could be more providential; at this season particularly you stand in need of every help. And God has favoured her with a considerable measure of the wisdom that cometh from above. It is your wisdom to suppress to the uttermost of your power all unprofitable reasoning; to abide simple before God, crying, ’Lord, what I know not teach Thou me.’ Now you may profit by Jenny Cooper’s Letters and the Plain Account of Christian Perfection. But you need to be nursed like a little child. Therefore write soon and freely to Your affectionate brother. To Ann Foard LONDON, December 29, 1770. MY DEAR Sister,--When we had an opportunity of spending a day or two together, you convinced me that you fear and love God and desire to enjoy all His promises. And I found you less prejudiced than I expected against the doctrine of Christian Perfection. I only want you to experience this--to be ’all faith, all gentleness, all love.’ Labour to be wise and yet simple! to steer between the extremes of neglecting to cultivate your understanding, which is right, and leaning to it, which is fatally wrong. And be free and open with, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 64: 62. 1771 ======================================================================== 1771 To Joseph Benson LONDON, January 7, 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--I am surprised at nothing. When persons are governed by passion rather than reason, we can expect little good. I cannot see that there was anything blameable in your behaviour. You could not do or say less with a clear conscience. I suppose you have: given Mr. Fletcher a plain account of what has passed; although he will hardly be able to set things right. Which way do you think to steer your course now You are welcome to stay at Kingswood till you are better provided for. I shall write for Mr. Mather [Alexander Mather, then Assistant in the Bristol Circuit. See Wesley’s veterans, ii. 107.] to go into Brecknockshire. You may always be sure of any service which is in the power of, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Jos. Benson, At Mr. Churchey’s, Near the Hay, Brecon. To John Fletcher January 16, 1771. DEAR SIR,--Mr. Churchey enclosed this letter to me, doubting whether it was proper to send it you or no. I judged it very proper, and so send it without delay. You have need of much wisdom, courage, and patience. Write a line if you have not quite forgot Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, January 21, 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--It was of their own mere motion that the students, when I was in Wales, desired me to come and spend a little time with them. I had no thought or desire so to do, having work enough upon my hands. When Mr. Ireland [See letters of Oct. 23 and Nov. 4, 1759.] asked me why I did not go thither in August, [He was in Bristol from Aug. 13 to 20.] I answered, ’Because my Lady had written to me to the contrary.’ But I do not remember that I showed him her letter; I believe I did not. I know not why you should not keep the rest of your terms at Oxford and take a Bachelor’s degree. Only if you should be pressed in spirit to give yourself up to the work of God sooner, I think you must follow your own conscience. Write quite freely to, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, January 24, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--The sure way is, By doing and bearing the will of our Lord, We still are preparing to meet our reward. [See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, v. 427.] Go on steadily doing and suffering the holy and acceptable will of God. It pleases Him sometimes to let us sow much seed before there is any visible fruit. But frequently much grows upon a sudden, at a time and in a manner which we least expected. So God confounds human wisdom, and constrains him that glorieth to glory in the Lord. I am glad the providence of God led you to Wallingford, were it only for the sake of poor Miss Hartly. [See letter of Aug. 3 to Miss March.] She departed from us for a season that we might receive her again for ever. This should be an encouragement to you to labour with other backsliders. No one is ruined while he is out of hell.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Ball. At Mr. Ball’s, Laceman, In High Wycombe. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, January 24, 1771. MY DEAR LADY,--Although Mr. M’Nab [The preacher then stationed at Glasgow.] is quite clear as to justification by faith and is in general a sound and good preacher, yet I fear he is not clear of blame in this. He is too warm and impatient of contradiction; otherwise he must be lost to all common sense to preach against final perseverance in Scotland. From the first hour that I entered the kingdom it was a sacred rule with me never to preach on any controverted point--at least, not in a controversial way. Any one may see that this is only to put a sword into our enemies’ hands. It is the direct way to increase all their prejudices and to make all our labours fruitless. You will shortly have a trial of another kind. Mr. De Courcy purposes to set out for Edinburgh in a few days. He was from a child a member of one of our Societies in the South of Ireland. There he received remission of sins, and was for some time groaning for full redemption. But when he came to Dublin, [Passing through Trinity College.] the Philistines were upon him and soon prevailed over him. Quickly he was convinced that ’there is no perfection,’ and that ’all things depend on absolute, unchangeable decrees.’ At first he was exceedingly warm upon these heads; now he is far more calm. His natural temper, I think, is good: he is open, friendly, and generous. He has also a good understanding, and is not unacquainted with learning, though not deeply versed therein. He has no disagreeable person, a pleasing address, and is a lively as well as a sensible preacher. Now, when you add to this that he is quite new and very young, you may judge how he will be admired and caressed! ’Surely such a preacher as this never was in Edinburgh before! Mr. Whitefield himself was not to compare with him! What an angel of a man!’ Now, how will a raw, inexperienced youth be able to encounter this If there be not the greatest of miracles to preserve him, will it not turn his brain And may he not then do far more hurt than either Mr. Whitefield or Mr. Townsend [See letters of Aug. 1-3, 1767, and Aug. 19, 1770.] did Will he not prevent your friend from ’going on to perfection,’ or thinking of any such thing Nay, may he not shake you also He would, but that the God whom you serve is able to deliver you. At present, indeed, he is in an exceedingly loving spirit. But will that continue long There will be danger on the one hand if it does; there will be danger on the other if it does not. It does not appear that any great change has been wrought in our neighbours by Mr. Whitefield’s death. He had fixed the prejudice so deep that even he himself was not able to remove it; yet our congregations have increased exceedingly and the work of God increases on every side. I am glad you use more exercise. It is good for both body and soul. As soon as Mr. De Courcy is come, I shall be glad to hear how the prospect opens. [See letter of Feb. 26 to her.] You will then need a larger share of the wisdom from above; and I trust you will write with all openness to, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Philothea Briggs LONDON, January 25, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--As you desire a few directions with regard to the improvement of your mind, I will set down just what occur to me at present. Only, as my business is great and my time is short, I cannot stay to explain them at large. All the knowledge you want is comprised in one book--the Bible. When you understand this, you will know enough. I advise you, therefore, to begin every day (before or after private prayer) with reading a portion more or less of the Old or New Testament, or of both if you have time, together with the Notes, which may lead you by the hand into suitable meditation. After breakfast you may read in order the volumes of Sermons and the other practical books which we have published, more or less at a time (as other business permits) with meditation and prayer. Young, Milton, and the Moral and Sacred Poems you may read chiefly in the afternoons. Whatever you write, you should write in the forenoons. But learn to write sloping, not leaning upon your breast. Take care never to read or write too long a time. That is not conducive either to bodily or spiritual health. If I can be of use to you in anything else, tell me; you know you may speak freely to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Thomas Wride LONDON, February 14, 1771. DEAR TOMMY,--If we live till August, the matter of David Evans [David Evans was preacher on trial at Haworth. Sister Evans is among the preachers’ wives to be provided for. He ceased from travelling in 1776.] must be throughly inquired into. I do not see that you could do anything more with regard to Longtown. The providence of God has remarkably interposed in behalf of the poor people at Whitehaven. I am in hopes there will be more peace among them, and more life than has been for some time. Now, Tommy, you have good encouragement to stir up the gift of God that is in you. Labour to be steadily serious, to be weighty in conversation, and to walk humbly and closely with God.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, February 16, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--Never be afraid of being troublesome. That would not be the case, were you to write every week. You look inward too much and upward too little. Christ is ready to impart Life to all, for life who sigh; In thy mouth and in thy heart The word is ever nigh. Encourage yourself to trust Him; that is your point: then He will do all things well. Legality, with most who use that term, really means tenderness of conscience. There is no propriety in the word if one would take it for seeking justification by works. Considering, therefore, how hard it is to fix the meaning of that odd term, and how dreadfully it has been abused, I think it highly advisable for all the Methodists to lay it quite aside. If he could find any other doctrine which he thought was peculiarly mine, Mr. Shirley would be as angry at it as he is at Christian Perfection. But it is all well: we are to go forward, whoever goes back or turns aside. I hope your class goes on well, and that you are not weary of well doing. The Lord is at hand.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Walter Churchey LONDON, February 21, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad Mr. Benson and you had an opportunity of conversing freely with Mr. Fletcher, and that he has dealt so faithfully with my Lady. Perhaps it may have a good effect. At least, he has delivered his own soul, whether she will hear or whether she will forbear. [See letter of Jan. 7.] Entire sanctification, or Christian perfection, is neither more nor less than pure love--love expelling sin and governing both the heart and life of a child of God. The Refiner’s fire purges out all that is contrary to love, and that many times by a pleasing smart. Leave all this to Him that does all things well and that loves you better than you do yourself.--I am, with love to Brother Thomas, Your affectionate brother. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ LONDON, February 26, 1771. SIR,--The editor of a monthly publication pompously called the Gospel Magazine, Mr. Romaine, has violently fallen upon one and another who did not knowingly give him any provocation. And whereas in other magazines the accused has liberty to answer for himself, it is not so here: this gentleman will publish only the charge, but not the defence. What can a person thus injuriously treated do To publish pamphlets on every head would not answer the end; for the answer would not come into near so many hands as the objections. Is there, then, a better way than to appeal to candid men in one of the public papers By which means the antidote will operate both as widely and as speedily as the poison. This method, therefore, I take at last, after delaying as long as I could with innocence. In that magazine for last month there is a warm attack upon my sermon on the death of Mr. Whitefield. The first charge is against the text: ’Let me die the death of the righteous.’ ’How improper,’ says Mr. Romaine, ’to apply the words of a mad prophet to so holy a man as Mr. Whitefield!’ ’Improper’! See how doctors differ! I conceive nothing can possibly be more proper. If Mr. Romaine did indeed tell his congregation, some of whom disliking his attacking my poor text before, ’Let who will be vexed, I do not care; I will not justify Balaam while I live’; yet others imagine nothing could be more suitable than for Balaam junior to use the words of his forefather; especially as he did not apply them to Mr. Whitefield, but to himself. Surely a poor reprobate may without offence wish to die like one of the elect. I dare say every one understood me to mean this the moment he heard the text; if not, the very hymn I sung showed to whom I applied the words,-- O that without a lingering groan I might the welcome word receive, My body with my charge lay down, And cease at once to work and live! But the main attack is on the sermon itself, wherein I am charged with asserting a gross falsehood in the face of God and the congregation, and that knowing it to be such--namely, ’That the grand fundamental doctrines which Mr. Whitefield everywhere preached were those of the New Birth and Justification by Faith.’ ’No,’ says Mr. Romaine; ’not at all: the grand fundamental doctrines he everywhere preached were the Everlasting Covenant between the Father and the Son and Absolute Predestination flowing therefrom.’ I join issue on this head. Whether the doctrines of the Eternal Covenant and Absolute Predestination are the grand fundamental doctrines of Christianity or not, I affirm again (1) that Mr. Whitefield did not everywhere preach these; (2) that he did everywhere preach the New Birth and Justification by Faith. 1. He did not everywhere preach the Eternal Covenant and Absolute Predestination. I never heard him utter a sentence on one or the other. Yea, all the times he preached in West Street Chapel and in our other chapels throughout England he did not preach those doctrines at all--no, not in a single paragraph; which, by-the-by, is a demonstration that he did not think them the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. 2. Both in West Street Chapel and all our other chapels throughout England he did preach the necessity of the new birth and justification by faith as clearly as he has done in his two volumes of printed sermons; therefore all I have asserted is true, and provable by ten thousand witnesses. Nay, says Mr. Romaine, ’Mr. Whitefield everywhere insisted on other fundamental doctrines, from the foundation of which the new birth and justification take their rise, with which they are inseparably connected: these are the everlasting covenant which was entered into by the Holy Trinity, and God the Father’s everlasting, unchangeable election of sinners’ (in virtue of which a fiftieth part of mankind shall be saved, do what they will; and the other forty-nine parts shall be damned, do what they can); - ’these doctrines are not of a less essential nature than either Regeneration or Justification. No, by no means; they are to the full equally essential to the glory of God. Yea, there is an inseparable connexion between them. This is a most essential, a most fundamental point.’ (Gospel Magazine, p. 41.) If so, then every one who does not hold it must perish everlastingly. If, as you here assert, he cannot be justified, then he cannot be saved. If, as you say, he cannot be born again, ’he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ After asserting this, can Mr. Romaine ever take the name of catholic love into his mouth Is not this the very opposite to it the height and depth of bigotry Does this spirit do honour to his opinion Can we conceive anything more horrid Is it not enough to make a person of humanity shudder yea, to make his blood run cold I will not here enter into the merits of the cause; I need not. It is done to my hands. The whole doctrine of Predestination is throughly discussed in those three tracts lately printed--An Answer to the Eleven Letters commonly ascribed to Mr. Hervey, Arguments against General Redemption considered, and An Answer to Elisha Coles. [See Green’s Bibliography, No. 227; and letter of Dec. 30, 1769.] Till these are seriously and solidly refuted, I have no more to say on that head. But this I must aver, that the excluding all from salvation who do not believe the Horrible Decree is a most shocking insult on all mankind, on common sense, and common humanity.--I am, &c. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, February 26, 1771. MY DEAR LADY,--I cannot but think the chief reason of the little good done by our preachers at Edinburgh is the opposition which has been made by the ministers of Edinburgh as well as by the false brethren from England. These steeled the hearts of the people against all the good impressions which might otherwise have been made, so that the same preachers by whom God has constantly wrought, not only in various parts of England but likewise in the northern parts of Scotland, were in Edinburgh only not useless. They felt a damp upon their own spirits; they had not their usual liberty of speech; and the word they spoke seemed to rebound upon them, and not to sink into the hearts of the hearers. At my first coming I usually find something of this myself: but the second or third time of preaching it is gone; and I feel, greater is He that is with us than all the powers of earth and hell. If any one could show you by plain scripture and reason a more excellent way than that you have received, you certainly would do well to receive it; and I trust I should do the same. But I think it will not be easy for any one to show us either that Christ did not die for all or that He is not willing as well as able to cleanse from all sin even in the present world. If your steady adherence to these great truths be termed bigotry, yet you have no need to be ashamed. You are reproached for Christ’s sake, and the Spirit of glory and of Christ shall rest upon you. Perhaps our Lord may use you to soften some of the harsh spirits and to preserve Lady Glenorchy [She gave up all connexion with Wesley’s preachers shortly after De Courcy’s arrival. See letter of Jan. 24.] or Mr. De Courcy from being hurt by them. I hope to hear from you (on whom I can depend) a frequent account of what is done near you. After you have suffered awhile, may God stablish, strengthen, settle you!--I am, my dear Lady, Your very affectionate servant. I expect to be at Chester on Saturday fortnight, and a week or two after in Dublin. I have laid up your late direction so safe that I cannot find it. To the Lady Maxwell, (late) In Wariston’s Close, Edinburgh. To Mary Bishop BRISTOL, March 8, 1771. DEAR MISS BISHOP,--The advice which Mr. Mather gave you was good; and, indeed, the very best that could be given. Bear your cross, and it will bear you; but still deal faithfully with your sisters. And warn them all, both together and singly, of that snare into which they have so often fallen. If need be, Mr. Mather too must speak to them and enlarge upon the same head. In praying with the children, you have only to ask for those things which you are sensible they most want, and that in the most plain, artless, and simple language which you can devise. You will have other trials when that well-meaning (though not always well-judging) woman [See letters of Nov. 27, 1770, and May 27, 1771.] comes to Bath. If she continues to show scraps of my letters, I shall be obliged to give you a copy of the whole. Be humble, zealous, active.-- I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. PS.--On Monday I am to set out towards Dublin. A letter directed thither will be sent to me in any part of the kingdom. To Miss Bishop, In Bath. To Joseph Benson BRISTOL, March 9, 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--I must write a few lines, though I can ill spare time. You seem to be providentially thrust out into the harvest. But consider what you do. Read the Minutes of the Conference, and see whether you can conform thereto. Likewise think whether you can abstain from speaking of Universal Salvation and Mr. Fletcher’s late discovery. The Methodists in general could not bear this. It would create huge debate and confusion. I wish you would read over that sermon in the first volume on The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption. [Works, v. 98-111.] Invenio te corde simplicem, as the Count speaks, sed turbatis ideis. [I found thee simple in heart, but troubled in your ideas.’ See Journal, ii. 488.] My love to Mr. Hallward.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Joseph Benson CHESTER, March 16. 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--No, I do not forbid your being connected with us. I believe Providence calls you to it. I only warn you of what would lessen your usefulness. On that subject I never suffer myself to reason. I should quickly reason myself into a Deist, perhaps into an Atheist. I am glad you do not lay stress upon it. We have better matters to employ our thoughts. A babe in Christ (of whom I know thousands) has the witness sometimes. A young man (in St. John’s sense) has it continually. I believe one that is perfected in love, or filled with the Holy Ghost, may be properly termed a father. This we must press both babes and young men to aspire after--yea, to expect. And why not now I wish you would give another reading to the Plain Account of Christian Perfection.-- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. PS.--While I am in Ireland you need only direct to Dublin. I am afraid that smooth words have prevailed over Mr. Fletcher and persuaded him all the fault was on your side. He promised to write to me from Wales, but I have not had one line. To Mr. Benson, In Edmund Hall, Oxon. To Elizabeth Briggs CHESTER, March 17, 1771. MY DEAR BETSY,--You do well to break through that needless fear. Love me more, and fear me less; then you will prove, Love, like the grave, makes all distinctions vain. [’Love, like death, hath all destroyed.’ See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 362; also letter of Feb. 15, 1769.] You have great reason to praise Him who hath done great things for you already. What you now want is to come boldly to the throne of grace, that the hunger and thirst after His full image which God has given you may be satisfied. Full salvation is nigh, even at the door. Only believe, and it is yours. It is a great blessing that at your years you are preserved from seeking happiness in any creature. You need not, seeing Christ is yours. O cleave to Him with all your heart!--I am, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To Mary Stokes CHESTER, March 17, 1771. DEAR MISS STOKES,--I almost wonder, Have I found another Jenny Cooper [See letter of Sept. 11, 1765.] I take knowledge of her spirit in you. I doubt not God has begun a good work in your heart. He has given you a taste of the powers of the world to come. He has delivered you from the vain expectation of finding happiness in the things of earth; and I trust you will be entangled no more in that snare. You know where true joys are to be found. Now stand fast in that beginning of liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. Yet do not stand still. This is only the dawn of day: the Sun of Righteousness will rise upon you in quite another manner than you have hitherto experienced. And who knows how soon Is He not near Are not all things now ready What hinders you from receiving Him now If thou canst believe.’ Here is all the bar: only unbelief keeps out the mighty blessing! How many things have you been enabled to overcome since I saw you in the great garden But do not leave my poor Molly Jones behind,-- not that you can stay for her,--but bring her on with you. I have much hopes that nothing will stop Sally James or Miss Flower. [Mr. Stokes and Captain and Mrs. James were intimate friends of Charles Wesley. See letters of Feb. 11, 1772, and Nov. 29, 1774.] O bear one another’s burthens! Then shall you be not almost but altogether Christians! Then shall you fulfil the joy of, my dear Miss Stokes, Yours affectionately. While I am in Ireland you need only direct to Dublin. To John Fletcher PARKGATE, March 22,1771. I always did for between these thirty and forty years clearly assert the total fall of man and his utter inability to do any good of himself; the absolute necessity of the grace and Spirit of God to raise even a good thought or desire in our hearts; the Lord’s rewarding no work and accepting of none but so far as they proceed from His preventing, convincing, and converting grace through the Beloved; the blood and righteousness of Christ being the sole meritorious cause of our salvation. Who is there in England that has asserted these things more strongly and steadily than I have done To Joseph Pilmoor DUBLIN, March 27, 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--I cannot find your letter high or low, so that at present I can only answer it by guess. There are some of our friends here who bitterly condemn both you and Richard Boardman. This they do in consequence of a letter from one of their correspondents at New York, who asserts, That the preaching-houses there and at Philadelphia were settled in the manner of the Methodists; but that one or both of you destroyed the first writings and procured others to be drawn, wherein the houses are made over to yourselves.’ I could not tell how to answer the charge. Send me the plain state of the case, that I may know what to say. I think the matter must be greatly misrepresented. For where are the persons I can confide in, for disinterested men, men of a single eye, if Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor are not such What is become of Robert Williams Where is he now And what is he doing Are he and John King of a teachable spirit Do they act in conjunction with you Still, I complain of you all for writing too seldom. Surely it would not hurt you were you to write once a month. O beware of every degree of sloth or indolence! Be good soldiers of Jesus Christ, and send a circumstantial account of all your proceedings to, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Pilmoor, At Mr. Lupton’s, Merchant, In New York. To Philothea Briggs DUBLIN, March 30, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--So poor, tempted, disconsolate Nancy Bolton was sent to London for your sake also! She was sent to you among others to quicken your expectations of the great salvation. And what is it our Lord calls you to now Whereunto thou hast attained hold fast! You may undoubtedly lose what God has given; but you never need. Is not His grace sufficient for you Is not His strength made perfect in weakness Indeed, you shall pass through the fire; but lean upon Him, and the flames shall not kindle upon you. You shall go through the waters; but keep hold on Him, and the floods shall not run over you. Suffer all, and conquer all. In every temptation He keeps you to prove His utmost salvation, His fullness of love I Be exceeding wary in your conversation, that it may be worthy of the gospel of Christ. Let not the liveliness of your spirit lead you into levity; cheerful seriousness is the point you are to aim at. And be willing to suffer with Him, that you may reign with Him. Deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow Him.--My dear Philly, I am Yours affectionately. While I am in Ireland you need only direct to Dublin. To Miss Phil. Briggs, At Miss March’s, In Worship Street, Moorfields, London. To Damaris Perronet DUBLIN, March 30, 1771. I do not wonder you should find such a nearness to Miss Bolton. She is an amiable young woman. When she was with us last, I marked her every word and almost every meaning; but I could find nothing to reprove. There was in all her actions sanctity and love. God sent her to you in an acceptable time. She came with a good message, and blessed is she that believed; for there shall be a performance of those things which were spoken unto her. He will water you every moment, and on this depends the continuance of the great salvation. It will surely continue if you watch and pray; and yet not without temptation. I expect temptations will come about you Thick as autumnal leaves that strew the vales, But what are temptations to you He giveth occasions of fighting that you may conquer. If there is no fight, there is no victory. There is no general rule whereby we can always determine whether a thought come from a good or an evil spirit; but on all particular occasions we may plead that promise, If a man be willing to do My will, he shall know of the doctrine,’ or suggestion, by the light then given, whether it be of God.’ Your affectionate brother. The following three undated letters to Miss Perronet may here be inserted:-- I am sensible you have many trials, not only such as are grievous to flesh and blood, but such as oppose those desires which are not from nature but the Spirit of God; and if you chose for yourself, you ought not to choose the situation you are now in. If you did, it would be a great hurt to your soul. It would hinder the work of God in you. But you do not choose for yourself; God chooses for you: and He cannot err; so that you may safely say,-- I’ll trust my great Physician’s skill: What He prescribes can ne’er be ill. It is true so it may seem to us, because we are dim-sighted and dull of understanding; but in this case, too, we may apply His word, Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.’ O believe, and feel Him near! Believe, and experience that blessedness. He calls you into a stormy path; but did He not Himself tread it before you And does He not go with you through the fire, so that you are not burned, neither can the flames kindle upon you Lie, then, as clay in the Potter’s hand, that He may stamp you with all His image. Be still, and know that He is God-- your God, your love, your all. Be as a little child before Him. The word of God to them of old, Speak to the children of Israel, that they go forward,’ is undoubtedly spoken to you. Horses, and chariots, and armies, and mountains, and seas cannot hinder you; for God is on your side. You have Him with you who has all power in heaven. O trust Him, and you shall praise Him! And do not fail to remember in your prayers Your affectionate brother. By-and-by you shall have the abiding witness of His Spirit, and He will shine upon His own work; and why not now Ask, and it shall be given you. The Lord is at hand; and He cannot deny Himself. Your trials, you know, are all chosen by God. It is the cup which your Father has given you; and He does and will bless it as long as He is pleased to give it. Just when it is best He will take it away and give you outward fellowship with His children. Continue in private prayer, in spite of all coldness and wanderings, and you shall soon pray without ceasing. Your affectionate brother. That remarkable sinking of spirits did not necessarily imply any preceding unfaithfulness. It might possibly be owing to the body. At such a season you have nothing to do but simply to give yourself up into the hands of God. Tell Him, Lord, I am Thine. I will be Thine. I desire to be Thine alone for ever. Thou shalt answer for me. Keep Thou Thine own; and let me do or suffer just as seemeth Thee good.’ What can hurt us if our eye be single Look forward! Holiness and heaven are before you. You have no need to determine whether your heart is or is not made new till the witness speaks within you and puts it beyond all doubt. You are led in a rough way: it is a safe one. A more smooth way would be more dangerous. Your earnestly desiring the most excellent means of grace is neither sin nor infirmity. It is right to say, My soul hath a desire and longing to enter into the courts of the house of my God.’ Read the 84th Psalm, and try if your heart answers to it. At present exercise all the faith you have, and it will be increased day by day. Your affectionate brother. To Mary Stokes DUBLIN, April 4, 1771. MY DEAR MISS STOKES,--There is a sweetness and friendliness in your spirit which is exceeding agreeable to me. And you have an openness withal which makes it the more pleasing. Let nothing rob you of this;--although you cannot retain it without a good deal of resolution; for the example of all the world is against you, even of the religious world, which is full of closeness and reserve, if not of disguise also. How will you do then to retain that artless simplicity which almost every one disclaims Nay, this is not all; you must likewise expect to be yourself deceived more or less. You will believe persons to be sincere who will abuse your confidence, who will say much and mean nothing. But let not my dear maid copy after them; let them have all the artifice to themselves. Still let not mercy or truth forsake you, but write them upon the table of your heart. Only know to whom you speak, and then you cannot be too free. Open the window in your breast. I pray never be afraid of writing too large letters: you must not measure yours by mine; for I have a little more business than you. Your weakness and tenderness of constitution, without great care, may prove a snare to you. Some allowance must be made on that account; but the danger is of making too much. Steer the middle way. So far as you are able, rejoice to endure hardship, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ; and deny yourself every pleasure which you are not divinely conscious prepares you for taking pleasure in God. I am glad you can converse freely with Sally Flower. Let her not lose her rising in the morning. Surely she and you together might overrule Molly Jones’s Irish reason for not meeting, I said I would not.’ I feel much for poor Sally James. Perhaps she will outrun many of you by-and-by.-- My dear Miss Stokes, Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Briggs ATHLONE, April 14, 1771. MY DEAR BETSY,--You may be assured that I am always well pleased to hear from you and that I shall never think your letters too long. Always tell me whatever is in your heart, and the more freely the better. Otherwise it would be hardly possible to give you the advice you may want from time to time. As soon as you had your armour on, it was fit that it should be proved; so God prepared for you the occasions of fighting, that you might conquer and might know both your own weakness and His strength. Each day will bring just temptation enough and power enough to conquer it; and, as one says, temptations, with distinct deliverances from them, avail much.’ The unction of the Holy One is given to believers for this very end--to enable them to distinguish (which otherwise would be impossible) between sin and temptation. And this you will do, not by any general rule, but by listening to Him on all particular occasions and by your consulting with those that have experience in the ways of God. Undoubtedly both you and Philothea and my dear Miss Perronet are now more particularly called to speak for God. In so doing you must expect to meet with many things which are not pleasing to flesh and blood. But all is well. So much the more will you be conformed to the death of Christ. Go on in His name and in the power of His might. Suffer and conquer all things.--I am, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To Miss March ATHLONE, April 14, 1771. Whatever comes from you is agreeable to me; your letters always give me pleasure, but none more than the last, which brings the welcome news of the revival of the work of God among you. You will encourage I-- T-- [Miss Thornton, of London, the intimate friend of John Fletcher. See Bulmer’s Memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Mortimer, p. 115; and letters of July 6, 1770, and Dec. 18, 1780.] to send me a circumstantial account of God’s dealings with her soul. Mr. Norris observes that no part of history is so profitable as that which relates to the great changes in states and kingdoms; and it is certain no part of Christian history is so profitable as that which relates to great changes wrought in our souls: these, therefore, should be carefully noticed and treasured up for the encouragement of our brethren. I am glad you have at length broke through those evil reasonings which so long held you down and prevented you from acknowledging the things which were freely given to you of God. Always remember the essence of Christian holiness is simplicity and purity; one design, one desire--entire devotion to God. But this admits of a thousand degrees and variations, and certainly it will be proved by a thousand temptations; but in all these things you shall be more than conqueror. It takes God (so to speak) abundance of pains to hide pride from man; and you are in more danger of it than many, were it only on account of outward advantages. Happy are you if you use those for that single end, to be outwardly and inwardly devoted to God, and that more entirely than you could be in different circumstances. I have just been conversing with that excellent woman Molly Penington [See letter of May 30.]: what a mystery that one of such gifts and such grace should be fixed in a place where she is almost useless! So much the more thankful you may be who have opportunity of employing every talent which God hath given you. If you would retain the talent of health, sleep early and rise early. To Ann Bolton TULLAMORE, April 15, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--You are a little unkind. Why do you not send me, as I desired, a particular account of all that concerns you Where you are How you are in soul and in body Do you stand fast in that glorious liberty wherewith Christ has made you free Has He bruised the reasoning devil under your feet and taught you simply to hang upon Him Are you not ashamed to confess Him before men Are you bold, are you active in His cause Where have you been and what have you done since you left that lovely family at Shoreham [The Perronets. See letter of March 30 to Damaris Perronet] You did love me a little. Do you still Do you think of me sometimes If so, do not delay writing. Let me be an helper of your joy. And I pray take care of your health. In this respect I am often jealous over you. I think you never will neglect your soul; but I am afraid lest you should neglect your body. And you know not how great pain anything befalling you gives to, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mrs. Pywell KILKENNY, April 23, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I hardly knew whether you were dead or alive, having not heard from you for so long a season. Yesterday I received yours of March 28, and am glad to hear you are not moved from your steadfastness. Certainly it is not the will of our Lord that you should; His gifts are without repentance. Do you find no decay in faith Do you as clearly as ever see Him who is invisible Is your hope as lively as at first Do you still taste of the powers of the world to come And can you say in as strong a sense as ever, I nothing want beneath, above, Happy in a Saviour’s love Do you feel no anger at any time no pride no will but what is subordinate to the will of God And have you the witness in yourself that all your ways please Him Then expect to see greater things than these, for there is no end of His goodness; and do not forget, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mr.- BANDON, May 1, 1771. My DEAR BROTHER,--The case being so, I do not see how you could act otherwise than you did. If he had been throughly penitent, it would have been proper to show all possible lenity. But as his heart does not seem to be at all broken, you could not have any fellowship with him. Spare no pains with regard to the Yearly Collection.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton BANDON, May 2, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I wanted much to know how your soul prospered. I could not doubt but the god of this world, the enemy of all righteousness, would use every means to move you from your steadfastness. Blessed be God, you are not moved! that all his labour has been in vain! Hitherto hath God helped you; and, fear not, He will help you to the end. He gives you health as a token for good; He can trust you with it while you give Him your heart. And O stand fast in the glorious liberty wherewith He has made you free! You are not called to desire suffering. Innocent nature is averse from pain; only, as soon as His will appears, yours is to sink down before it. Hark! what does He say to you now Lovest thou Me more than these’ more than these,-- Wealth, honour, pleasure, or what else This short-enduring world can give Then feed My lambs,’ carry the little ones in thy bosom, gently lead those that are great with young. Be not weary of well doing; in due time thou shalt reap if thou faint not, &c. &c. Yours most affectionately. To Philothea Briggs BANDON, May 2, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--There is no fear I should forget you; I love you too well for that, and therefore love to hear from you, especially at this critical time, when all the powers of hell are engaged against you. But let them come about you like bees, they shall be extinct as the fire among the thorns. Tempted you are, and will be; otherwise you could not know your own weakness and the strength of your Master. But all temptations will work together for good; all are for your profit, that you may be partaker of His holiness. You may always have an evidence both of God’s love to you and of yours to Him. And at some times the former may be more clear, at other times the latter. It is enough if, in one case or the other, you simply stay your soul upon Him. Sister Harper’s is the ordinary experience of those who are renewed in love. [Charles Wesley met Mrs. Harper at Mr. Sims’s on July 2, 1738; and as they sang, Who for me, for me hath died,, she burst out into tears and outcries, "I believe, I believe!" and sunk down. She continued, and increased in the assurance of faith, full of peace and joy and love., Wesley printed an extract from her Journal in 1769. see c. Wesley’s Journal, i. 115.] Sister Jackson’s [See letter of March 26, 1770.] experience is quite extraordinary, and what very few of them have yet attained. There is a danger of every believer’s mistaking the voice of the enemy or of their own imagination for the voice of God. And you can distinguish one from the other, not by any written rule, but only by the unction of the Holy One. This only teaches Christian prudence, consistent with simplicity and godly sincerity. The four volumes of Sermons, the Appeals, the Notes, and the Extracts from Mr. Law’s Works and from Dr. Young, might best suit you now: meddle with nothing that does not suit your present temper. When you feel you are led to it, write verses; do not bury your talent in the earth. Meet with them that meet on a Friday, and speak in God’s name without fear or shame. The general rule, not to correspond but with those who have both grace and understanding,’ admits of several exceptions, in favour of a few who want one of them or the other or both. [See letter of May 28.] While I am in Ireland you may direct to me at Dublin. Be not afraid of writing too long letters. The longer the more agreeable to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Miss Phil. Briggs, At Miss March’s, In Worship street, Moorfields, London. To Christopher Hopper CORK, May 5, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The work is to be delivered in weekly and monthly numbers; but it is of most use to have portable volumes. [The first collected edition of Wesley’s Works, published in thirty-two 12mo vols. 1771-4. see Green’s Bibliography, No. 276.] I have corrected as much as will make nine or ten out of the thirty volumes. All the verse works I have corrected in conjunction with the preachers, and left the corrected copy at London. If I live to finish the correction of my own works, I shall then revise the Christian Library. If ever you should spend a twelvemonth in this kingdom, you would not repent of your labour. Here is a people ready prepared for the Lord.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Marston CORK, May 6, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am always pleased to hear from you, and expect to hear nothing but good. Conflicts and various exercises of soul are permitted; these also are for good. If Satan has desired to have you to sift you as wheat, this likewise is for your profit; you will be purified in the fire, not consumed, and strengthened unto all longsuffering with joyfulness. Does Mr. Clough [James Clough was then stationed in the Staffordshire Circuit. He began to travel in 1760, and after ten or twelve years settled at Leicester, where he died about 1795.] or any other of the preachers speak against perfection or give occasion to them that trouble you You would do well to speak to any one that does, that you may come to a better understanding. So far as in you lies, let not the good that is in you be evil spoken of. But beware lest the unkind usage of your brethren betray you into any kind of guile or false prudence. Still let all your conversation be in simplicity and godly sincerity. Be plain, open, downright, without disguise. Do you always see God and feel His love Do you pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks I hope you do not forget to pray for, my dear Molly, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis LIMERICK, May 15, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--Whenever there is a dependence, though frequently secret and unobserved, on any outward thing, it is the mercy of God which disappoints us of our hope, that we may be more sensibly convinced, Neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.’ From time to time you must find many difficulties and perplexities that none but God can clear. But can He clear them That is enough. Then He surely will. This is the very use of that anointing which we have from God. It is to teach us of all things, to clear up a thousand doubts and perplexities which no human wisdom could do. This was given you in the case of your child; and when that came, temptation spake not again. This is never more needful than with regard to anger; because there is an anger which is not sinful, a disgust at sin which is often attended with much commotion of the animal spirits: and I doubt whether we can well distinguish this from sinful anger but by that light from heaven. I really hope John Christian will do well: within these two years he is improved exceedingly. If our sisters miss you any more, there is but one way-- you must go or send after them. Be not idle; neither give way to voluntary humility. You were not sent to Waterford for nothing, but to strengthen the things that remain.’ It would be a strange thing if I should pass a day without praying for you. By this means at least we may reach each other; and there may be a still increasing union between you and Your affectionate brother. To George L. Fleury LIMERICK, May 18, 1771. REVEREND SIR,--1. In June 1769 I spent two or three days at Waterford. As soon as my back was turned, you valiantly attacked me, I suppose both morning and afternoon. Hearing, when I was there two or three weeks ago, that you designed me the same favour, I waited upon you at the cathedral on Sunday, April 28. You was as good as your word: you drew the sword, and in effect threw away the scabbard. You made a furious attack on a large body of people, of whom you knew just nothing. Blind and bold, you laid about you without fear or wit, without any regard either to truth, justice, or mercy. And thus you entertained both morning and evening a large congregation who came to hear the words of eternal life.’ 2. Not having leisure myself, I desired Mr. Bourke to wait upon you the next morning. He proposed our writing to each other. You said, No; if anything can be said against my sermons, I expect it shall be printed: let it be done in a public, not a private way.’ I did not desire this; I had much rather it had been done privately. But, since you will have it so, I submit. 3. Your text was, I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’ (Acts xx. 29-30.) Having shown that St. Paul foresaw these false teachers, you undertake to show, (1) the mischiefs which they occasioned; (2) the character of them, and how nearly this concerns a set of men called Methodists. (First Sermon, pp. 1-4 ) 4. Against these false teachers, you observe, St. Paul warned the Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews (pages 5-8). Very true; but what is this to the point Oh, much more than some are aware of! The insinuation was all along just as if you had said: I beseech you, my dear hearers, mark the titles he gives to these grievous wolves, false apostles, deceitful workers, and apply them to the Methodist teachers. There I give them a deadly thrust.’ 5. These are well styled by Christ "ravening wolves," by St. Paul "grievous wolves," from the mischiefs they do, rending the Church of Christ, and perverting the true sense of the gospel for their own private ends. They ever did, and to this day do, pretend to extraordinary inspiration.’ (Page 8.) Round assertions! Let us consider them one by one. (1) These are styled by Christ "ravening wolves," by St. Paul "grievous wolves."’ True; but how does it appear that these names are applicable to the Methodists Why, they rend the Church of Christ.’ What is the Church of Christ According to our Article, a Church is a company of faithful people,’ of true believers, who have the mind that was in Christ,’ and walk as Christ walked.’ Who, then, are the Church of Christ in Waterford Point them out, sir, if you know them; and then be pleased to show how the Methodists rend this Church of Christ. You may as justly say they rend the walls or the steeple of the cathedral church. However, they pervert the true sense of the gospel for their own private ends.’ Wherein do they pervert the true sense of the gospel I have published Notes both on the Gospels and the other Scriptures. But wherein do those Notes pervert the sense None has yet attempted to show. But for what private ends should I pervert it for ease or honour Then I should be sadly disappointed. Or for money This is the silliest tale of all. You may easily know, if you are willing to know it, that I did not leave Waterford without being some pounds lighter than I was when I came thither. 6. But they pretend to extraordinary inspiration.’ They do not: they expressly disclaim it. I have declared an hundred times, I suppose ten times in print, that I pretend to no other inspiration than that which is common to all real Christians, without which no one can be a Christian at all. They denounce hell and damnation to all that reject their presences’ (page 9). This is another charge; but it is as groundless as the former, it is without all shadow of truth. You may as well say the Methodists denounce hell and damnation to all that reject Mahometanism. As groundless, as senselessly, shamelessly false, is the assertion following: To reject their ecstasies and fanatic presences to revelation is cried up as a crime of the blackest dye.’ It cannot be that we should count it a crime to reject what we do not pretend to at all. But I pretend to no ecstasies of any kind, nor to any other kind of revelation than you yourself, yea, and every Christian enjoys, unless he is without God in the world.’ 7. These grievous wolves pretended to greater mortification and self-denial than the Apostles themselves’ (page 11). This discovery is spick-and-span new: I never heard of it before. But pray, sir, where did you find it I think not in the canonical Scriptures. I doubt you had it from some apocryphal writer. Thus also do the modern false teachers.’ I know not any that do. Indeed, I have read of some such among the Mahometan Dervises and among the Indian Brahmins. But I doubt whether any of these outlandish creatures have been yet imported into Great Britain or Ireland. 8. They pretend to know the mind of Christ better than His Apostles’ (page 12). Certainly the Methodists do not: this is another sad mistake, not to say slander. However, better than their successors do.’ That is another question. If you rank yourself among their successors, as undoubtedly you do, I will not deny that some of these poor, despised people, though not acting in a public character, do know the mind of Christ--that is, the meaning of the Scripture--better than you do yet. But perhaps, when ten years more are gone over your head, you may know it as well as they. 9. You conclude this sermon, Let us not be led away by those who represent the comfortable religion of Christ as a path covered over with thorns’ (page 14). This cap does not fit me. I appeal to all that have heard me at Waterford or elsewhere whether I represent religion as an uncomfortable thing. No, sir; both in preaching and writing I represent it as far more comfortable than you do or are able to do. But you represent us as lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.’ If any do this, I doubt they touch a sore spot; I am afraid the shoe pinches. They affirm pleasure in general to be unlawful, grounding it on, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God"’ (page 15). Wrong, top and bottom. Did we hold the conclusion, we should never infer it from such premises. But we do not hold it: we no more affirm pleasure in general to be unlawful than eating and drinking. This is another invention of your own brain which never entered into our thoughts. It is really curious when you add, This is bringing men "after the principles of the world, and not after Christ."’ What, the affirming that pleasure is unlawful Is this after the principles of the world’ Was ever text so unhappily applied 10. So much for your first sermon: wherein, though you do not seem to want goodwill, yet you are marvellously barren of invention; having only retailed two or three old, threadbare objections which have been answered twenty times over. You begin the second, I shall now consider some of their many absurd doctrines: the first of which is "the pretending to be divinely inspired"’ (Second Sermon, p. 1). An odd doctrine enough. And called in an extraordinary manner to preach the word of God’ (pages 2-4). This is all harping upon the same string--the grand objection of lay preachers. We have it again and again, ten, twenty times over. I shall answer it once for all. Not by anything new--that is utterly needless; but barely by repeating the answer which convinced a serious clergyman many years ago. [See letter of May 4, 1748.] 11. But why do you not prove your mission by miracles’ This likewise you repeat over and over. But I have not leisure to answer the same stale objection an hundred times. I therefore give this also the same answer which I gave many years ago: 12. What is it you would have us prove by miracles that the doctrines we preach are true This is not the way to prove that. We prove the doctrines we preach by Scripture and reason. Is it (1) That A B was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a Sabbath-breaker Or (2) That he is not so now Or (3) That he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time was another man Not so. The proper way to prove these facts is by the testimony of competent witnesses; and these witnesses are ready whenever required to give full evidence of them. Or would you have it proved by miracles (4) That this was not done by our own power or holiness that God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins Nay, if you "hear not Moses and the Prophets" and Apostles on this head, neither will you believe "though one rose from the dead." It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd to require or expect the proof of miracles in questions of such a kind as are always decided by proofs of quite another nature.’ [A Farther Appeal, Part III. See Works, Viii. 233-4.] If you will take the trouble of reading that little tract, you will find more upon the same head. 13. If you say, But those who lay claim to extraordinary inspiration and revelation ought to prove that claim by miracles,’ we allow it. But this is not our case. We lay claim to no such thing. The Apostles did lay claim to extraordinary inspiration, and accordingly proved their claim by miracles. And their blessed Master claimed to be Lord of all, the eternal Son of God. Well, therefore, might He be expected to do the works which no other man did,’ especially as He came to put an end to that dispensation which all men knew to be of God. See, then, how idly and impertinently you require the Methodists to work miracles because Christ and His Apostles did.’ 14. You proceed: They pretend to be as free from sin as Jesus Christ’ (page 6). You bring three proofs of this: (1) Mr. Wesley, in his answer to a divine of our Church, says, "Jesus Christ stands as our regeneration, to help us to the same holy, undefiled nature which He Himself had; and if this very life and identical nature is not propagated and derived on us, He is not our Saviour"’ (page 7). When I heard you read these words, I listened and studied, and could not imagine where you got them. I knew they were not mine: I use no such queer language; but did not then recollect that they are Mr. Law’s words in his Answer to Dr. Trapp, an extract from which I have published. [Joseph Trapp, D.D., preached four sermons, mainly against Law’s Serious Call, in 1739. Wesley published an extract from Law’s Answer in 1748. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 118.] But be they whose they will, they by no means imply that we are to be as righteous as Christ was,’ but that we are to be (which St. Peter likewise affirms) partakers of the divine nature.’ (2) A preacher of yours declared he was as free from sin as Christ ever was.’ I did not hear him declare it: pray did you If not, how do you know he declared it at all, Nay, but another declared he believed it was impossible for one whom he named to sin, for the Spirit of God dwelt in him bodily’ (page 8). Pray, sir, did you hear this yourself Else the testimony is nothing worth. Hearsay evidence will not be admitted by any court in the kingdom. What you say of that good man Mr. Whitefield, now with God, I leave with Mr. H-- ’s remark: I admire your prudence, though not your generosity; for it is much safer to cudgel a dead man than a living one.’ 15. You next descant upon the disorders which the spirit of enthusiasm created in the last age.’ Very likely it might; but, blessed be God, that is nothing at all to us. For He hath given us, not the spirit of enthusiasm, but of love and of a sound mind. In the following page you quaintly compare your hearers to sheep and yourself and friends to the dogs in the fable, and seem much afraid lest the silly sheep should be persuaded to give you up to these ravening wolves.’ Nay, should you not rather be ranked with the sheep than the dogs For your teeth are not so sharp as razors. 16. Another fundamental error of the Methodists is the asserting that laymen may preach--yea, the most ignorant and illiterate of them, provided they have the inward call of the Spirit’ (page 11). The former part of this objection we had before. The latter is a total mistake. They do not allow the most ignorant ’men to preach whatever inward call’ they pretend to. Among them none are allowed to be stated preachers but such as (1) are truly alive to God, such as experience the faith that worketh by love,’ such as love God and all mankind; (2) such as have a competent knowledge of the Word of God and of the work of God in the souls of men; (3) such as have given proof that they are called of God by converting sinners from the error of their ways. And to show whether they have these qualifications or no, they are a year, sometimes more, upon trial. Now, I pray, what is the common examination either for deacon’s or priest’s orders to this 17. But no ambassador can act without a commission from his King; consequently no preacher wit,hout a commission from God’ (page 11). This is a tender point; but you constrain me to speak. I ask, then, Is he commissioned from God to preach the gospel who does not know the gospel who knows little more of the Bible than of the Koran I fear not. But if so, what are many of our brethren Sent of man, but not of God! However, these laymen are not sent of God to preach; for does not St. Paul say, "No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron"’ (Page 13.) Another text most unhappily applied; for Aaron did not preach at all. But if these men are not sent of God, how comes God to confirm their word by convincing and converting sinners He confirms the word of His messenger, but of none else. Therefore, if God owns their word, it is plain that God has sent them. But the earth opened and swallowed up those intruders into the priestly office, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram’ (page 14). Such an intruder are you if you convert no sinners to God. Take heed lest a deeper pit swallow you up! 18. But the Church of Rome has sent out preachers among us, such as Thomas Heath, a Jesuit; and Faithful Commin, [See letter in Dec. 1751, sect. 48, to Bishop Lavington.] a Dominican friar’ (pages 16-17). And what do you infer from hence that my brother, who was thought a student of Christ Church in Oxford, was really a Jesuit and that, while I passed for a Fellow of Lincoln College, I was in fact a Dominican friar Even to hint at such absurdities as these is an insult on common sense. 19. We have now done with the argumentative part of your sermons, and come to the exhortation: "Mark them that cause divisions and offences among you; for they serve not the Lord, but their own bellies"’ (page 18). Who serve their own bellies’ the Methodists, or Alas, how terribly might this be retorted! "And by fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."’ Deceive them into what into the knowledge and love of God! the loving their neighbour as themselves! the walking in justice, mercy, and truth! the doing to all as they would be done to! Felices errore suo! [’Happy in their error.’ ] Would to God all the people of Waterford, rich and poor, yea, all the men, women, and children in the three kingdoms, may be thus deceived! 20. ’Do not credit those who tell you that we must judge of our regeneration by sensible impulses, impressions, ardours, and ecstasies’ (page 19). Who tells them so Not I; not Mr. Bourke; not any in connexion with me. Sir, you yourself either do or ought to know the contrary. Whether, therefore, these are or are not ’signs of the Spirit’ (page 20) see you to it; it is nothing to me, any more than whether the Spirit does or does not ’show itself in groanings and sighings, in fits and starts.’ I never affirmed it did; and when you represent me as so doing, you are a sinner against God and me and your own soul. 21. If you should see good to write anything more about the Methodists, I beg you would first learn who and what they are. Be so kind as at least to read over my Journals, and the Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion. Then you will no longer ’run’ thus ’uncertainly,’ or ’fight as one that beateth the air.’ But I would rather hope you will not fight at all. For whom would you fight with If you will fight, it must be with your friends; for such we really are. We wish all the same happiness to you which we wish to our own souls. We desire no worse for you than that you may ’present’ yourself ’a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God’; that you may watch over the souls committed to your charge as he ’that must give account’; and that in the end you may receive ’the crown which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to all that love His appearing!’--So prays, reverend sir, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop GALWAY, May 27. 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--Perhaps we may see a new accomplishment of Solomon’s words, ’He that reproveth a man shall afterward find more favour than he who flattereth with his tongue. But, be that as it may, I have done my duty; I could no otherwise have delivered my own soul. And no offence at all would have been given thereby had not pride stifled both religion and generosity. [See letter of March 8.] But the letter is now out of date; it is mentioned no more: there is a more plausible occasion found-- namely, those eight terrible propositions which conclude the Minutes of our Conference. [The Minutes for 1770, which gave occasion to Fletcher to write his Checks to Antinomianism.] At the instance of some who were sadly frightened thereby, I have revised them over and over; I have considered them in every point of view; and truly, the more I consider them, the more I like them, the more fully I am convinced, not only that they are true, agreeable both to Scripture and to sound experience, but that they contain truths of the deepest importance, and such as ought to be continually inculcated by those who would be pure from the blood of all men. Joseph Benson is a good man and a good preacher. But he is by no means clear in his judgement. The imagination which he has borrowed from another good man, ’that he is not a believer who has any sin remaining in him,’ is not only an error, but a very dangerous one, of which I have seen fatal effects. Herein we divided from the Germans near thirty years ago; and the falseness and absurdity of it is shown in the Second Journal and in my sermon on that subject. [The Lord our Righteousness. See Works, v. 234-46.] Your experience reminds me of these lines: So many tender joys and woes Have o’er my quivering soul had power! Plain life with heightening passions rose, The boast or burthen of an hour. [Gambold, in Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, i. 8.] They who feel less, certainly suffer less; but the more we suffer, the more we may improve; the more obedience, the more holiness, we may learn by the things we suffer. So that, upon the whole, I do not know if the insensible ones have the advantage over us. If you wrote more than once in three months, it would not be amiss. Few are more tenderly concerned for you than, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. PS.--You need only direct to Dr. C-- To Miss Bishop, Near Lady Huntingdon’s Chapel, In Bath. To Philothea Briggs GALWAY, May 28, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--Your concern is with the present moment; your business is to live to-day. In every sense let the morrow take thought for the things of itself. It is true the full assurance of hope excludes all doubt of our final salvation; but it does not and cannot continue any longer than we walk closely with God. And it does not include any assurance of our future behaviour; neither do I know any word in all the Bible which gives us any authority to look for a testimony of this kind. But just so far you may certainly go with regard to the present moment,-- I want the witness, Lord, That all I do is right, According to Thy will and word, Well-pleasing in Thy sight. Seriously and steadily, my dear maid, aim at this, and you will not be disappointed of your hope. With regard to the impression you speak of, I am in doubt whether it be not a temptation from the enemy. It may occasion many wrong tempers; it may feed both pride and uncharitableness. And the Bible gives us no authority to think ill of any one, but from plain, undeniable, overt acts. In the Thoughts upon a Single Life [Published in 1765. See Works, xi. 456-63.] you have what has been my deliberate judgement for many years. I have not yet seen any reason to alter it, though I have heard abundance of objections. I do not know whether your particular case [See letter of May 2 to her.] be an exception to the general rule. It is true your temper is both lively and unstable, and your passions are naturally strong. But that is not much: the grace of God can totally subdue the most stubborn nature. So far, then, you may certainly go. You may now devote yourself to God soul and body in your present state, and resolve never to alter it--without strong and urgent reasons. Of the weight of those reasons likewise, not yourself but your most spiritual friends should judge. To Thomas Mason CASTLEBAR, May 30, 1771. DEAR TOMMY,--A conversation I had yesterday with Brother Proctor determined me to write immediately. The person at Birr will not do: not only as she is far too young, little more than a child; but as she has only little if any Christian experience. You want a woman of middle age, well tried, of good sense, and of deep experience. Such an one in every respect is Molly Penington; but whether she is willing to marry or no, I cannot tell. If she is, I hardly know her fellow in the kingdom. If I meet with any, I will send you word. I hope you speak to Jonathan How with all freedom and tell him whatever you think amiss in him, especially encouraging him to press all believers to go on to perfection, and to expect it now! Peace with all your spirits!--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Tho. Mason, Shopkeeper, In Limerick. To Elizabeth Briggs CASTLEBAR, May 31, 1771. MY DEAR BETSY,--You judge exceeding right: as yet you are but a little child, just a babe in the pure love of Christ. As a little child, hang upon Him, and simply expect a supply of all your wants. In this respect reasoning profits you nothing; indeed, it is just opposite to believing, whereby you hearken to the inward voice, which says, ’Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.’ Undoubtedly it would be a cross to you to declare what God has done for your soul; nay, and afterwards Satan would accuse you on the account, telling you, ’You did it out of pride.’ Yea, and some of your sisters would blame you, and perhaps put the same construction upon it. Nevertheless, if you do it with a single eye, it will be well pleasing to God. Your letters will be always agreeable to, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To Miss March CASTLEBAR, May 31, 1771. The dealings of God with man are infinitely varied, and cannot be confined to any general rule; both in justification and sanctification He often acts in a manner we cannot account for. There cannot be a more proper phrase than that you used, and I well understand your meaning; yet it is sure you are a transgressor still--namely, of the perfect, Adamic law. But though it be true all sin is a transgression of this law, yet it is by no means true on the other hand (though we have so often taken it for granted) that all transgressions of this law are sin: no, not at all--only all voluntary transgressions of it; none else are sins against the gospel law. Although we have ’faith’s abiding impression, realizing things to come’; yet as long as we are in the body we have but an imperfect, shadowy knowledge of the things of eternity. For now we only see them in a glass, a mirror, which gives us no more than a shadow of them; therefore we see them darkly, or in a riddle, as St. Paul speaks. The whole invisible world is as yet a riddle to us; and it seems to be in this sense that some writers speak so much of the night or darkness of faith--namely, when opposed to sight; that is, to the view of things which we shall have when the veil of flesh and blood is removed. Those reasonings concerning the measure of holiness (a curious, not useful question) are not inconsistent with pure love, but they tend to damp it; and were you to pursue them far, they would lead you into unbelief. What you feel is certainly a degree of anger, but not of sinful anger. There ought to be in us (as there was in our Lord) not barely a perception in the understanding that this or that is evil, but also an emotion of mind, a sensation or passion suitable thereto. This anger at sin, accompanied with love and compassion to the sinner, is so far from being itself a sin, that it is rather a duty. St. Paul’s word is, ’not easily provoked’ to any paroxysm of anger: neither are you; nevertheless, I suppose there is in you, when you feel a proper anger at sin, an hurrying motion of the blood and spirits, which is an imperfection, and will be done away. To Ann Bolton ROOSKY, June 8, 1771. Woman, remember the faith! It is given to you to believe in the name of the Son of God! Nay, and also to suffer with Him, to drink a little of the cup which He drank of. O beware that you are not weary or faint in your mind! See what blessings are reserved in store for you What if God sees good to permit for a little season that Satan should sift you as wheat Still you have a Friend before the throne above; and He hath prayed for you that your faith fail not. You shall lose nothing in the furnace but your dross; you shall be purified, not consumed. I cannot tell you how near you have been to me ever since I heard of your present visitation. And why should you not expect that He who loves you a thousand times more than I do will heal both soul and body together Look for Him! He is not far off! Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Duncan Wright LONDONDERRY, June 11, 1771. DEAR DUNCAN,--You ought to speak largely and strongly against Antinomianism in all its branches. And you would do well when occasion is to read to any congregation and enforce the three sermons on the Law. [See Works, v. 433-66.] Let us be open and downright both in public and private, and it will succeed best. The work of God will never stand still for want of money so long as He has the hearts of all men in His hand. You should all use your best endeavours with regard to the Yearly Subscription. Scotland especially has found the benefit of it. I should not advise our brother Hamilton to give up his business. It is a talent God has entrusted him with. But it would be wise to contract it, that he may have more leisure for business of greater importance. See that you strongly and explicitly exhort the believers to go on to perfection!--I am, dear Duncan, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Duncan Wright, Edinburgh. To Mary Bosanquet LONDONDERRY, June 13, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I think the strength of the cause rests there--on your having an extraordinary call. So I am persuaded has every one of our lay preachers; otherwise I could not countenance his preaching at all. It is plain to me that the whole work of God termed Methodism is an extraordinary dispensation of His providence. Therefore I do not wonder if several things occur therein which do not fall under the ordinary rules of discipline. St. Paul’s ordinary rule was, ’I permit not a woman to speak in the congregation.’ Yet in extraordinary cases he made a few exceptions; at Corinth in particular.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Crosby LONDONDERRY, June 13, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--Reading a chapter or part of one and making short observations may be as useful as any way of speaking. I doubt whether at that particular time it was advisable for you to go to Huddersfield. But it is past. All that you can do now (if you have not done it already) is to write lovingly to Mr. A-- [John Atlay was stationed at Birstall.] and simply inform him of those facts, concerning which he was misinformed before. It is not improbable he may then see things clearer; but if he do not, you will have delivered your own soul. And whatever farther is said of you is your cross. Bear it, and it will bear you.-- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, [Wesley was in Londonderry when he wrote this and the next letter. See Journal, v. 419n.] June 15, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--A letter from you is always welcome; but never more so than now, as this is the time wherein it seems good to our Lord to try you as by fire. Fear nothing; only believe. He is with you in the fire so that the flames shall not kindle upon you. O how will you praise Him by-and-by for His wise and gracious visitation! He is purging away all your dross, that you may be a vessel meet for the Master’s use. Happy are they that do His will, and happier still they that suffer it. But, whatever you suffer, cast not away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward. In order to keep it, do not reason, but simply look up to Him that loves you. Tell Him as a little child all your wants. Look up, and your suit is made: He hears the cry of your heart. And tell all that troubles you to Yours affectionately. To the Countess of Huntingdon LONDON, June 19, 1771. MY DEAR LADY,--Many years since, I saw that ’without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’ I began following after it, and inciting all with whom I had any intercourse to do the same. Ten years after, God gave me a clearer view than I had before of the way how to attain this--namely, by faith in the Son of God. And immediately I declared to all, ’We are saved from sin, we are made holy, by faith.’ This I testified in private, in public, in print; and God confirmed it by a thousand witnesses. I have continued to declare this for above thirty years, and God hath continued to confirm the word of His grace. But during this time wellnigh all the religious world hath set themselves in array against me, and among the rest many of my own children, following the example of one of my eldest sons, Mr. Whitefield. Their general cry has been, ’He is unsound in the faith; he preaches another gospel!’ I answer, Whether it be the same which they preach or not, it is the same which I have preached for above thirty years. This may easily appear from what I have published during that whole term. I instance only in three sermons: that on Salvation by Faith, printed in the year 1738; that on The Lord our Righteousness, printed a few years since; and that on Mr. Whitefield’s funeral, printed only some months ago. [See Works, v. 7-16, 234-46; vi. 167 - 82.] But it is said, ’Oh, but you printed ten lines in August last which contradict all your other writings! [Minutes of the Bristol Conference,1770: ’Who of us is now accepted of God &c.’] Be not so sure of this. It is probable, at least, that I understand my own meaning as well as you do; and that meaning I have yet again declared in the sermon last referred to. By that interpret those ten lines, and you will understand them better; although I should think that any one might see even without this help that the lines in question do not refer to the condition of obtaining, but of continuing in, the favour of God. But whether the sentiment contained in those lines be right or wrong, and whether it be well or ill expressed, the gospel which I now preach God does still confirm by new witnesses in every place; perhaps never so much in this kingdom as within these last three months. Now, I argue from glaring, undeniable fact; God cannot bear witness to a lie. The gospel, therefore, which He confirms must be true in substance. There may be opinions maintained at the same time which are not exactly true; and who can be secure from these Perhaps I thought myself so once: when I was much younger than I am now, I thought myself almost infallible; but I bless God I know myself better now. To be short: such as I am, I love you well. You have one of the first places in my esteem and affection. And you once had some regard for me. But it cannot continue if it depends upon my seeing with your eyes or on my being in no mistake. What, if I was in as many as Mr. Law himself If you were, I should love you still, provided your heart was still right with God. My dear friend, you seem not to have well learned yet the meaning of those words, which I desire to have continually written on my heart, ’Whosoever doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother and sister and mother.’--I am, my dear Lady, Your affectionate. To Thomas Wride ARMAGH, June 23, 1771. DEAR TOMMY,--I said before, we will pay the five pounds to Brother Littledale at the Conference. If T. Colbeck had done as I ordered, it would have been paid long ago. Then also we will make up what Brother Garnet wants. If he desires it, he may come to the Conference in your stead. If not, send your account of things by R. Seed. Will not the Yearly Subscription pay both those debts If there be an overplus, it may lessen the debt on Whitehaven house. I desire that neither any preacher of ours nor any member of our Society would on any presence go to an Anabaptist meeting. It is the way to destroy the Society. This we have experienced over and over. Let all that were of the Church keep to the Church.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Hall CLONMAIN, June 24, 1771. DEAR PATTY,--You may boldly say, ’Health I shall have if health be best’; although in a natural way we are not to expect much of it when we are got on the wrong side sixty. So much the more surprising is it that I find more health at sixty-eight than I did at eight-and-twenty. I have far less pain, less sickness at stomach, and fewer bodily infirmities. So that I have a good hope I shall not live to be useless, but rather My body with my charge lay down, And cease at once to work and live. It signifies very little whether the time we creep about upon the earth be a little longer or shorter. Only let us see to that,-- Be they many or few, My days are His due, And they all are devoted to Him! It seems my sister Harper [Mrs. Harper died this year in her eightieth year. See letter of June 30, 1743.] will go out just as a lamp for want of oil. Well, let you and I live to-day.--I am, dear Patty, Your ever affectionate friend and Brother. To Miss March COCKHILL, IRELAND, June 25, 1771. Undoubtedly the reward which is purchased for us by the blood of the covenant will be proportioned to what we are (through grace), what we do, and what we suffer. Whatever, therefore, prevents our doing good prevents our receiving so full a reward; and what can countervail that loss It is certainly right that we should bear one another’s burthens; that we should weep with them that weep, and for them that weep not for themselves. ’When Jesus saw them weeping, He troubled Himself.’ He willingly sustained that emotion; He voluntarily suffered that sorrow; and it is good for us to tread in His steps. ’But how far’ Just so far as does not disqualify us for any other part of our duty; so far as softens, not unnerves, the mind, as makes us more, not less, zealous of good works. Undoubtedly there are various kinds and various degrees of communion with God. We cannot confine it to one only; it may take in the exercise of every affection, either single or variously mixed together; and may run through all our outward employments. The most desirable prayer is that where we can quite pour out our soul and freely talk with God. But it is not this alone which is acceptable to Him. ’I love one,’ said an holy man, ’that perseveres in dry duty.’ Beware of thinking even this is labour lost. God does much work in the heart even at those seasons. And when the soul, sighing to be approved, Says, ’Could I love,’ and stops, God writeth, ’Loved!’ And yet the comfort is that you need not rest here: you may go on until all your heart is love; till you ’rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks.’ You know this is the will of God concerning you in Christ Jesus. I think Molly Penington [See letters of May 30, 1771, and Sept. 16, 1780.] enjoys this, and grows in grace continually. So do two or three more members in this Society. But they sadly want more searching preachers, and those that would help them forward by explaining the deep things of God. Peace be with your spirit. To Several Preachers and Friends DUBLIN, July 10, 1771. DEAR SIR,--You desired my farther thoughts on those propositions which close the Minutes of our last Conference. ’We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.’ ’1. With regard to man’s faithfulness. Our Lord Himself taught us to use the expression; and we ought never to be ashamed of it. We ought steadily to assert it, on His authority, that if a man is not faithful in the unrighteous mammon God will not give him the true riches.’ I think nothing farther need be said on this, as it is grounded on the express Word of God. ’2. With regard to working for life. This also our Lord has expressly commanded us. " Labour " (literally work) " for the meat that endureth to everlasting life." And, in fact, every believer works for as well as from life.’ ’Every believer’: of such only the proposition speaks, And who can doubt it ’3. We have received it as a maxim that " a man is to do nothing in order to justification." Nothing can be more false. Whoever desires to find favour with God should " cease from evil and learn to do well." Whoever repents should " do works meet for repentance." And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for’ And who can deny one line of this if he allows the Bible to be true Thus far, then, here is no ground for this marvellous outcry. Here is no heresy, but the words of truth and soberness. ’Review the whole affair. ’1. Who of us is now accepted of God’ (I mean, who is now in His favour The question does not refer to the gaining the favour of God, but the being therein, at any given point of time.) ’He that now believes in Christ with a loving and obedient heart.’ Well, and who can deny this Who can find any fault either with the sentiment or the expression ’2. But who among those that never heard of Christ He that " feareth God and worketh righteousness " according to the light he has.’ The very words of St. Peter [Acts x. 34-5.]: ’Of a truth I perceive God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him’ (dektos autw esti), is in a state of acceptance. Disprove this who can. ’3. Is this the same with he that is sincere Nearly, if not quite.’ So I think. But I contend not for a word. You may either take it or leave it. ’4. Is not this salvation by works Not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition.’ By salvation I here mean final salvation. And who can deny that both inward good works (loving God and our neighbour) and outward good works (keeping His commandments) are a condition of this What is this more or less than ’Without holiness no man shall see the Lord’ ’5. What have we, then, been disputing about these thirty years I am afraid about words.’ That is, so far as we have been disputing (as I did with Dr. Church) whether works be a condition of salvation--yea, or of justification, suppose you take that term as our Lord does (Matt. xii. 37), where (speaking of the Last Day) He says, ’By thy words thou shalt be justified.’ With justification as it means our first acceptance with God this proposition has nothing to do. ’Tis true thirty years ago I was very angry with Bishop Bull, that great light of the Christian Church, because in his Harmonica Apostolica he distinguishes our first from our final justification, and affirms both inward and outward good works to be the condition of the latter, though not the former. ’6. As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid, we are rewarded according to our works--yea, because of our works. How does this differ from for the sake of our works And how differs this from secundum merita operum as our works deserve Can you split this hair I doubt I cannot.’ I follow after truth; and wherever I find it, I not only embrace it, but own it in the face of the sun. If any will show me this is not the truth, I will retract it. But let us consider it part by part. (1) ’We were dreadfully afraid of the word merit.’ None can deny this. (2) ’We are rewarded (at the Last Day) according to our works.’ Neither can this be denied. (3) ’Yea, because of our works.’ Witness Abraham, the grand pattern of believers: ’Because thou hast done this thing, . . . in blessing I will bless thee’ (Gen. xxii. 16-17). (4) ’How differs this from secundum merita operum as our works deserve ’ I say again, I cannot split this hair. Whoever can has my free leave. And afterwards let him split his throat with crying out, ’Oh dreadful heresy!’ ’7. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn from matter of fact. God does in fact justify those who by their own confession neither feared God nor wrought righteousness. Is not this an exception to the general rule It is a doubt if God makes any exception at all.’ But methinks I would rather answer, We are sliding away from our question, which is not, how we gain, but how retain the favour of God. ’8. Does not talking of a justified or a sanctified state tend to mislead men almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done in one moment Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleasing or displeasing to God according to our works, according to the whole of our inward tempers and our outward behaviour.’ Perhaps the former part of this sentence is a little too strong. Instead of almost naturally I would say very frequently. But the latter contains a truth of the deepest importance, and one that cannot be too much inculcated. Every hour God is more or less pleased with us according to the whole of our inward and outward behaviour. If any candid person desires it, I am ready to explain myself more largely on any of the preceding heads.--I am Your affectionate servant. To Robert Costerdine DUBLIN, July 11, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If you send the accounts of the money, number of people, and other circumstances, it will be sufficient for Brother Linnell to come; for the circuit should not be left vacant. If you judge it best, divide the money in the manner you mention. I believe you will be either in Chester or Liverpool Circuit. Be all alive, and do all you can for a good Master.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Philothea Briggs DUBLIN, July 13, 1771, MY DEAR PHILLY,--Truth and falsehood, and so right and wrong tempers, are often divided by an almost imperceptible line. It is the more difficult to distinguish right and wrong tempers or passions, because in several instances the same motion of the blood and animal spirits will attend both one and the other. Therefore in many cases we cannot distinguish them but by the unction of the Holy One. In the case you mention all self-complacency or self-approbation is not pride. Certainly there may be self-approbation which is not sin, though it must occasion a degree of pleasure. ’This is our rejoicing, even the testimony of our conscience toward God.’ And this joy is neither better nor worse for being accompanied with a natural motion of the blood and spirits. Equally natural and equally innocent is the joy which we receive from being approved of those we love. But in all these instances there is need of the utmost care, lest we slide from innocent joy or self-approbation into that which is not innocent, into pride (thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought to think), or vanity, a desire of praise; for ’thin partitions do their bounds divide.’ [ Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel, i. 163: ’Great wits are sure to madness near allied, And thin partitions do their bounds divide.’] Certes, I have for many days Sent my poetic herd to graze. [Prior’s Erle Robert’s Mice: ’Certes, I have those many days Sent myne poetic herd to graze.’] In youth it is almost natural to write verses, especially at leisure times. But I have no leisure time; my every hour is constantly and fully employed. You have no business to begin any dispute with your young acquaintance. If she begin with you, say but little, till you carry her Predestination Calmly Considered, and desire her to give it a calm and serious reading. That book is such an hotch-potch as I have seldom seen, and is brimful of Antinomianism (as are all Mr. Romaine’s writings [See Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 534.]). I advise you to think and speak as little about it as possible. Here and there he blunders upon the truth, as in the sentence which she quoted. I remember nothing particular in the sealing of that letter. In about ten days I expect to embark for England. Be all in earnest! and always speak without reserve to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Miss Philly Briggs, At Mr. Barker’s, In Sevenoaks, Kent. To Miss March DUBLIN, July 13, 1771. As long as we dwell in an house of clay it is liable to affect the mind; sometimes by dulling or darkening the understanding, and sometimes more directly by damping and depressing the soul and sinking it into distress and heaviness. In this state doubt or fear of one kind or another will naturally arise. And the prince of this world, who well knows whereof we are made, will not fail to improve the occasion, in order to disturb, though he cannot pollute, the heart which God hath cleansed from all unrighteousness. I rejoice with you concerning poor Martin Madan. [See reference to his mother in Tyerman’s Wesley, ii. 284.] Persons who are eminently dutiful to their parents hardly ever fail of receiving a reward even in the present world. My call to America is not yet clear. [See letters of Dec. 14, 1770, and Aug. 14, 1771 (to Philothea Briggs).] I have no business there as long as they can do without me. At present I am a debtor to the people of England and Ireland, and especially to them that believe. You have a delicate part to act with regard to Philly. [See previous letter and that of Sept. 13.] There are so many great defects in her natural temper that a deal of grace will be required to make her altogether a Christian; neither will grace shine in her as it would in others. You have need carefully to encourage what is of God in her and tenderly to reprove what is of nature. I am afraid for P--D-- , [Damaris Perronet.] lest she should be less zealous of good works than she was formerly. I doubt she has at present little encouragement thereto. In the 13th of [the First of] Corinthians you have the height and depth of genuine perfection; and it is observable St. Paul speaks all along of the love of our neighbour, flowing indeed from the love of God. Mr. De Renty is an excellent pattern of this. But many things in his fellowship with God will not be explained till the Holy Spirit explains them by writing them on your heart. That darkness which often clouds your understanding I take to be quite preternatural. I believe the spirit of darkness spreads a mist over your mind, so far as he is permitted; and that the best remedy is simply to look up to God, and the cloud will flee away at His presence.--I am, &c. To Mrs. Bennis DUBLIN, July 20, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am much pleased to hear so good an account of John Christian. If I was resolved to understand all God’s dispensations, I should embrace his opinion; because it in a manner accounts for some things which otherwise are unaccountable. But this I do not expect; I am content to understand exceeding little while I am in the body. What He does I know not now; it is enough that I shall know hereafter. Our business now is to love and obey; knowledge is reserved for eternity. My chief objection to Milton’s doctrine of Election is that I cannot reconcile it to the words of St. Peter, which manifestly refer to the eternal state of men: ’God is no respecter of persons.’ Now, how can we allow this, if we believe He places one man, as it were, suspended between heaven and hell, while He fixes another, ere ever he is born, under an absolute impossibility of missing heaven I am well pleased you see some reason to hope well of Mr. Thompson. Speak closely to him. He has a strong, cultivated understanding, and would make a shining Christian. If he continues serious, he will not long be pleased with his former company; they will grow tasteless, nay irksome. It is not material whether this or that infirmity or defect be consistent with this or that gift of God. Without reasoning about this, it is your part simply to spread all your wants before Him who loves you; and He will richly supply them all! Your ever affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop DUBLIN, July 20, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--For your own satisfaction I send you this [See letter of July 10.]; but I wish you would not show it before the Conference. If the Calvinists do not or will not understand me, I understand myself. And I do not contradict anything which I have written within these thirty years. You understand me right, and express more at large the very thing I mean. I know not that any one could express it more justly in the same number of words. Poor Mr. Shirley’s triumph will be short. Peace be with your spirit!--My dear sister, adieu! To Miss Bishop, Near Lady Huntingdon’s Chapel, Bath. To his Brother Charles KINGSWOOD, August 3, 1771. DEAR BROTHER,--I will not throw away T. Rankin on the people of London. He shall go where they know the value of him. [Rankin had been in London; he now went to Cornwall West.] We cannot put out what we never put in. I do not use the word merit. [See sect. 6 in letter of July 10.] I never did. I never did, neither do now, contend for the use of it. But I ask you or any other a plain question; and do not cry ’Murder,’ but give me an answer: What is the difference between merere and ’to deserve’ or between ’deserving’ and meritum I say still, I cannot tell. Can you Can Mr. Shirley or any man living In asking this question, I neither plead for merit nor against it. I have nothing to do with it. I have declared a thousand times there is no goodness in man till he is justified; no merit either before or after: that is, taking the word in its proper sense; for in a loose sense meritorious means no more than rewardable. As to Reprobation, seeing they have drawn the sword, I throw away the scabbard. I send you a specimen. Let fifteen hundred of them be printed as soon as you please. [A Defence of the Minute of Conference (1770) relating to Calvinism. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 273; and letters of July 10 and 20. ] Nothing was ever yet expended out of the Yearly Subscription without being immediately set down by the secretary. I never took a shilling from that fund yet. What you advise with regard to our behaviour toward opposers exactly agrees with my sentiments. My wife, I find, is on the high ropes still. I am full of business, as you may suppose. So adieu! To Miss March KINGSWOOD, August 3, 1771. How wise are all the ways of God! And although in many instances they are past finding out, yet we may even now discern the designs of His providence. The Appendix to the Philosophy [The third volume of A Compendium of Natural Philosophy forms an Appendix to the several sections of the previous volumes. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 265; and for Hymns on the Trinity (1767), No. 246.] and the Trinity Hymns, I hope, will settle you on that important point. It is a striking remark of Bishop Browne’s that we are not required to ’believe any mystery’ in the matter. The mystery does not lie in the fact ’These Three are One,’ but in the manner the accounting how they are one. But with this I have nothing to do. I believe the fact. As to the manner (wherein the whole mystery lies) I believe nothing about it. The quaint device of styling them three offices rather than persons gives up the whole doctrine. There is scarcely any word of coextensive a sense as ’wisdom.’ It frequently means the whole of religion. And, indeed, no one can be termed throughly wise until he is altogether a Christian. To devote all our thoughts and actions to God, this is our highest wisdom; and so far as we inwardly or outwardly swerve from this, we walk as fools, not as wise. In order to be all devoted to the Lord, even those who are renewed in love still need the unction of the Holy One, to teach them in all circumstances the most excellent way, and to enable them so to watch and pray that they may continually walk therein. It seems my time for writing either on this or other subjects is pretty well over; only I am ready to add a word now and then if Providence so require. Persons are in one sense delivered from unbelief when they are enabled to believe always, when they have ’faith’s abiding impression, realizing things to come.’ For they can then no longer be termed unbelievers. When this is given in a very glorious manner, so that they are filled with faith and are not able to doubt even for a moment, it is natural for them to say ’they are saved from all unbelief.’ The soul that is all light (as Lopez, when he said, ’All is midday now’) may affirm, ’I am saved from all darkness.’ And is not this the will of the Lord concerning you Undoubtedly it is. Fear not then; reason not: only look up. Is He not nigh, even at the door He is nigh that justifieth; He is nigh that sanctifieth; He is nigh that supplies all your wants! Take more out of His fullness, that you may love Him more, praise Him more, and serve Him better. It is desirable to glorify God, like Mr. De Renty or Haliburton, in death as well as in life. I am sorry for poor Miss H[artly]. [See letters of Jan. 24 and Aug. 14 to Hannah Ball.] It is a mysterious providence. To Samuel Bardsley BRISTOL, August 5, 1771. DEAR SAMMY,--I had intended you for a more distant circuit, where I believe you would have been exceeding useful. But we can hardly show tenderness enough to an aged parent. Therefore, for your mother’s sake, I will alter my design, and appoint you for the Derbyshire Circuit, which you know borders on that of Manchester. Take care to walk closely with God and to exhort others so to do. Be instant in season and out of season. Encourage all to expect salvation now!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Samuel Bardsley, At Mr. James Walker’s, In Sheffield. To John Hallam BRISTOL, August 10, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Olivers [Thomas Olivers was Assistant in Derbyshire.] is able and willing to instruct you more particularly as to any doubts than I can do by letter. I advise you do not on any account stay from those that love God. Meantime you may see many who neither love nor fear Him in their own houses, either single or more of them together. If any refrain from our preaching because you do not go to it, it is a good reason why you should. Meantime do all the good you can to all. Any of the practical books which we have published might be of use to yourself and give you a farther opportunity of being useful to others. [See letter to Samuel Bardsley on Jan. 29, 1773: ’John Hallam is a good man, though a queer one; I am in hopes he will do good.’] Perhaps it might answer your design if you taught school six or seven hours a day.--I am Your affectionate brother. To John Hallam, At Castle Donnington. To Hannah Ball BRECKNOCK, August 14, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you remain at Wycombe. That is undoubtedly your place: you have there a large field of action to exercise all the grace and gifts which God has given you. See that you be zealous for God. Redeem the time, and in due time you shall reap if you faint not. The great point is to retain what we have received. You have need by every possible means to watch over your sister [Miss Ann Ball, who continued the Sunday School after Hannah’s death.] and your mother, lest they lose what God has wrought. Hardly three in five of those that are either justified or sanctified keep the gift of God a year to an end. So much the more exhort them to watch and pray that they enter not into temptation. I love you the better because you love dear Miss Hartly. [See letter of Aug. 3 to Miss March.] Peace be with your spirits!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Philothea Briggs THE HAY, August 14, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--If you find any comfort or help thereby, write on, without any reasoning about the matter. As yet you need take no thought about my going to America [See letters of July 13, 1771 (to Miss March), and Feb. 1, 1772.]; I have some more business to do in Europe. The various thoughts and suggestions you mention are just such as any person of a lively imagination may expect. Satan, too, very well knows whereof we are made, and always attacks us on the weak side. But these and a thousand clouds passing over your mind prove nothing as to the state of your heart: see that this be devoted to Him, and it is enough. You have given it Him: stand to your gift. However, then, your imagination may be affected, you will have the testimony of a good conscience toward God. Not but that you may plead that promise, ’The peace of God shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.’ As the former word takes in all your passions, so does the latter all the workings of your reason and imagination. Pray, therefore, and look for the answer of your prayer. It shall come, and not tarry! You did well to give up that little idol. You may fast on Fridays by somewhat lessening the quantity of your breakfast or dinner. Do Miss Lambert all the good you can. Peace be with all your spirits!--I am, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. I shall soon be at Bristol. To Miss Phil. Briggs, At Shoreham, Near Sevenoaks, Kent. To the Countess of Huntingdon NEAR THE HAY, August 14, 1771. MY DEAR LADY,--When I received the former letter from your Ladyship, I did not know how to answer; and I judged, not only that silence would be the best answer, but also that with which your Ladyship would be best pleased. When I received your Ladyship’s of the 2nd instant, I immediately saw that it required an answer; only I waited till the hurry of the Conference was over that I might do nothing rashly. I know your Ladyship would not ’servilely deny the truth.’ I think neither would I; especially that great truth Justification by Faith, which Mr. Law indeed flatly denies (and yet Mr. Law was a child of God), but for which I have given up all my worldly hopes, my friends, my reputation--yea, for which I have so often hazarded my life, and by the grace of God will do again. ’The principles established in the Minutes’ I apprehend to be no way contrary to this, or to that faith, that consistent plan of doctrine, which was once delivered to the saints. I believe, whoever calmly considers Mr. Fletcher’s Letters [Five Letters to the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, which formed the First Check to Antinomianism. See Tyerman’s Wesley’s Designated Successor, p. 192. ] will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, ’zeal against those principles’ is no less than zeal against the truth and against the honour of our Lord. ’The preservation of His honour appears so sacred’ to me, and has done for above these forty years, that I have counted, and do count, all things loss in comparison of it. But till Mr. Fletcher’s printed letters are answered, I must think everything spoke against those Minutes is totally destructive of His honour, and a palpable affront to Him both as our Prophet and Priest, but more especially as the King of His people. Those letters (which therefore could not be suppressed without betraying the honour of our Lord) largely prove that the Minutes lay no other foundation than that which is laid in Scripture, and which I have been laying, and teaching others to lay, for between thirty and forty years. Indeed, it would be amazing that God should at this day prosper my labours as much if not more than ever, by converting as well as convincing sinners, if I was ’establishing another foundation, repugnant to the whole plan of man’s salvation under the new covenant of grace, as well as the clear meaning of our Established Church and all other Protestant Churches.’ This is a charge indeed! But I plead, Not guilty. And till it is proved upon me, I must subscribe myself, my dear Lady, Your Ladyship’s truly affectionate but much injured servant. To Ann Bolton PEYBROKE, August 25, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--Now you make me amends. Your affectionate letter gave me unspeakable satisfaction. I am glad you have been with Sister Iles. She is a jewel. Is she going to be married or not I am glad likewise that you have better health; surely He will withhold from you no good thing! But I cannot tell you how glad I am that your love is not grown cold. Perhaps our wise Lord may sometimes make that love a balance against the temptations you speak of. You certainly have need to watch in all things; otherwise you would suffer loss. And you have need to be always active and zealous for God, forgetting yourself and simply following Him. But one caution I would give my dear friend. Do not spend too much time at once in any company. An hour at a time is generally enough; and if we spend more, it is less useful. O how I long for patience to have its perfect work in you, that you may be perfect in Him, and lacking nothing! I will pardon your past delay only on one condition, that you quickly write again. Let not your works of mercy rob you of time for private prayer; and fail not then especially to remember, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Savage BRISTOL, August 31, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--Right precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints! And I believe many of the blessings which we receive are in answer to their dying prayers. It is well if the great change be wrought in a soul even a little before it leaves the body. But how much more desirable it is that it should be wrought long before, that we may long glorify Him with our body and with our spirit! O exhort all whom you have access to not to delay the time of embracing all the great and precious promises! Frankly tell all those that are simple of heart what He has done for your soul; and then urge, May not every sinner find The grace which found out me If Mr. Fletcher has time to call upon you, he will surely bring a blessing with him. He is a man full of faith. Be free with Sister Brisco, [Her husband, Thomas Brisco, had been in Devonshire, but was this Conference appointed to Wiltshire North.] who brings this.--My dear sister, adieu! To Mary Bishop BRISTOL, September 1, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I hope to see you at Bath on Tuesday, and to preach about six in the evening. I choose to preach early that I may have time to meet the Society after preaching. Concessions made in the chapel at Bath would not quench the flame kindled over the three kingdoms. [As to the 1770 Minutes.] Mr. Fletcher’s Letters may do this in some measure; but the antidote cannot spread so fast as the poison. However, the Lord reigneth, and consequently all these things shall work together for the increase of His kingdom. Certainly simple faith is the very thing you want, that faith which lives upon Christ from moment to moment. I believe that sermon The Scripture Way of Salvation [See Works. vi. 43-54.] might at this time be particularly useful to you. It is a great thing to seize and improve the very now. What a blessing you may receive at this instant! Behold the Lamb of God!--I am, dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride BRISTOL, September 7, 1771. DEAR TOMMY,--The preachers appointed [The Conference met at Bristol on Aug. 6, when these appointments were made.] for Whitehaven Circuit are John Mason and William Linnell. Jos. Garnet is appointed for Sheffield; and Thomas Wride Assistant in the Armagh Circuit. Many of the people there are much alive. Probably you may cross over to Newry, which brings you just to the spot. Let Brother Mason and Linnell follow the blow at Keswick. I am glad to hear so good an account of John M’Combe. [For John M’Combe’s escape from a pit on fire, near Whitehaven in 1759, ’burned from head to foot, but rejoicing and praising God,’ see Journal, iv. 314.] Be zealous, serious, active! Then you will save your own soul and them that hear you!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Philothea Briggs KINGSWOOD, September 13, 1771 MY DEAR PHILLY,--Your present weakness will, I hope, be an unspeakable blessing. You was in danger of having more sail than ballast, more liveliness of imagination than solid wisdom. But it seems God is correcting this defect, and giving you more steadiness of mind. [See letters of July 13, 1771, and April 12, 1772, to her.] You now see and feel what is the real worth of this poor, perishable world, and how little real happiness is to be found in all things under the sun. Meantime you are to use all probable means of recovering and confirming your health. Taking many medicines, indeed, is not a probable means: I would in no wise advise this. [See letter of Oct. 6.] But what complaint have you I always thought you had firm and vigorous health. Perhaps I may direct you to some little rules of common sense which will be of service to you. It is right to pour out our whole soul before Him that careth for us. But it is good likewise to unbosom ourselves to a friend in whom we can confide. This also is an appointed means which it generally pleases God to bless. Whenever, therefore, you have opportunity, speak all that is in your heart to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Miss Phil. Briggs, At Miss March’s, In Worship Street, Moorfields, London. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, September 16, 1771. Nancy, Nancy! Why do you forget your friends Why do you tempt me to be angry I tell you again you will lose your labour: I can’t be angry at you. You are marvellously slow in writing. Come, I hope you will make me amends (if you are well) by a long letter. I purpose, if God permit, to be at Wallingford on Monday, October 14; at Witney on Wednesday and Thursday; at High Wycombe on Friday; and at London on Saturday. Do not delay to write. I want to hear how you are and what you are doing, as well as how the work of God goes on at Witney and elsewhere And how go on Brother Jaquis and his wife Peace be multiplied upon you!--My dear Nancy, adieu! To Mrs. Savage BRISTOL, September 19, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--A report was spread abroad of my coming to Broadmarston and several other places; but I know not what was the occasion of it. I am now expected in the southern parts of the kingdom, and my course has been for several years as fixed as that of the sun. Mr. Ellis is a steady, experienced man, and a sound preacher. Wherever he is the work of our Lord prospers in his hand; and the more so as he is a lover of discipline, without which the best preaching is of little use. I advise you to speak to him as freely as possible, and he will be made profitable to your soul. Your late trials were intended to give you a deeper sense of your poverty and helplessness. But see that you cast not away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward. Cleave to Him with your whole heart, and all is well.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, September 22, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You and I differ a little in our judgement. I take Yarm Circuit to be a very comfortable one. But I see an evil growing among us: preachers claim to be two years together in the same round, because it has been suffered sometimes; but if it be so, I must suffer it no more. Every preacher shall change every year; unless they will leave it to my judgement to make an exception now and then when I may see sufficient cause. However, for the present, if Thomas Hanson is willing, you may change circuits with him. To a request which I did not approve of silence was the mildest answer. Nevertheless I had rather you had been at Leeds. I believe you would have done more good. But others had spoke first. Pray let them not be beforehand with you, if we live to another year.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. C. Hopper, Yarm. To Hannah Ball PORTSMOUTH, October 4, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--The being ’sealed by the Spirit’ in the full sense of the word I take to imply two things: first, the receiving the whole image of God, the whole mind which was in Christ, as the wax receives the whole impression of the seal when it is strongly and properly applied; secondly, the full assurance of hope, or a clear and permanent confidence of being with God in glory. Either of these may be given (and sometimes is, though not frequently) separate from the other. When both are joined together, then I believe they constitute that seal of the Spirit. But even this admits of various degrees. A degree of it, I trust, you have. Watch and pray! Do and suffer the whole will of Him that calleth you; and He will supply whatever is wanting.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Philothea Briggs LONDON, October 6, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--I commend you for not meddling with medicines, [See letter of Sept. 13.] except some of those simple ones in the Primitive Physick. Perhaps youth, with abstinence from tea and whatever else you feel hurts you, may restore your health. And, while it continues, this weakness may be of excellent use by weaning you from the love of present things. The first Appeal is a complete treatise of itself independent on the rest. This, therefore, may be given to any one without the others, which makes the expense easy. But to your friend you might give or lend them all. And if she has sense enough to read them impartially, she will learn to speak and write without ambiguity, just according to common sense. You may tell her, ’If you was doing those works, thinking to merit salvation thereby, you was quite wrong. But if you was doing them because they are the appointed way wherein we wait for free salvation, you was quite right.’ But you need only send her Mr. Fletcher’s Letters, and they will clear up the point sufficiently.--I always am, dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Joseph Benson LONDON, October 11, 1771. DEAR JOSEPH,--Here, in this very point, is your mistake. You was as really a believer when you came to Kingswood as you are now. Five-and-thirty years since, hearing that wise man Mr. Spangenberg describe the fruits of faith, I immediately cried out, ’If this be so, I have no faith.’ He replied, ’Habes fidem, sed exiguam.’ This was then your case too. It is not strange that you are seldom satisfied by my letters; for I use few words, and you are not to be satisfied but by many. You want me to think for you. That is not my design. I would only help you to think.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To John Fletcher LONDON, October 12, 1771. DEAR SIR,--Returning from Bedfordshire this evening, I received your two letters and the bill. I do not propose saying anything to Mr. Shirley, at least not for the present. I am glad mine came too late to prevent your writing me the Sixth Letter, which I trust will be as useful as the others have been. Certainly it is possible to reconcile meekness, yea and kindness, with the utmost plainness of speech. But this will infallibly be termed bitterness by those who do not receive it in love. Their returning us hatred for goodwill is the cross we are called to bear. I can hardly believe what he says of Mr. Spencer, [See letter of June 20, 1770.] whose love, I verily think, is without dissimulation. But Calvinism I know to be a deadly enemy to all Christian tempers. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, dear sir, Ever yours. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, October 13, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Methodist preachers cannot have always accommodations fit for gentlemen. But let us look upon David Brainerd, and praise God for what we have. In the general, Yarm Circuit is one of the best in England. [See letter of Sept. 22.] The living souls make us ample amends for the inconvenient houses. I am persuaded, wherever the Assistant is earnest in the matter and has a little address and patience, the weekly contribution will answer the end. Difficulties we must expect; but by the help of God you will conquer them. If Tommy Hanson and you live till May, you may change again.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Philothea Briggs WITNEY, October 16, 1771. MY DEAR PHILLY,--It is no fault to be grieved at the unkindness of those we love: only it may go to an excess; so that we have need to watch in this, as in all things, seeing the life of man is a temptation upon earth. And it is no fault not to grieve for the censure we must often meet with for following our own conscience. Of those little ones you cannot be too tender or too careful; and as you are frequently with them alone, you may teach them many important lessons as they are able to bear them. But it requires immense patience; for you must tell them the same thing ten times over, or you do nothing. [Compare his mother’s patience. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, p. 169.] An higher degree of that peace which may well be said to pass all understanding will keep, not only your heart, but all the workings of your mind (as the word properly signifies), both of your reason and imagination, from all irregular sallies. This peace will increase as your faith increases; one always keeps pace with the other. So that on this account also your continual prayer should be, ’Lord, increase my faith!’ A continual desire is a continual prayer--that is, in a low sense of the word; for there is a far higher sense, such an open intercourse with God, such a close, uninterrupted communion with Him, as Gregory Lopez experienced, and not a few of our brethren and sisters now alive. One of them (a daughter of sorrow for a long time) was talking with me this morning. This you also should aspire after; as you know, He with whom we have to do is no respecter of persons. If you are writing any verses, I will give you a subject. Give me a picture of yourself: what you are at present (as you have already told me in prose), and what you wish to be. You may write in four-lined stanzas, such as those of the ’Elegy wrote in the Churchyard.’ The more free you are with me the more welcome. You never yet was troublesome (and I am persuaded you never will be) to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Robert Costerdine LONDON, October 25, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Do what you can, and you do enough. No debt is properly included but that which was contracted three years ago. However, in such cases as that of Birmingham we may make an exception. [Costerdine was Assistant in Staffordshire. Birmingham received 12 at the Conference of 1772.] You are in the right to stop all who would tell you any stories of past things. Tell them, ’Now is the day of salvation,’ and strongly exhort them to embrace it. Recommend the books wherever you go. Meet the children, and visit from house to house.--I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Bennis RYE, October 28, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is no wonder that finite cannot measure infinite, that man cannot comprehend the ways of God. There always will be something incomprehensible, something like Himself, in all His dispensations. We must therefore be content to be ignorant until eternity opens our understanding, particularly with regard to the reasons of His acting thus or thus. These we shall be acquainted with when in Abraham’s bosom. As thinking is the act of an embodied spirit, playing upon a set of material keys, it is not strange that the soul can make but ill music when her instrument is out of tune. This is frequently the case with you; and the trouble and anxiety you then feel are a natural effect of the disordered machine, which proportionately disorders the mind. But this is not all: as long as you have to wrestle, not only with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers, wise as well as powerful, will they not serve themselves of every bodily weakness to increase the distress of the soul But let them do as they may; let our frail bodies concur with subtle and malicious spirits: yet see that you cast not away your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. ’Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.’ Whereunto you have attained hold fast; and when you feel the roughest and strongest assault, when the enemy comes in like a flood, do not reason, do not (in one sense) fight with him, but sink down in the presence of your Lord, and simply look up, telling Him, ’Lord, I cannot help myself; I have neither wisdom nor strength for this war; but I am Thine, I am all Thine: undertake for me; let none pluck me out of Thine hands. Keep that safe which is committed to Thee, and preserve it unto that day.’ I am in great hopes, if we live until another Conference, John Christian will be useful as a travelling preacher: so would J-- M-- [Evidently a local preacher in Limerick.] if he had courage to break through. However, I am pleased he exercises himself a little: encourage him. I wish you would lend Mrs. Dawson [See letter of March 31, 1772.] the Appeals: take them from the book-room, and present them to her in my name. Go yourself; for I wish you to be acquainted with her. I believe they will satisfy her about the Church. She halts just as I did many years ago. Be not shy towards Brother Collins: he is an upright man. Sister L-- is already doing good in Clonmel. [See letter of July 27, 1770.] Do you correspond with her Your affectionate. To Isaac Twycross RYE, October 29, 1771. DEAR ISAAC,--Nothing is fixed as yet. But whatever God calls you to He will fit you for. Not, indeed, without a good measure of reproach; but so much the better. Reproach for doing our duty is an unspeakable blessing.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Isaac Twycross, At Kingswood School. To Philothea Briggs LONDON, November 3, 1771. DEAR PHILLY,--I am always well pleased to see and hear from you. I answer you, more or less fully, as I have time. Neither do I know how to advise Nancy Greenwood; although I think he is free to marry. Rollin was a pious man and a fine historian. If you read one volume, you would feel whether it enlivened or deadened your soul. The same trial you may make as to serious poetry. Very probably this would enliven your soul; and certainly the volumes of Philosophy may, as Galen entitles his description of the human body, ’An Hymn to the Creator.’ Temporal business need not interrupt your communion with God, though it varies the manner of it. It is certain every promise has a condition; yet that does not make the promise of none effect, but by the promise you are encouraged and enabled to fulfil the condition. You might like it better were there no condition; but that would not answer the design of Him that makes it. It is certain there are times of nearer access to God, and that it nearly imports us to improve those precious seasons. But we may find plausible objections against this, and indeed against anything. The more free you are with me, the more you oblige, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton LYNN, November 7, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--At length I have snatched an hour to repeat to you in writing the advices which I gave you before. [He had been at Witney on Oct. 15 and 16.] (1) Keep that safe which God has given you; never let slip any blessing which you have received. Regard none who tell you, ’You must lose it.’ No; you never need lose one degree of love. (2) You never will, provided you are a careful steward of the manifold gifts of God. To him that hath--that is, uses what he hath--it shall be given still, and that more abundantly. Therefore (3) Use your every grace. Stir up the gift of God that is in you. Be zealous! Be active! Spare no one. Speak for God wherever you are. But meantime (4) Be humble; let all that mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. And be clothed with humility. Pray that you may always feel that you are nothing, less than nothing, and vanity. In this spirit speak and do everything, giving all the glory to Him that reigns in your heart by faith. Last night I was reading some advices of a French author, part of which may be of use to you. Only observe, he is writing to one that had living faith, but was not perfected in love. ’How can I distinguish pride from temptation to pride’ ’It is extremely difficult to distinguish these, and still more so to lay down rules for doing it. Our eyes cannot penetrate the ground of our hearts. Pride and vanity are natural to us; and for this reason nothing is more constantly at hand, nothing less observed, than their effects. The grand rule is to sound sincerely the ground of our hearts when we are not in the hurry of temptation. For if, on inquiry, we find that it loves obscurity and silence; that it dreads applause and distinction; that it esteems the virtue of others and excuses their faults with mildness; that it easily pardons injuries; that it fears contempt less and less; that it sees a falsehood and baseness in pride and a true nobleness and greatness in humility; that it knows and reveres the inestimable riches of the cross and the humiliations of Jesus Christ; that it fears the lustre of those virtues which are admired by men and loves those that are more secret; that it draws comfort even from its own defects through the abasement which they occasion; and that it prefers any degree of compunction before all the light in the world;--then you may trust that all the motions you feel tending to pride or vanity, whether they are sudden or are thrust against you for some time, are not sin, but temptation. And then it may be the best to turn from and despise them, instead of giving them weight, by fixing your attention upon them.’ I want a particular account both of your inward and outward health. Tell me how you are and what you are doing; withhold nothing from Your affectionate friend and brother. Write soon, or come: write and come. To Mary Stokes LYNN, November 9, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--How glad should I be could I be of any service to one I so tenderly regard! you have an heart susceptible of friendship; and shall it not be a blessing to you, a means of increasing every holy temper, and perhaps of guarding you against some of the dangerous temptations which are incident to youth Shall I give you a few advices (1) Keep that safe which God has given; never let slip any blessing you have received. Regard none who tell you, ’You must lose it.’ No; you may have more or less of joy--this depends upon a thousand circumstances; but you never need lose one degree of love. (2) You never will if you are a careful steward of the manifold gifts of God. To him that hath--that is, uses what he hath-- it shall be given still, and that more abundantly. Therefore (3) Use your every grace. Stir up the gift of God that is in you. Be zealous, be active, according to your strength. Speak for God wherever you are. But meantime (4) Be humble! Let all that mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. Pray for the whole spirit of humility, that you may still feel you are nothing, and may feel those words, All might, all majesty, all praise, All glory be to Christ my Lord! I am accustomed to remember a few of my friends about ten o’clock in the morning: I must take you in among them, on condition you will likewise remember me at that time. I never shall think your letters too long.--My dear Molly, Your affectionately. To Matthew Lowes NORWICH, November 10, 1771. DEAR MATTHEW,--I am glad you was able to do so much. You should do all you can, otherwise want of exercise will not lessen but increase your disorder. It may be travelling a little may restore your strength, though as yet you are not able to travel much. Certainly there is no objection to your making balsam while you are not considered as a travelling preacher. --I am, with love to Sister Lowes, Your affectionate brother. To John Valton NORWICH, November 12, 1771. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Many of our brethren have begun to assist their neighbours on the principles of the Primitive Physick. At first they prescribed only simple things, and God gave a blessing to their labours. But they seldom continued as they began; they grew more and more complex in their prescriptions. Beware of this; keep to the simple scheme. One thing will almost always do better than two. I think there is a small tract of the kind you mention among those given away by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. If so, I can easily abridge it into a penny pamphlet. Dr. Tissot wrote for Swiss constitutions: we must make allowance for English, which are generally less robust. In every place there is a remarkable blessing attending the meetings for prayer. A revival of the work of God is generally the consequence of them. The most prevailing fault among the Methodists is to be too outward in religion. We are continually forgetting that the kingdom of God is within us, and that our fundamental principle is, We are saved by faith, producing all inward holiness, not by works, by any externals whatever.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. John Valton, At Purfleet. To Mary Bishop LONDON, November 20, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--What if even before this letter comes to your hands our Lord should come to your heart Is He not nigh Is He not now knocking at the door What do you say ’Come in, my Lord, come in.’ Are you not ready Are you not a mere sinner a sinner stripped of all Therefore all is ready for you. Fear not; only believe. Now believe, and enter into rest. How gracious is it in the kind Physician to humble you and prove you and show you what is in your heart! Now let Christ and love alone be there. Sister Janes’s experience is clear and scriptural [Thomas Janes was one of the Bristol preachers in 1770. See letter of Dec. 26 to Mary Stokes.]: I hope she does not let go anything that God has given her. I don’t know anything of Mr. Morgan’s Sermons [James Morgan, who wrote the Life of Thomas Walsh, published The Crucifed Jesus, considered in three discourses.]: some in Dublin think he is married, and some not. I hope the preachers at the chapel now let you alone and follow after peace. Mr. Fletcher’s Letters [The First Check to Antinomianism had just appeared in the form of five letters.] have done much good here, and have given a deadly wound to Antinomianism.--I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, November 24, 1771. DEAR SAMMY,--It is a great blessing that your fellow labourers and you are all of one mind. [He was in Derbyshire Circuit with Thomas Olivers and David Evans.] When that is so, the work of the Lord will prosper in your hands. It will go on widening as well as deepening while you draw in one yoke. If you desire it should deepen in believers, continually exhort them to go on unto perfection, steadily to use all the grace they have received, and every moment to expect full salvation. The Plain Account of Christian Perfection you should read yourself more than once, and recommend it to all that are groaning for full redemption.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis CANTERBURY, December 3, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--I did believe Brother Collins [See letter of Oct. 28.] would be of use to you and you may be of use to him: speak to each other without reserve, and then you will seldom meet in vain. Thrust him out to visit the whole Society (not only those that can give him meat and drink) from house to house, according to the plan laid down in the Minutes of Conference: then he will soon see the fruit of his labour. I hope he is not ashamed to preach full salvation receivable now by faith. This is the word which God will always bless, and which the devil peculiarly hates; therefore he is constantly stirring up both his own children and the weak children of God against it. All that God has already given you hold fast. But expect to see greater things than these. Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, December 9, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--It always gives me pleasure to hear that you are not removed from the hope of the gospel. It is no wonder if, as your desires increase after the whole image of God, so your temptations, particularly from that enemy of all righteousness, should increase also. I trust Mr. Wells will be made a blessing to you and to many,--especially if he visits from house to house; not only those with whom he eats or drinks, but all the Society from one end of the town to the other. Forward him by all means in this labour of love, though many difficulties will attend it. But what are crosses and difficulties to those who experience the living power of faith divine You can do all things through Christ strengthening you, however grievous to flesh and blood. Now let the return of health be a blessing to you. Spend and be spent for a good Master.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Simpson CHATHAM, December 12, 1771. DEAR TOMMY,--I make no doubt at all but God will give you strength according to your day. I found John Glascock [Is this John Glascott who was converted at the school in April 1768, and became a preacher in 1782-3 He may have come from Cardiff. See letter of May 13, 1764.] in want of everything; I sent him to Kingswood, that he might want nothing. But, since he is neither thankful to God nor man, send him back again as soon as you please. Whenever we can find a young man that can and will conscientiously observe the rules of the house, you shall have him directly. Is the young man of Coleford such an one If so, take him without delay.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Thomas Simpson, Kingswood. To S. L- LEWISHAM, December 14, 1771. DEAR BROTHER,--For some time I have been in doubt whether it was best for me to write or to leave you to your own reflections. But at length love turns the scale. I cannot be silent any longer without being wanting in affection. I will therefore state the case as impartially as I can; and may God give you a right judgement in all things! It has pleased God to entrust you with several talents--a measure of His grace, of natural understanding, improved by reading and conversation, and a tolerable utterance. And what are you doing with these talents You are wellnigh burying them in the earth. A dispensation of the gospel is committed to you; and yet you preach not the gospel, or but now and then, instead of continually stirring up the gift of God that is in you. Is this inactivity, this losing so many precious opportunities, owing to any temporal views Do you expect to get more money by delay I hope not. Do you want to avoid labour, shame, or censure I would fain think better things of you. Surely you have not so learned Christ! But you have promised, not indeed to man, but before God, that you will not leave the Church. What do you mean by this What ideas do you affix to that confused expression In what sense can the officiating at West Street or Spitalfields Chapels (both of them consecrated places, if that avails anything) be called leaving the Church Does Mr. Dodd, one of the King’s chaplains, leave the Church by officiating at Charlotte Street Chapel although this was never consecrated yet, neither is under any Episcopal jurisdiction. But if you had made that promise ten times, still I ask, Would it not be ’more honoured in the breach than in the observance’ For what was it you promised To wait for dead men’s shoes Was not this a foolish promise To bury your talent in the earth Was not this a sinful promise To incur the woe of not preaching the gospel Is not this both foolish and sinful ’But you do not intend to stand in the vineyard all the day idle. You will but wait a while longer.’ Well, how long will you be as a dumb dog twenty years or ten or one and a half If you have a lease of your life, well. But what if you are called in one year to give an account of your stewardship O live to-day! Do all the good you can while it is called to-day! Now stir up the gift of God which is in you! Now save as many souls as you can; and do all you can to ease the labour and prolong the life of Your affectionate friend and brother. To James Hutton December 26, 1771. DEAR JAMES,--It really seems the time is come when our Lord will roll away our reproach, and Ephraim shall no more vex Judah, nor Judah vex Ephraim. Frank Okeley and you, with my brother and me, so many at least, are lovers of peace. After having seen above half a century of years, we are sick of strife and contention. If we do not yet think alike, we may at least love alike. And, indeed, unity of affection is a good step forward toward unity of judgement. We need not despair of getting farther by-and-by: the right hand of the Lord bringeth mighty things to pass. Nothing will be wanting that is in the power of, dear James, Your old friend and brother. To Mr. Hutton, At Lindsey House, Chelsea. To Mary Stokes LONDON, December 26, 1771. MY DEAR SISTER,--Sanctified crosses are blessings indeed; and when it is best, our Lord will remove them. A peculiar kind of watching, to which you are now called, is against the suggestions of that wicked one who would persuade you to deny or undervalue the grace of God which is in you. Beware of mistaking his voice for the voice of the Holy One. Do justice to Him that lives and reigns in you, and acknowledge His work with thankfulness. There is no pride in doing this: it is only giving Him His due, rendering Him the glory of His own graces. But in order to this you stand in continual need of the unction, to abide with you and teach you of all things. So shall you never lose anything of what God has given; neither the blessing itself nor the witness of it. Nay, rather you shall sink deeper and deeper into His love; you shall go on from faith to faith; and patience shall have its perfect work, until you are perfect and entire, wanting nothing. Cannot poor Molly Jones discern the difference between John Pawson and T. Janes [See letter in Jan. 1772 to Miss Stokes.] In Tommy’s conversation there is nothing solid or weighty, as neither was there in his preaching. Therefore neither religion nor sound reason would lead one to admit either one or the other. It is only free, open love, however shy she may be, whereby you can make any impression upon her. And love, seconded with prayer, will persuade. Do you not find as much life in your soul as ever Can you still give God all your heart Do you find as much of the spirit of prayer and the same zeal for God Go on, in His name and in the power of His might, trampling yours and His enemies under your feet.--My dear Molly, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, December 28, 1771. I hope this affliction will be a great blessing to your brother. Lose no time in encouraging him to turn to God in earnest. Do you feel as much life in your soul as ever Are you as happy as you were Do you find as much of the spirit of prayer And are you as active for God as when I saw you Is your heart whole with Him, free from idols I am jealous over you. I was in many fears, occasioned by your long silence. I want you to be gaining ground every hour. I love Mr. Hallward [See letter of March 9, 1771]; but do not let him proselyte you to his opinion. Write soon to Your affectionate brother. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 65: 63. 1772 ======================================================================== 1772 A QUIETER INTERVAL JANUARY 5, 1772, TO DECEMBER 31, 1773 PRINCIPAL EVENTS 1772 Friends provide Wesley with a carriage. Apr. 28. Presented with the Freedom of Perth. Aug. 14. Meets Howell Harris at Trevecca. Fletcher’s Third and Fourth Check to Antinomianism published. Wesley issues vols. xi.-xvi. of his Works. Controversial writings of the Hills and Toplady. 1773 Jan. Proposals to John Fletcher. Mar. Wesley lets Shadford loose on America. Mark. 14. Replies to Sir Richard Hill’s Farrago Double-Distilled. Dec. Boston Tea Riots. Vols. xvii.-xxv. of Wesley’s Works published. To Philothea Briggs LONDON, January 5, 1772. MY DEAR PHILLY,--It is not always a defect to mind one thing at a time. And an aptness so to do, to employ the whole vigour of the mind on the thing in hand, may answer excellent purposes. Only you have need to be exceeding wary, lest the thing you pursue be wrong. First, be well assured not only that it is good but that it is the best thing for you at that time; and then, whatsoever your hand findeth to do, do it with your might. But you have all things in one, the whole of religion contracted to a point, in that word, ’Walk in love, as Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us.’ All is contained in humble, gentle, patient love. Is not this, so to speak, a divine contrivance to assist the narrowness of our minds, the scantiness of our understanding Every right temper, and then all right words and actions, naturally branch out of love. In effect, therefore, you want nothing but this--to be filled with the faith that worketh by love. You take no liberties that are not agreeable to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To James Hutton LEWISHAM, January 10, 1772. DEAR JAMES,--Little journeys hither and thither have for these two or three weeks taken up much of my time. You know I am a busy kind of mortal; however, I am always glad to see my old friends. But most of them have taken their flight from hence, and are lodged in Abraham’s bosom. I expect to be at West Street Chapel house on Monday, between eleven and twelve. Wishing you every gospel blessing; I remain, dear James, Yours affectionately. The Foundery I had wrote before I received yours. To Mr. Hutton, At Lindsey House, Chelsea. To Robert Costerdine LONDON, January 18, 1772 MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you see the fruit of your labour. As to Bilston, [Costerdine was now Assistant in Staffordshire.] if you can do no good there, you will do well to bestow the time elsewhere. I hope (if God prolong my life and health) to be at Broadmarston [He did not get to Broadmarston till the 14th, and Birmingham on the 16th. See Journal, v. 448.] on Friday, March 13; on Saturday at Birmingham; on Sunday at Wednesbury; on Monday, 16th where you please; on Tuesday, at five or six in the evening, at Wolverhampton; and on Wednesday, the 18th, at Newcastle (noon); Burslem, six in the evening.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Pywell NEAR LONDON, January 22, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--You have given me a clear and satisfactory answer to the questions which I proposed, and I rejoice over you for the grace of God which is in you. May He increase it more and more! How should I rejoice to see you and to talk with you more particularly on these heads! I hope that may be in spring; but before then you can tell me,--Are you always sensible of the presence of God Is not that sense ever interrupted by company or by hurry of business Do you pray without ceasing Is your heart lifted up, whatever your hands are employed in Do you rejoice evermore Are you always happy always more or less enjoying God Do you never fret never so grieve at anything as to interrupt your happiness Do you never find lowness of spirits Are you enabled in everything to give thanks I ask you many questions, because I want you to write freely and particularly to, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Sarah Pywell, At Mr. Wilson’s, In Stenton. To be left at the White Lion in Derby. To John Mason LONDON, January 26, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Two old members recovered I make more account of than three new ones. I love to see backsliders return. I was afraid there was no more place for us in Workington.[Mason was now Assistant at Whitehaven, which Circuit included Workington, Cockermouth and Carlisle.] scarce any one came to hear. It is well the people are now of a better mind. You cannot expect to do good at Carlisle till you either procure a more comfortable place or preach in the open air. For many years Cockermouth has been the same, and will be till you can preach abroad. You will observe the letter which I desired Brother Mather [Alexander Mather was in London. See letter of Feb. 27, 1773.] to write to you concerning the books; and make all the haste which the nature of the thing will admit. I shall endeavour to see you in summer; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 29, 1772. Nancy, Nancy! What is the matter Not a line yet! Are you trying whether I can be angry at you Or are you fallen into your old temptation, and so care not whether I am pleased or displeased You give me concern. I have many fears concerning you. Tell me without delay how your soul prospers. Adieu! To Miss Bolton, At Mr. Bolton’s, Brewer, In Witney, Oxon. To the Society Pro Fide et Christianismo LONDON, January 31, 1772. GENTLEMEN,--I cannot but praise God for putting it into your hearts boldly to lift up a standard against the iniquity which has overspread the world, even the Christian world, as a flood. This is, indeed, one of the noblest and most important designs which can enter into the soul of man. Meantime permit me to remind you that the difficulties attending it will be in proportion to the importance of it. For the prince of this world will fight with all his power that his kingdom may not be delivered up. But is not He that is with you greater than he that is in the world The Lord of Hosts is with you; the God of Jacob is your refuge. I return you my sincerest thanks for doing me the honour of admitting me into your number, and shall greatly rejoice if it should ever be in my power any way to forward your excellent design. [See letters of Jan. 30, 1770, and Dec. 23, 1775.] Wishing you all success therein, I remain, gentlemen, Your unworthy brother and willing servant. To Mary Stokes [About January 1772.] MY DEAR SISTER,--In order to speak for God, you must not confer with flesh and blood, or you will never begin. You should vehemently resist the reasoning devil, who will never want arguments for your silence. Indeed, naturally all the passions justify themselves: so do fear and shame in particular. In this case, therefore, the simple, child-like boldness of faith is peculiarly necessary. And when you have broke through and made the beginning, then prudence has its office--that is, Christian (not worldly) prudence, springing from the unction of the Holy One, and teaching you how far and in what manner to speak, according to a thousand various circumstances. You do not yet see the day dawn with regard to those who are near and dear to you. But you must not hence infer that it never will. The prayer that goeth not out of feigned lips will not fall to the ground; but ’though it seem to tarry long, true and faithful is His word.’ I am glad Miss Williams comes a little nearer to us. Do the same good office to Molly Jones. [See letter of Dec. 26, 1771, to Miss Stokes.] She professes to love you; if she really does, press on, and you will prevail. Does not Tommy Janes hurt her He is lively and good-natured, but has no liking either to the doctrine or discipline of the Methodists. Such a person is just calculated for weakening all that is right and strengthening all that is wrong in her. If you speak to Mr. Pawson concerning the preaching at the Hall on Sunday evening, I believe it may be continued. Only it could not be by the travelling preachers; they are otherwise engaged. Yours affectionately. To Walter Sellon LONDON, February 1, 1772. DEAR WALTER,--You do not understand your information right. Observe, ’I am going to America to turn bishop.’ [See letter of Aug. 14, 1771, to Philothea Briggs.] You are to understand it in sensu composito. [’In the sense agreed.’] I am not to be a bishop till I am in America. While I am in Europe, therefore, you have nothing to fear. But as soon as ever you hear of my being landed at Philadelphia, it will be time for your apprehensions to revive. It is true some of our preachers would not have me stay so long; but I keep my old rule, Festina lente. [’Make haste slowly.’]--I am, dear Walter, Your affectionate brother. To Rebecca Yeoman LONDON, February 5, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--As far as I understand, you are now properly in the wilderness state. I advise you to read over that sermon in the fourth volume, [See Works, vi. 77-91] and examine yourself thereby. If you find out the cause of heaviness or darkness, you are more than half-way to the cure. If Jenny Johnson [See letter of Aug. 4, 1770.] is throughly sensible of her fault, you may trust her; if not, she should not meet in band. As your mind is tender and easily moved, you may readily fall into inordinate affection; if you do, that will quickly darken your soul. But watch and pray, and you shall not enter into temptation. If it please God to continue my life and strength, I expect to come through Scotland in April and May, so as to reach Newcastle about the beginning of June [He arrived on May 25.]; but who knows whether we may not before then take a longer journey Our wisdom is to live to-day.--I am, dear Becky, Your affectionate brother. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, February 8, 1772. MY DEAR LADY,--I commend you for meddling with points of controversy as little as possible. It is abundantly easier to lose our love in that rough field than to find truth. This consideration has made me exceedingly thankful to God for giving me a respite from polemical labours. I am glad He has given to others both the power and the will to answer them that trouble me; so that I may not always be forced to hold my weapons in one hand while I am building with the other. I rejoice likewise not only in the abilities but in the temper of Mr. Fletcher. He writes as he lives. I cannot say that I know such another clergyman in England or Ireland. He is all fire; but it is the fire of love. His writings, like his constant conversation, breathe nothing else to those who read him with an impartial eye. And although Mr. Shirley scruples not to charge him with using subtilty and metaphysical distinctions, yet he abundantly clears himself of this charge in the Second Check to Antinomianism. [’A Second Check to Antinomianism; occasioned by a Late Narrative, in three letters to the Hon. and Rev. Author (Walter Shirley), was published at the end of 1771.] Such the last letters are styled, and with great propriety; for such they have really been. They have given a considerable check to those who were everywhere making void the law through faith; setting ’the righteousness of Christ’ in opposition to the law of Christ, and teaching that ’without holiness any man may see the Lord.’ Notwithstanding both outward and inward trials, I trust you are still on the borders of perfect love. For the Lord is nigh! See the Lord thy Keeper stand Omnipotently near! Lo I He holds thee by thy hand, And banishes thy fear! You have no need of fear. Hope unto the end! Are not all things possible to him that believeth Dare to believe! Seize a blessing now! The Lord increase your faith! In this prayer I know you join with, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Mary Stokes LONDON, February 11, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you have had an opportunity of spending a little time with that lovely company. The day I leave Bristol (Monday, March 9) I hope to be at Stroud myself. [See Journal, v. 448.] You are not sent thither for nothing, but in order to do as well as to receive good: and that not to one family only, or to those four of your acquaintance; nay, but you have a message from God (you and Ally Eden [Miss Ally Eden, the daughter of Henry Eden, of Broadmarston. She wrote Wesley about Christian perfection on Aug. 27. John Pawson calls it ’one of the most amiable families I had ever known.’ See Journal, v. 251; Wesley’s Veterans, iv. 42; and letter of Dec. 12, 1773.] too) to all the women in the Society. Set aside all evil shame, all modesty, falsely so called. Go from house to house; deal faithfully with them all; warn every one; exhort every one. God will everywhere give you a word to speak, and His blessing therewith. Be you herein a follower of Nancy Bolton, as she is of Christ. In doing and bearing the will of our Lord, We still are preparing to meet our reward. I have great hope for Sally James. [See letters of March 17, 1771, and May 1, 1772, to Miss Stokes.] In the company which commonly surrounds her, it is best to use reserve. And this is apt to form an habit, which it is not easy to conquer, even with those she loves well; but I trust she will conquer this and every enemy. Perhaps we shall soon rejoice with her. It is good that you may be emptied, that you may be filled. But how is this that you have never given me an hour’s pain since I was first acquainted with you Do you intend to be always going forward, without standing still, or going backward at all The good Lord enable you so to do, and all those that are with you! So fulfil the joy of Yours affectionately. To Hannah Ball LONDON, February 21, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--You have indeed reason to be thankful that God has at length turned the captivity of His people; and your preachers [Samuel Wells and William Barker.] have good encouragement to be zealous for God, since they see the fruit of their labours. On Monday se’nnight I expect one of them at least will meet me at Newbury. How happy you are who have none of those dissensions which have torn that poor Society in pieces! Pray that you may all continue of one mind, striving together for the hope of the gospel, and inviting all to press after full salvation.--My dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, February 21, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I believe you will never willingly give me pain. You will give me pleasure as long as you are pressing on to the mark, ready to do and patient to suffer the whole will of God. You cannot be separated from the people till you are removed into Abraham’s bosom. In order to make your continuance with them the easier, I hope Mr. Thompson has now fixed the class as I directed. He is a good preacher and a good man; though liable to mistake, or he would be more than man. [Joseph Thompson was Assistant at Hull.] Can you still give God your whole heart Is He always present with you Have these trials weakened or strengthened your faith Have you a clear evidence that you are saved from sin See that you strengthen each other’s hands and press on to the mark together!--I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, February 25, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not understand how it should be that your Society decreases. If only two or three of you are zealous for God, certainly it will increase. Thomas Rankin and William Ellis go on well. [Then in Cornwall West.] I trust William has recovered his ground. John Ellis called the family at Worcester to prayer, went up into his chamber, and died. [Ellis was Assistant in Gloucestershire. While reading at Worcester he fell from his chair, ’and expired without the pomp of dying’ on Jan. 5, 1772. See Atmore’s Memorial,p. 119.] So he has his desire; he was troublesome to no one, and went home in the height of his usefulness. If you should hear that I was gone after him, you would: be enabled to say, ’Good is the will of the Lord!’ Press forward to the mark! All things then will ’work together for good.’--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LEWISHAM, February 26, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--When Mr. Shirley (or rather Lady H.) published that wonderful circular letter, [See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 93-4. The letter led to Fletcher’s Checks.] it was little imagined that it would be the occasion of establishing those very doctrines which it was intended to destroy. So different were God’s thoughts from men’s thoughts! T. Olivers was more afraid than hurt. [Olivers took a prominent part in the controversy with Toplady and others.] We all agree in this: ’By thy words thou shalt be justified’ (in the last day); ’and by thy words’ (yea, and works) ’thou shalt be condemned.’ April 6 I hope to be at Manchester; and thence to go by Whitehaven to Glasgow, Perth, and Aberdeen. My Welsh church has a fine air, but no land or money belonging to it. Peace be with you and yours!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Christopher Hopper, In Bradford, Yorkshire. To Miss Sparrow LEWISHAM, February 26, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--From the whole of your account it appears plain beyond all reasonable doubt that you have tasted once and again of the pure love of God. Why, then, did you not abide therein It was your own infirmity. You was moved from your steadfastness by those evil reasonings, which I am of opinion were chiefly diabolical. What you seem to want above all things is simplicity, the spirit of a little child. Look, and take it from Him that knows you! Take this and whatsoever else you stand in need of. Do you say ’you need a guide’ Why will you not accept of me Do you know any that loves you better All the advices I would give you now centre in one--Now, to-day, look unto Jesus! Is He not waiting to be gracious Give Him your heart! And if you love me, speak all you think to, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Samuel Sparrow LEWISHAM, February 26, 1772. SIR,--I have read with pleasure your ingenious book, which contains many just and noble sentiments, expressed in easy and proper language. I observe only two points in which we do not quite think alike. One of these is expressly treated of in that tract which reduces us to that clear dilemma, ’Either Jesus Christ was God or He was not an honest man.’ The other is largely considered in the book of which I now desire your acceptance. Wishing you all happiness in this life and in a better, I remain, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Ann Bolton LONDON, February 29, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--All your letters are exceedingly pleasing to me and give me a peculiar satisfaction; but your last in particular. I know not how to repress the emotion I felt when I read it. I rejoice over others, but over you above all. How unspeakably near are you to me! Since the time that I mourned with you at London and was a partaker of your sorrow, you have given me more and more excuse to rejoice over you; though now and then with a jealous fear lest in anything you should suffer loss or be slackened in running the race set before you. I shall not ride any long journeys on horseback. [See letter of March 4.] But you must needs meet me either at Stroud or Broadmarston; else I shall almost think you do not love me. On Monday, March 9, I hope to be at Stroud; the Saturday following at Broadmarston. How do you know whether you shall see me any more in the body My dear Nancy, my friend, adieu! To Mary Bishop LONDON, March 1, 1772. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP,--That your every hour is crowded with employment I account no common blessing. The more employment the better, since you are not doing your own will, but the will of Him that sent you. I cannot see that it is by any means His will for you to quit your present situation. But I observe one sentence in your letter on which you and I may explain a little. On Tuesday morning at ten I am (if God permit) to preach at The Devizes. About two I have appointed T. Lewis from Bristol to meet me at the Pelican in Bath, where I should be glad to see you, were it only for two or three minutes.--I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bosanquet BRISTOL, March 4, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I believe my last letter took away a good part of your apprehensions. All the inconvenience I find (from a little bruise) is that I am advised to ride as much in a carriage as I can and as little on horseback. I take your offer exceeding kindly; and am, my dear friend, Ever yours. To Miss Bosanquet, At Morley common, Near Leeds. To Penelope Newman NEAR BRISTOL, March 6, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--You are called to do all you can for God. How little is that all! Therefore by all means meet that other class, and it will be a blessing to your own soul. When I talked with you last, God had given you to enjoy a clear deliverance from inbred sin. I hope you do not find any return of that dead[ness], though doubtless you will find numberless temptations. Yet beware you cast not away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward. You need never more feel pride, anger, or any other evil temper. The Lord loveth you, and His grace is sufficient for you. Ask, and receive, that your joy may be full.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To his Brother Charles BlRMINGHAM, March 17, 1772, DEAR BROTHER,--The more you are at the Foundery the better. It is a good spirit which rules in that Society. [Charles Wesley came to live in Marylebone in May 1771.] You have done exactly right with regard to T. Maxfield. For the present my hope of him is lost. [He had had a disappointing interview with Maxfield on Feb. 25.] I am to-day to meet Mr. Fletcher at Bilbrook.[Wesley writes in the Journal, v. 449: ’Partly in a chaise, partly on horseback, I made a shift to get to Bilbrook; and, after preaching, to Wolverhampton.’ Fletcher told the Dublin Society in March that he had sent his Third Check to press. See Wesley’s Designated Successor, p. 222.] Part of the Third Check is printing. The rest I have ready. In this he draws the sword and throws away the scabbard. Yet I doubt not they will forgive him all if he will but promise --to write no more. J. Rouquet helped me at Bristol. [From March 3 to 9 Wesley had spent a ’few comfortable days’ in Bristol. Mrs. Jenkins was one of the members there. It was probably Mrs. Reeves’s husband, who died on Sept. 21, 1778. See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 270, 275.] I neither saw nor heard anything of G. Stonehouse. Jane Jenkins is in a right spirit; affliction has done her good. Mrs. Reeves I had no time for. I feared Sister Marriott would not recover. [Mrs. Marriott was among the first twelve to join the Foundery Society in 1739, and her husband was one of its earliest members.] Mr. Blackwell’s heart is truly softened; but why is she afraid to receive the Lord’s supper [Wesley visited Mrs. Blackwell at Lewisham on Feb. 26. She died the following month. See letter of April 26.] If Mr. F-- does come, it will be for good. It does not follow, ’You felt nothing; therefore neither did your hearers.’ In haste. Adieu. To John Mason LONDON, March 22, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope Mr. Wagner [Wagner writes to him about a packet from Liverpool to Dublin in March 1778, and Wesley seems to have stayed with him at Liverpool in 1786. See Journal, vi. 182, vii. 154d.] and you are upon good terms. He is an amiable man, and would be exceeding useful were it not for ill advisers. When there is occasion, talk to him freely. He has a friendly heart. It is of great use to meet the leaders of the bands in Liverpool. [Mason had evidently moved from Whitehaven to Liverpool.] This should never be neglected. I am inclined to think the best time for it would be from two to three on Sunday in the afternoon. Then you might set an example to the Society by going to church immediately after. This is of no small importance. For whoever leaves the Church will leave the Methodists. Everywhere strongly and explicitly preach perfection. Then your word will profit.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Philothea Briggs LIVERPOOL, March 23, 1772. If useless words or thoughts spring from evil tempers, they are properly evil, otherwise not; but still they are contrary to the Adamic law: yet not to the law of love; therefore there is no condemnation for them, but they are matter of humiliation before God. So are those (seemingly) unbelieving thoughts; although they are not your own, and you may boldly say, ’Go, go, thou unclean spirit; thou shalt answer for these, and not I.’ To Ann Bolton CONGLETON, March 25, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--The more I reflect on what you said concerning that emptiness, the more I am inclined to think that lovely woman Betsy Johnson [Elizabeth Johnson. See letter of Dec. 15, 1763.] has met with some of those that are called ’Mystic writers’ who abound among the Roman Catholics. These are perpetually talking of ’self-emptiness, self-inanition, self-annihilation,’ and the like: all very near akin to ’self-contradiction,’ as a good man used to say. Indeed, we allow that one cannot take too much care to hide pride from man. And I am many times ready to tremble lest you should slide into it again, and lest I myself should lead you into it while I tell you (as my manner is) just the thought that rises in my heart. My Nancy, does not this hurt you Be as artless with me as I am with you. But though we can never be too humble, though we can never abase ourselves too much before the God of love; yet I cannot approve of recommending humanity by the use of these expressions. My first objection to them is that they are unscriptural. Now, you and I are bigots to the Bible. We think the Bible language is like Goliath’s sword, that ’there is none like it.’ But they are dangerous too: they almost naturally lead us to deny the gifts of God. Nay, and to make a kind of merit of it; to imagine we honour Him by undervaluing what He has done. Let it not be so with you. Acknowledge all His work while you render Him all His glory. Yours affectionately. To his Brother Charles CONGLETON, March 25, 1772. DEAR BROTHER,--Giles Ball (as Oliver [Oliver Cromwell said on his death-bed, ’I am safe, for I know that I was once in grace.’ See Morley’s Cromwell, p. 486.] said) was a good man once! I hope we have no more of the sort. There is still a famous one in Bristol. Now I see why he could not join us. Poor Mr. B--.! [See letter of April 26.] I used to conceive better things of him. I find almost all our preachers in every circuit have done with Christian perfection. They say they believe it; but they never preach it, or not once in a quarter. What is to be done Shall we let it drop, or make a point of it Oh what a thing it is to have curam animarum! [’The care of souls.’] You and I are called to this; to save souls from death, to watch over them as those that must give account! If our office implied no more than preaching a few times in a week, I could play with it; so might you. But how small a part of our duty (yours as well as mine) is this! God says to you as well as me, ’Do all thou canst, be it more or less, to save the souls for whom My Son has died.’ Let this voice be ever sounding in our ears; then shall we give up our account with joy. Eia, age; rumpe moras! [See letter of Feb. 28, 1766, to him.] I am ashamed of my indolence and inactivity. The good Lord help us both! Adieu! ’Errwsqe. [’Farewell.’] To Mrs. Bennis LIVERPOOL, March 31, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--You did well to break through and converse with Mrs. Dawson. There is no doubt but she has living faith; but, not having opportunity to converse with believers, she cannot express herself with that clearness that our friends do: cultivate the acquaintance. Now, lay before her by way of promise the whole Christian salvation; she will quickly see the desirableness of it. You may then lend her the Plain Account of Christian Perfection. She will not be frightened but rather encouraged at hearing it is possible to attain what her heart longs for. While you are thus feeding God’s lambs, He will lead you into rich pastures. I do not wonder you should meet with trials: it is by these your faith is made perfect. You will find many things both in your heart and in your life contrary to the perfection of the Adamic law; but it does not follow that they are contrary to the law of love. Let this fill your heart, and it is enough. Still continue active for God. Remember, a talent is entrusted to you; see that you improve it. He does not like a slothful steward. Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bardsley BOLTON, April 3, 1772. DEAR SAMMY,--I am glad you are got into your circuit again. [Bardsley was now in the Derbyshire Circuit.] Now put forth all your strength. Never be ashamed of the old Methodist doctrine. Press all believers to go on to perfection. Insist everywhere on the second blessing as receivable in a moment, and receivable now, by simple faith. Read again the Plain Account of Christian Perfection. And strive always to converse in a plain, unaffected manner.-- I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Philothea Briggs WHITEHAVEN, April 12, 1772. Your affections were apt to be too impetuous, and sometimes uneven too; but nature yields to healing grace, which I trust has made you both more calm and more steady. [See letter of Sept. 13, 1771.] And what will it not make you if you persevere All that is amiable, holy and happy! Already He that loves you gives you a taste of what He has prepared for you. Let patience have its perfect work, and you shall be perfect and entire, lacking nothing. See that you make the best of life! The time is short! To his Brother Charles PERTH, April 26, 1772. DEAR BROTHER,--I meant Mr. Buller. [See letter of March 25.] I have not been at Leeds; so I can give you no account of the matter. I find by long experience it comes exactly to the same point, to tell men they shall be saved from all sin when they die; or to tell them it may be a year hence, or a week hence, or any time but now. Our word does not profit, either as to justification or sanctification, unless we can bring them to expect the blessing while we speak. I hope Fox [John Fox, of London. See Journal, v. 5.] is in peace. But he had no business there. I suppose the madman was another of the name. I am glad you have done justice to Mrs. Blackwell’s [She died on March 27. Charles had written some memorial verses, which are given in his Journal, ii. 383-9.] memory. I do not believe either Brother Wildman or any other spoke those words. I cannot believe it at all, unless you or Brother Mather heard them. Many tell you tales of that sort which are not true at all. Your business as well as mine is to save souls. When we took priests’ orders, we undertook to make it our one business. I think every day lost which is not (mainly at least) employed in this thing. Sum totus in illo. [Horace’s Satires, I. ix. 2 (Totus in illis): ’I am entirely occupied with it.’] I am glad you are to be at Bristol soon. To whom shall I leave my papers and letters [He finally left, by will, Feb. 20, 1789, all his ’MSS. to Thomas Coke, Dr. Whitehead, and Henry Moore, to be burned or published as they see good.’] I am quite at a loss. I think Mr. Fletcher is the best that occurs now. Adieu! To Mary Stokes ABERDEEN, May 1, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--Sally James [See letters of Feb. 11 and Sept. 20.] is a letter in my debt. I have had but one letter from her since I left Bristol: and that I answered almost as soon as I received it. I a little wondered at not hearing from you; but as I know both the constancy and tenderness of your affection, there was no danger of my imputing it to ingratitude. I think your present exercise, though it is one of the most trying, is one of the most profitable which a good providence could prepare for you. And it will probably be one means of plucking a brand out of the burning, of saving a soul alive. Oh what would not one do, what would not one suffer, for this glorious end! You certainly have good reason to--hope; for any that feels himself a sinner will hardly perish, more especially if he sees where to look for help and is willing to give up every plea beside. You are never to put repentance and faith asunder; the knowledge of your emptiness and His fullness. Naked, and blind, and poor, and bare, You still your want of all things find. But at the same instant (such is the mystery of Christian experience) you can say, Jesus, I all things have in Thee! Our blessed Lord carries on His work in our souls by giving us either to do or to suffer. Hitherto you are led most in the latter of these ways. I expect, when you have more to do for Him, you shall suffer less. Every morning and frequently in the day you are very near to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Philothea Briggs LEITH, NEAR EDINBURGH, May 13, 1772. MY DEAR PHILLY,--To set the state of perfection too high is the surest way to drive it out of the world. The substance of that test I believe I have seen; and I judge it not consistent with humanity, I mean with the state of an human soul, as long as it is united to a corruptible body. Do not puzzle yourself any more with these nice inquiries; but, in order to resettle your judgement, give another deliberate reading to the Farther Thoughts or the Plain Account of Christian Perfection. He that long ago gave you to taste of His pardoning love gave you afterwards a taste of His pure love. Whereunto you have attained hold fast; never cast it away through a voluntary humility. But see that you do not rest there. Comparatively, forget the things that are behind. Reach forward! This one thing do: press on to the prize of your high calling. I expect to be at Newcastle on the 25th instant, and to stay twenty days in or near it. I remember Nicholas Sewell well, and have seen many of his poetical compositions. He was bred a Quaker, but when I knew him was stark, staring mad. I wish my brother would print his verses; but he grows more and more backward. You and I must be content with doing what good we can, and no more. Yet I love you for desiring to do more; only with resignation.--I am, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Miss Phil. Briggs, At Mr. Barker’s, In Sevenoaks, Kent. To Alexander Clark EDINBURGH, May 19, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Brother Kidd is not only an honest, upright man, but I think a diligent one too. I am glad he is willing to share with you the trouble of being Book Steward. It is a good thought. But by all means print catalogues and send them all over the kingdom. I do not see any impropriety in allowing the nine pounds; the Assistant may pay you this out of the weekly subscription. The Rules of Stewards you have in the Plain Account of the People called Methodists. [See letter in Dec. 1748, sect. IX. 3, to Vincent Perronet.] Remember one of them is, ’Expect no thanks from man.’ If ever you forget this, you will be apt to grow weary and faint in your mind. Remember likewise that a steward is to tell the preacher of anything he thinks wrong. In my private judgement I think one preacher enough for the New Room and the Gravel Walk too. I should dance and sing if I had no more labour than that. But I have letter upon letter to the contrary. However, let our brethren meet and consult together, and I presume I shall hardly object to whatever they shall agree upon. Whenever the Gravel Walk house is settled like our other houses, I shall be willing that all the weekly subscription be given toward clearing it of debt. Have patience, and all will be well.--I am, dear Alleck, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, The New Room, Dublin. Per Portpatrick. To Ann Bolton LONDONDERRY, May 27, 1772. Do you find as much inward life as ever as close and steady communion with God Do you rejoice evermore In what sense do you pray without ceasing Is your peace constant and unshaken Does nothing ruffle you Do you feel no anger no pride no will of your own contrary to the will of God Do you feel no bent to backsliding in your heart You may find and indeed expect temptations innumerable, even to seek happiness in this or that creature. But is every fiery dart repelled, so as to have no place in you With regard to your question, it is only (in other words), Is there any sin in a believer or, Are we not sanctified throughout when we are justified You have a full answer to this question, which has perplexed so many upright souls, in those two sermons wrote expressly on the head, The Repentance of Believers and Sin in Believers. [See Works, v. 144-70.] Read them carefully, and I believe you will want nothing more to confirm you in the truth. Nevertheless you do well in exhorting all that are justified to hold fast all they have received. And it is certain they need never lose either their love or peace or power till they are fully sanctified. Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball SUNDERLAND, May 30, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--Do you not remember that fine remark in the Christian Instructions, ’Nothing is more profitable to the soul than to be censured for a good action which we have done with a single eye’ [Christian Reflections, from the French, in Works (1773 ed.), p. 211, sect. 208. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 295.] Mr. H[artly], then, may have profited you more than you thought. Oh, it is a blessed thing to suffer in a good cause! I was never more struck than with a picture of a man lying upon straw with this inscription, ’The true effigy of Francis Xavier, the apostle of the Indies, forsaken of all men, and dying in a cottage.’ Here was a martyrdom, I had almost said, more glorious than that of St. Paul or St. Peter! O woman, remember the faith! Happy are you to whom it is given both to do and to suffer the will of God! It is by this means that He will confirm your soul against too great sensibility. It is then only too great when it hurts the body or unfits you for some part of your duty. Otherwise it is a blessed thing to sorrow after a godly sort. Whatever you read in the Life of Mr. De Renty and Gregory Lopez or the Experience of E. J. is for you. Christ is ready! all is ready! Take it by simple faith!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Foard NEWCASTLE, June 7, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--Do I flatter myself in judging of you by myself Am I mistaken in thinking we feel alike I believe we do: I believe in this your heart is as mine. But if so, it is not so easy for you to part. Indeed, I judged before, this was only a sudden start, arising from a misapprehension of my meaning. That was really the case. I did not, could not compare one I so tenderly love (with a love of esteem as well as complacence) with him: only with regard to one circumstance. Well, now you have made me amends for the pain you gave me before. And see that you make me farther amends by swiftly advancing in lowliness, in meekness, in gentleness towards all men. So fulfil the joy of, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Miss Foard, In Blackman Street, No. 86. Southwark, London. To Mrs. Bennis YARM, June 16, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--As often as you can I hope you will converse with Mrs. Dawson, as her heart is much united to you; and when you are at a distance from each other, you may converse by letters. And I believe you are particularly called to be useful to those whom the riches or the grandeur of this world keep at a distance from the pure word of God. When you are at Waterford, see that you be not idle there. You should gather up and meet a band immediately. If you would meet a class too, it would be so much the better: you know, the more labour the more blessing. You did well to send me the last enclosure; it is absolutely needful that I should be acquainted with all such matters; the contrary would be false delicacy. Mr. Goodwin is a valuable young man; he has much grace and a good understanding. I have wrote to Mr. Glassbrook and the leaders, if James Deaves should come to Limerick in the same spirit wherein he has been for some time, to take care that he do no mischief. If he should proceed in that impetuous manner, we shall be obliged to take harsher measures. This I should be sorry for; one would not cut off a limb while there is any hope of recovering it. I expect John Christian will be an useful labourer; he has a zeal according to knowledge. Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly. To strain the matter farther is only to make way for Calvinism. There may be ten thousand wandering thoughts and forgetful intervals without any breach of love, though not without transgressing the Adamic law. But Calvinists would fain confound these together. Let love fill your heart, and it is enough!--I am, dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Stokes YARM, June 16, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--That remedy mentioned in the Primitive Physick (the manna dissolved in a decoction of senna) hardly ever fails to relieve in the severest bilious colic within twelve or fourteen minutes. Warm lemonade (so stupid are they who forbid acids in these cases) frequently gives ease in half a minute. And I have known this to take place in such inveterate complaints as would yield to no other remedy. We are sure the means which our blessed Lord uses to conform us to His image are (all circumstances considered) the very best; for He cannot but do all things well: therefore, whenever it pleases Him to send affliction, then affliction is best. Yet we must not imagine He is tied down to this, or that He cannot give any degree of holiness without it. We have reason to believe from the earliest records that St. Paul suffered a thousand times more than St. John. And yet one can hardly doubt but St. John was as holy as he or any of the Apostles. Therefore stand ready for whatsoever our Lord shall send; but do not require Him to send you affliction. Perhaps He will take another way; He will overpower your whole soul with peace and joy and love; and thereby work in you a fuller conformity to Himself than you ever experienced yet. You have; hold fast there. All’s alike to me, so I In my Lord may live and die. --I am Yours affectionately To Philothea Briggs WHITBY, Saturday, June 20, 1772. MY DEAR PHILLY,--About this day se’nnight I expect to be at York; this day fortnight at Keighley, Yorkshire; this day three weeks at Leeds; and the two following Saturdays at Epworth, near Thorne, Yorkshire. I like you should think as I think, because it is a token that you love me; and every proof of this gives me a very sensible pleasure. Love me, if you can, as long as I live. It is of admirable use to bear the weaknesses, nay and even faults, of the real children of God. And the temptations to anger which rise herefrom are often more profitable than any other. Yet surely for the present they are not joyous but grievous; afterwards comes the peaceable fruit. You shall have exactly as much pain and as much disappointment as will be most for your profit, and just sufficient to Keep you dead to all below, Only Christ resolved to know. Never make it matter of reasoning that you have not either a larger or a smaller share of suffering. You shall have exactly what is best both as to kind, degree, and time. Oh what a blessing is it to be in His hand who ’doeth all things well’! Of all gossiping, religious gossiping is the worst; it adds hypocrisy to uncharitableness, and effectually does the work of the devil in the name of the Lord. The leaders in every Society may do much towards driving it out from among the Methodists. Let them in the band or class observe (1) ’Now we are to talk of no absent persons, but simply of God and our own souls’; (2) ’Let the rule of our conversation here be the rule of all our conversation. Let us observe it (unless in some necessarily exempt cases) at all times and in all places.’ If this be frequently inculcated, it will have an excellent effect. Instead of giving a caution once, as to a grown person, you must give it to a child ten times. By this means you may keep a sensible child from an improper familiarity with servants. Cautions should also be given frequently and earnestly to the servants themselves [See letter of Oct. 16, 1771.]; and they will not always be thrown away if they have either grace or sense. To Thomas Wride OTLEY, June 30, 1772. DEAR TOMMY,--How poor John Smith has lost himself and given occasion to the enemy to blaspheme! I do not see that he can any longer remain with us as a travelling preacher. It seems his best way would be quietly to return to his business. Tho. Dixon or Jo. Wittam may bring over your accounts to the Conference. Be exact in everything!--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton OTLEY, July 1, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--At last I have found, what I had almost despaired of, an occasion of blaming you. You simple one! A blister! Why not a red-hot iron It would have taken off your skin sooner. I hope you tried a treacle-plaster first. Otherwise I can only say you are not as wise as Solomon. I am exceeding jealous over you lest you should go one step too far to the right hand or to the left. You are my glory and joy (though you are nothing), and I want you to be exactly right in all things. I am not content that anything should be wrong about you either in your temper or words or actions. And I bless God I generally have my desire over you: you are in good measure what I would have you to be. I do not observe anything to reprove in the account which you now give me. Go on! Watch in all things! Be zealous for God! Continue instant in prayer! And the God of peace Himself shall sanctify you wholly and preserve you blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ! I believe you have been in one danger which you was not sensible of. You seemed a little inclined to that new opinion which lately sprung up among you--that we are (properly) sanctified when we are justified. You did not observe that this strikes at the root of perfection; it leaves no room for it at all. If we are never sanctified in any other sense than we are sanctified then, Christian perfection has no being. Consider the sermon on the Repentance of Believers, and you will see this clearly. O may God give you to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort! If you love me, be not slow in writing to, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To Miss March OTLEY, July 1, 1772. It is lost time to consider whether you write well or ill; you speak from the heart, and that is enough. Unbelief is either total, the absence of faith; or partial, the want of more faith. In the latter sense every believer may complain of unbelief, unless when he is filled with faith and the Holy Ghost. Then it is all midday. Yet even then we may pray, ’Lord, increase our faith.’ We learn to think by reading and meditating on what we read, by conversing with sensible people, and by everything that improves the heart. Since purity of heart (as Mr. Norris observes) both clears the medium through which we see and strengthens the faculty, mechanical rules avail little unless one had opportunity of learning the elements of logic; but it is a miserable task to learn them without an instructor. Entire resignation implies entire love. Give Him your will, and you give Him your heart. You need not be at all careful in that matter, whether you apply directly to one Person or the other, seeing He and the Father are one. Pray just as you are led, without reasoning, in all simplicity. Be a little child hanging on Him that loves you. To Samuel Sparrow NEAR LORDS, July 2, 1772. DEAR SIR,--I have delayed answering your favour from time to time, hoping for leisure to answer it at large. But when that leisure will come I cannot tell; for in the summer months I am almost continually in motion. So I will delay no longer, but write a little as I can, though not as I would. I incline to think that when you engaged in business, though you had no leisure for reading polemical writers, you had leisure to converse with those who ridiculed the doctrines which you till then believed, and perhaps of hearing a preacher who disbelieved them, and talked largely against human authority, bodies of divinity, systems of doctrine, and compiling of creeds. These declamations would certainly make an impression upon an unexperienced mind, especially when confirmed by frequent descants upon the errors of translators; although I really believe our English translation, with all its faults, is the best translation of the Bible now in the world. When you had heard a good deal of this kind, then was the time to offer you such arguments as the cause afforded; which, to a mind so prepared, would naturally appear as so many demonstrations. And it is no wonder at all that, by lending you a few books and properly commenting upon them, those new apostles should confirm you in the sentiments which they had so artfully infused. To the questions which you propose, I answer:-- 1. I really think that if an hundred or an hundred thousand sincere, honest (I add humble, modest, self-diffident) men were with attention and care to read over the New Testament, uninfluenced by any but the Holy Spirit, nine in ten of them at least, if not every one, would discover that the Son of God was ’adorable’ and one God with the Father; and would be immediately led to ’honour Him, even as they honoured the Father’; which would be gross, undeniable idolatry, unless He and the Father are one. 2. The doctrine of Original Sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite; and I know not what honour we can pay to God if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now. I beg of you, sir, to consider the fact. Give a fair, impartial reading to that account of mankind in their present state which is contained in the book on Original Sin. It is no play of imagination, but plain, clear fact. We see it with our eyes and hear it with our ears daily. Heathens, Turks, Jews, Christians, of every nation, are such men as are there described. Such are the tempers, such the manners, of lords, gentlemen, clergymen, in England, as well as of tradesmen and the low vulgar. No man in his senses can deny it; and none can account for it but upon the supposition of original sin. O sir, how important a thing is this! Can you refuse to worship Him whom ’all the angels of God worship’ But if you do worship one that is not the supreme God, you are an idolater! Commending you and yours to His care, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Hannah Ball BRADFORD, July 7. 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--From what has lately occurred you may learn a good lesson--not to build your faith on a single text of Scripture, and much less on a particular sense of it. Whether this text be interpreted in one or the other way, the work of God in your soul is the same. Beware, therefore, of supposing that you are mistaken in the substance of your experience because you may be mistaken with regard to the meaning of a particular scripture. Pray; and observe that God Himself may, and frequently does, apply a scripture to the heart (either in justifying or sanctifying a soul) in what is not its direct meaning. Allowing, then, that the passage mentioned directly refers to heaven, yet this would be no manner of proof that you were deceived as to that work of God which was wrought in your soul when it was applied to you in another meaning.--My dear sister, adieu! To Miss Ball, At Mr. Ball’s, Laceman, In High Wycombe, Bucks. To John Bredin DEWSBURY, July 10, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If Brother Taylor speaks for you at the Conference, it will be the same as if you was present yourself. If I can I will contrive that you may be in a circuit which will give you convenience for bathing in the sea, though a river is as good.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. T. Taylor, At the Preaching-house, In Manchester. To his Brother Charles DEWSBURY, July 10, 1772. DEAR BROTHER,--If I can meet with Mr. Hill’s book at Leeds to-morrow, perhaps I may write a little before the Conference. I am glad Mr. Davis [Charles Wesley wrote from Bristol to Joseph Benson, ’I have lately escaped death or maiming by a fall.... Mr. Davis has been useful here’ (Manuscript Life of Benson, i. 281).] has been with you; but he must not assist you for nothing. If he joins heart and hand, he should have seventy pounds a year. My journeys lie thus, if God permit: Mon. Aug. 10, Sheffield; Tuesd. Burslem; Wedn. Salop; Friday, The Hay; Sat. 15, Brecon; Tues. 18, Haverfordwest; Tues. 25, Swansea; Sat. Aug. 30, Bristol; Mon. Sept. 1, Cullompton; Sat. 13, at Bristol again. I am able to stir a little still. Indeed, I find myself no worse in any respect. In these fifty years I do not remember to have seen such a change. She is now xaritwn mia, tota merum mel [Probably his wife: ’One full of graces, honey quite unmixed.’] Finding fault with nobody, but well pleased with every person and thing! I believe, if you had applied warm treacle to the bruised parts, you would have been well in eight-and-forty hours. Let us work to-day! The night cometh! A little you will pick out of Dr. Boyce’s fine music for the use of our plain people. My sister Kezzy was born about March 1710; therefore you could not be born later than December 1708: consequently, if you live till December 1772, you will enter your sixty-fifth year. [’Or, according to Sister Pat’s account, my sixty-second.--C.W,’ Sister Pat (Mrs. Hall) was wrong. The real date was December 1707. See Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 18-20.] Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To Joseph Thompson EPWORTH, July 18, 1772. DEAR JOSEPH,--That Michael [Thompson was in Hall. Michael Fenwick was hospitably entertained by a gentleman at Bridlington for ’some years previous to his death’ in 1797. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 124.] is not overcharged with wisdom is certain. But I do not know that he is a mischief-maker. It is your part to insist upon his keeping his round; to press the Yearly Collection in every place; and to see that all our rules be observed, whoever praises or blames. You have only to commend yourself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.... Whoever among us undertakes to baptize a child is ipso facto excluded from our Connexion.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Savage GRIMSBY, July 22, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is easy to see the difference between those two things, sinfulness and helplessness. The former you need feel no more; the latter you will feel as long as you live. And, indeed, the nearer you draw to God, the more sensible of it you will be. But beware this does not bring you into the least doubt of what God has done for your soul. And beware it does not make you a jot the less forward to speak of it with all simplicity. Do you still feel an entire deliverance from pride, anger, and every desire that does not centre in God Do you trust Him both with soul and body Have you learned to cast all your care upon Him Are you always happy in Him In what sense do you pray without ceasing Expect all the promises!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. In about a fortnight I am to be at Mr. Glynne’s, Shrewsbury [Edward Glynne’s mother was cousin to Lord Hereford, and wrote to him in defence of the Methodists. See Journal, iv. 491; Wesley’s Veterans, i. 219-22; W.H.S. iv. 217 - 20.] To Philothea Briggs LEWISHAM, July 23, 1772. At many times our advances in the race that is set before us are clear and perceptible; at other times they are no more perceptible (at least to ourselves) than the growth of a tree. At any time you may pray Strength and comfort from Thy word Imperceptibly supply. And when you perceive nothing, it does not follow that the work of God stands still in your soul; especially while your desire is unto Him, and while you choose Him for your portion. He does not leave you to yourself, though it may seem so to your apprehension. To Alexander Clark WAKEFIELD, August I, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The five pounds which I am willing to add to poor Grace Ellis’s legacy (provided it will do her good) I do not charge to the Conference: I give it her myself. Whatever Brother Hall [William Hall was a trustee of Whitefriar Street Chapel, Dublin. Grace Ellis was probably an in mate of the Widows’ Alms Houses there.] advances will be repaid. You may be assured we shall take no money from Ireland. With faith and patience we shall do well!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, At the New Room, In Dublin. To Henry Eames LEEDS, August 3, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is a great blessing that God has looked upon you in a strange land, [Eames had emigrated to America. see letter of July 15, 1789, to him.] and given you food to eat and raiment to put on, but a still greater that He has given you to eat of that bread which the world knoweth not of. You have likewise the invaluable advantage of companions on the way. I suppose you gladly entered the Society as soon as one was formed, and that you never willingly neglect any opportunity of meeting your brethren. Whatever your hand findeth to do do it with your might. Beware of spiritual sloth; beware of carelessness and listlessness of spirit. ’The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence.’ See that you are one of those violent ones that ’take it by force.’--I am Your affectionate brother. To John Mason LEEDS, August 8, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--A blessing will always attend preaching abroad. In Liverpool Circuit, practice it as much as possible. Mr. Robertshaw is both a sound and a lively man. Wherever he is, they want to have him stay longer. Be all-alive and all in earnest!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jane Salkeld LEEDS, August 9, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--From the first time I conversed with you I loved you; and you know Love, like death, makes all distinctions void. [See letter of Feb. 15, 1769.] I want you to hold fast all that you have already received, and to receive more and more. The lot is fallen upon you in a fair ground. See that you still cleave to Him by simple faith. I hope my dear little maidens Peggy and Sally are not moved from their steadfastness. Exhort all the little ones that believe to make haste and not delay the time of receiving the second blessing; and be not backward to declare what God has done for your soul to any that truly fear Him. I hope you do not feel any decay; you are to sink deeper into His love, and rise higher into His likeness. And do not use any reserve to, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. PS.--You may at any time direct to me in London. To Alexander Clark SHEFFIELD, August 10, 1772. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Now the hurry of Conference is over, I get a little time to write. When I chose you to be Steward in Dublin, you both loved and esteemed your preachers; but I find you have now drunk in the whole spirit of Pat. Geoghegan. O beware! You are exceedingly deceived. By this time I should be some judge of man; and if I am, all England and Ireland cannot afford such a body of men, number for number, for sense and true experience both of men and things, as the body of Methodist preachers. Our leaders in London, Bristol, and Dublin are by no means weak men. I would not be ashamed to compare them with a like number of tradesmen in every part of the three kingdoms. But I assure you they are no more than children compared to the preachers in Conference, as you would be throughly convinced could you but have the opportunity of spending one day among them. Mr. Jaco will make a fair trial whether he can supply Dublin alone; if he cannot, he shall have another to help, for he must not kill himself to save charges. But I dare not stint him to 20 a year. He will waste nothing; but he must want nothing. You will make his stay among you in every respect as comfortable as you can.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mary Stokes SHEFFIELD, August 10, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--Having finished for the present my business at Leeds, [Where the Conference met on the 4th.] I am come thus far on my journey to Bristol. But I must take Haverfordwest in the way thither; so that I do not expect to be there till the 30th instant. How many blessings may you receive in the meantime, provided you seek them in the good old way wherein you received the Lord Jesus Christ! So walk in Him still. Beware of striking into new paths! of being wise above that is written! Perhaps we may find sweetness in the beginning; but it would be bitterness in the latter end. O my sister, my friend, I am afraid for you! I doubt you are stepping out of the way. When you enter into your closet and shut the door and pray to your Father who seeth in secret, then is the time to groan to Him who reads the heart the unutterable prayer. But to be silent in the congregation of His people is wholly new, and therefore wholly wrong. A silent meeting was never heard of in the Church of Christ for sixteen hundred years. I entreat you to read over with much prayer that little tract A Letter to a Quaker. [See letters of Feb. 10, 1748, and March 17, 1771 (to her).] I fear you are on the brink of a precipice, and you know it not. The enemy has put on his angel’s face, and you take him for a friend. Retire immediately! Go not near the tents of those dead, formal men called Quakers! Keep close to your class, to your band, to your old teachers; they have the words of eternal life! Have any of them offended you Has any stumbling-block been laid in your way Hide nothing from, my dear Molly, Yours in true affection. Ten days hence I expect to be at Haverfordwest. To Mary Bishop PEMBROKE, August 22, 1772. DEAR MISS BISHOP,--Such a degree of sickness or pain as does not affect the understanding I have often found to be a great help. It is an admirable help against levity as well as against foolish desires; and nothing more directly tends to teach us that great lesson, to write upon our heart, ’Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ Mr. Baxter well observes (or, indeed, Archbishop Usher, to whom he refers, had done before him), ’that whoever attempt to profit children will find need of all the understanding God has given them.’ But, indeed, natural understanding will go but a little way. It is a peculiar gift of God. I believe He has given you a measure of it already, and you may ask and expect an increase of it. Our dear sisters at Publow [Mrs. Owen and her daughters. See letter of Nov. 22, 1769.] enjoy it in as high a degree as any young women I know. It certainly must be an inordinate affection which creates so many jealousies and misunderstandings. I should think it would be absolutely needful, the very next time that you observe anything of that kind, to come to a full explanation with the parties concerned; to tell them calmly and roundly, ’I must and I will choose for myself whom I will converse with, and when and how; and if any one of you take upon you to be offended at me on this account, you will make it necessary for me to be more shy and reserved to you than ever I was before.’ If you steadily take up this cross, if you speak thus once or twice in the band or class in a cool but peremptory manner, I am much inclined to think it will save both you and others a good deal of uneasiness. When you see those ladies (with whom I have no acquaintance), you would do well to speak exceeding plain. I am afraid they are still entire strangers to the religion of the heart. On Saturday, the 29th instant, I hope to be at Bristol, and on the Wednesday evening following at Bath. Let notice be given of this.--I am, dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley CARDIFF, August 28, 1772. Excuse me, my dear Sally, if I do not stay so long, if I write a line before I come to Bristol, and remember the condition you are in. Write to Nancy Bolton without delay. You gave me much satisfaction when I was with you both yesterday and the day before. And yet I felt a good deal of pain for you, lest you should lose the desires which God has given you, surrounded as you are with those who hardly consider whether there is any God or devil. Oh what a strange, unaccountable creature is man while he is following his own imaginations! Is this silly, laughing, trifling animal born for eternity Is this he that was made an incorruptible picture of the God of glory he that was born to live with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven And is it thus that he is preparing to meet Him that is coming in the clouds of heaven What a fool, what a blockhead, what a madman is he that forgets the very end of his creation! Look upon such in this and no other view, however lively, good-natured, well-bred, and choose you your better part! Be a reasonable creature! Be a Christian! Be wise now and happy for ever! --My dear Sally, adieu. To Mrs. Bennis BRISTOL, August 31, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--MY health is not worse, but rather better. Your account of the Society in Waterford is pleasing. Continue to exercise your talent amongst them, and you will be a gainer by it. You need not dispute or reason about the name which belongs to the state you are in. You know what you have; be thankful for it. You know what you want-- zeal, liveliness, stability, deliverance from wandering imaginations; well, then, ask, and they shall be given. The way into the holiest is open through the blood of Jesus. You have free access through Him. To Him your every want In instant prayer display; Pray always, pray and never faint, Pray, without ceasing pray! See, help while yet you ask is given!--I am, dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Philothea Briggs BRISTOL, August 31, 1772. MY DEAR PHILLY,--None are or can be saved but those who are by faith made inwardly and outwardly holy. But this holy faith is the gift of God; and He is never straitened for time. He can as easily give this faith in a moment as in a thousand years. He frequently does give it on a death-bed, in answer to the prayer of believers, but rarely if ever to those who had continued unholy upon the presumption that He would save them at last. But if He did, what unspeakable losers must they be! Could grief be in heaven, they would grieve to eternity! seeing every one there must receive his own reward according to his own labour. And he will perplex you more than enough if you listen to his sallies of imagination: ’Every one has some pursuit; therefore a man cannot be always in communion with God.’ I deny the consequence. While Mr. De Renty was serving the poor he was in constant communion with God. So was Gregory Lopez while he was writing books. ’At first, indeed,’ as Lopez observed, ’large manifestations from God were apt to suspend the exercise of his senses as well as of his understanding. But after some time they made no difference at all, but left him the full exercise both of his understanding and senses.’ I remember a much later instance of the same kind: an old clergyman [Mr. Fraser, Chaplain to St. George’s Hospital. Wesley read the Life of Boehm in Georgia, and his Sermons in 1776. See Journal, i. 175d, vi. 98; and letter of Dec. 10, 1777. ] told me, some years since, ’I asked Mr. Boehm (Chaplain to Prince George of Denmark), "Sir, when you are in such an hurry of business, surrounded with a crowd of people, hearing one and dictating to another at the same time, does it not interrupt your mental prayer" He answered immediately, "All that hurry no more hinders my communion with God than if I was all the time sitting alone in my study or kneeling at the altar."’ No business, therefore, of any kind, no conversation, need hinder one that is strong in faith from rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks. Follow after this, and you will surely attain it.--I am, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Miss Phil. Briggs, At Miss March’s, In Worship Street, Moorfields, London. To Mrs. Turner THE DEVIZES, September 18, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--You have prevented me. I had designed to write to you if you had not wrote to me. I take knowledge of your spirit. ’Love without dissimulation is easy to be discerned.’ I am the more pleased to find this in you, because you are acquainted with many whose love does not abound, who are not so kindly affectioned to those who do not exactly subscribe to their opinions. They do not seem sufficiently to consider that the kingdom of God is not opinions (how right so ever they be), but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. I love you for being of a more excellent spirit. My soul takes acquaintance with you. Shall we for opinions destroy the work of God, or give up love, the very badge of our profession Nay, by this shall men know that we belong to the Lover of Souls, to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. Many years ago, when my son (as he styled himself for several years) Mr. Whitefield declared war against me, several asked, and that over and over, ’When will you answer Mr. Whitefield’s book’ I answered, ’Never. You have heard the cry, Whitefield against Wesley; but you shall never hear, Wesley against Whitefield.’ I have been ever since a follower after peace; and when Mr. Hill so violently attacked me in the famous Paris Conversation, [A Conversation between Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr. Madan, and Father Walsh, Superior of a Convent of Benedictine Monks at Paris, held in the said Convent, July 13, 1771. . . . Relative to some Doctrinal Minutes advanced by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, &c. 1772. See Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 437.] I was as a man that heard not and in whose mouth were no reproofs. When he fell upon me again in his Five Letters, [Five Letters to Rev. Mr. Fletcher, 1771.] I still made no reply; nay, I chose not to read it, for fear I should be tempted to return evil for evil. When he assaulted me a third time more vehemently than ever in his Review, [Fletcher’s Second Check to Antinomianism called forth Hill’s A Review of all the doctrines taught by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, 1772. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 283; and letter of July 10 to his brother.] I still determined to answer nothing. But it was not long before one of my friends sent me word that I could no longer be silent and be innocent; it being my bounder duty as a public person not to let the good that was in me be evil spoken of, but, according to the direction of the Apostle, to give a reason of the hope that is in me, only with meekness and fear. I was convinced. I did not dare to be silent any longer, and I have accordingly answered the questions he proposed to me and removed those objections which otherwise would have turned the lame out of the way. [Some Remarks on Mr. Hill’s ’Review of all the Doctrines taught by Mr. Wesley,’ which is dated Sept. 9, 1772.] I wish I may have done it with the inimitable sweetness and gentleness that Mr. Fletcher has done. His letters (as vilely as they have been misrepresented) breathe the very spirit of the gospel. You might read them, to learn how to return good for evil, to bless them that curse you. O beware that no bitter spirits infuse bitterness into you I Keep all the love that God has given you! and never rest till all your heart is love! Peace be with your spirits!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Turner, Grocer, In Trowbridge. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, September 20, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--You have no time to lose, unless you would throw away your life, which you have no authority to do. You should have had no blister [See letter of July 1 to her.] had I been near you. I judge your case to be chiefly rheumatical. Change of air is likely to do you more good than an hundred medicines. Come away, come away. Set out the very day after you receive this. You may come first to me in the Horsefair; and if need be, I can show you to Sally James. [ See letters of May 1, 1772, and Nov. 29, 1774 (to Sarah James).] I need not tell you how welcome you will be to, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. Francis Asbury says in his Journal on October 10, 1772: ’I received a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he required a strict attention to discipline; and appointed me to act as Assistant.’ The letter is not known. To Philothea Briggs October 19, 1772. The difference between temptation and sin is generally plain enough to all that are simple of heart; but in some exempt cases it is not plain: there we want the unction of the Holy One. Voluntary humility, calling every defect a sin, is not well-pleasing to God. Sin, properly speaking, is neither more nor less than ’a voluntary transgression of a known law of God.’ To Penelope Newman WYCOMBE, October 23, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad to hear that you found benefit by your little journey to Bristol. I did not doubt but the conversation of those experienced Christians would be of service to you, and would enable you to be of more service to the little flock at Cheltenham. In one point only our friends at Bristol have been once and again in some danger. They have been in danger of being a little hurt by reading those that are called Mystic authors. [For Mysticism, see next letter.] These (Madame Guyon in particular) have abundance of excellent sayings. They have many fine and elegant observations; but in the meantime they are immeasurably wise above that is written. They continually refine upon plain Christianity. But to refine religion is to spoil it. It is the most simple thing that can be conceived: it is only humble, gentle, patient love. It is nothing less and nothing more than this; as it is described in the 13th chapter of the [First Epistle to the] Corinthians. O keep to this! Aim at nothing higher, at nothing else! Let your heart continually burn with humble love. If you have an opportunity to be electrified, that would remove the pain in your eye, should it return. I am glad my dear sisters did not suffer in your absence. This is another token that your journey was pleasing to God. I was much delighted, when I saw you, with your artless, simple love; and love you the more on that account. As freely as you would talk to me if we were together, so freely write to, my dear Penny, Yours affectionately. From time to time you should tell me just what God works in you and by you. To Ann Bolton October 25, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--The subject on which we were lately talking requires to be a little farther explained. You cannot imagine what trouble I have had for many years to prevent our friends from refining upon religion. Therefore I have industriously guarded them from meddling with the Mystic writers, as they are usually called; because these are the most artful refiners of it that ever appeared in the Christian world, and the most bewitching. There is something like enchantment in them. When you get into them, you know not how to get out. Some of the chief of these, though in different ways, are Jacob Behmen and Madame Guyon. My dear friend, come not into their secret; keep in the plain, open Bible way. Aim at nothing higher, nothing deeper, than the religion described at large in our Lord’s Sermon upon the Mount, and briefly summed up by St. Paul in the 13th chapter [of the First Epistle] to the Corinthians. I long to have you more and more deeply penetrated by humble, gentle, patient love. Believe me, you can find nothing higher than this till mortality is swallowed up of life. All the high-sounding or mysterious expressions used by that class of writers either mean no more than this or they mean wrong. O beware of them! Leave them off before they are meddled with. I had much satisfaction in your company when I saw you last. Be more and more filled with humble love. Yours most affectionately. To Mrs. Bennis COLCHESTER, November 3, 1772. DEAR SISTER,--Your time was well bestowed at Waterford. Many, I doubt not, will remember it with thankfulness. But why this want of discipline in Limerick Whenever this is dropped, all is confusion: see that it be immediately restored. I should have been glad if you had prevailed on Captain Webb to pay me a visit in Limerick: he is a man of fire, and the power of God constantly accompanies his word. Poor Sister Harrison! I did not expect her to die in triumph. But we must leave her to her own Master. It seems to me that Mrs. Dawson gains ground. And I [love] her two lovely children. At every opportunity you would do well to speak a little to all three. Speak a little to as many as you can; go among them, to their houses; speak in love, and discord will vanish. It is hardly possible for you to comfort or strengthen others without some comfort returning into your own bosom. It is highly probable I shall visit Ireland in the spring, though I am almost a disabled soldier. I am forbid to ride, and am obliged to travel mostly in a carriage. [See letter of Aug. 31 to her.] Whom do you think proper to succeed the present preachers at Limerick and Waterford [Wrigley were at Waterford; John 2 Edward Slater was at Limerick. Jonathan Hern from Cork succeeded him. James Glassbrook and Francis Murray and Michael M’Donald followed them.] You have need to stir up the gift of God that is in you. Light will spring up. Why not now Is not the Lord at hand--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop COLCHESTER, November 4, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I see more and more clearly there is no other way of preserving peace with our contentious brethren but by war--nay, by ’carrying the war into Italy,’ into their own quarters. We do nothing, we spend our strength in vain, while we are acting only on the defensive. So long they will never be afraid of us; for they have nothing to lose. But when with gentleness and yet with vigour and firmness we show all the horror of their opinions, while with calmness and yet with all earnestness we paint the whole absurdity and blasphemy of Reprobation, pinning them down, whether they will or no, to that point, they will soon be sick of the war. They will themselves desire peace, and count it a favour when it is granted them. But we must build with one hand while we fight with the other. And this is the great work: not only to bring souls to believe in Christ, but to build them up in our most holy faith. How grievously are they mistaken (as are well-nigh the whole body of modern Calvinists) who imagine that as soon as the children are born they need take no more care of them! We do not find it so. The chief care then begins. And if we see this in a true light, we may well cry out, even the wisest men on earth, ’Who is sufficient for these things’ In a thousand circumstances general rules avail little and our natural light is quickly at an end. So that we have nothing to depend upon but the anointing of the Holy One; and this will indeed teach us of all things. The same you need with regard to your little ones, that you may train them up in the way wherein they should go. And herein you have continual need of patience; for you will frequently see little fruit of all your labour. But leave that with Him. The success is His. The work only is yours. Your point is this, --Work your work betimes, and in His time He will give you a full reward.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To his Brother Charles COLCHESTER, November 4, 1772. DEAR BROTHER,--Nay, there was some ground for that report; for I did dream that I was robbed. True, it was twenty years ago; but you know that is all one. The connexion is well proved in the Fourth Check. [Fletcher’s Fourth Check was finished on Nov. 15, 1772, and published that year.] Mr. Knox’s Letter is ready for the press. But give your dear friends a little time to chew upon Mr. Fletcher; else you may overload their stomach. There is no danger of my writing anything yet. I have just made my tour through Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex; but Kent, Sussex, and Hertfordshire still remain to be visited. Only the visitation of the classes (a fortnight’s work, which begins on Monday) must come between. I have an exceeding loving letter from James Rouquet in answer to my plain one. So if it did him no good (but possibly it might), at least it did him no harm. If we duly join faith and works in all our preaching, we shall not fail of a blessing. But of all preaching, what is usually called gospel preaching is the most useless, if not the most mischievous; a dull, yea or lively, harangue on the sufferings of Christ or salvation by faith without strongly inculcating holiness. I see more and more that this naturally tends to drive holiness out of the world. Peace be with your spirits! Adieu! To Thomas Wride COLCHESTER, November 5, 1772. DEAR TOMMY,--You was in the right. Let the allotment for the wives of the preachers (at least for the present) stand as it did before. It seems to me that the alteration made in the travelling-plan by Brother M’Nab is wise and well grounded. I advise you to adhere thereto till you see some good reason to the contrary. You are the Assistant, [Wride was at Newry, with John Murray as one of his colleagues. Alexander M’Nab was at Londonderry. See letter of Dec. 16 to Wride.] not Brother Pepper: you need suffer none to ride over your head. Only be mild! I require John Murray to follow the same plan. If he does not, I will let him drop at once. I suspect the hives to be what we call the nettle rash. I know nothing that helps it but rubbing the part with parsley. --I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Philothea Briggs LONDON, November 22, 1772 There are a thousand instances wherein it is not possible literally to make restitution. All that we can advise in the case you mention is (1) Let him that stole steal no more, let him be from this hour rigorously just; (2) let him be a faithful steward of the mammon of unrighteousness, restoring all he can to God in the poor. To Francis Wolfe LONDON, November, 22, 1772. DEAR FRANCIS,--At what place are the fifty-four pounds (old debt) due, and at what places the three hundred and sixty-three [Wolfe (who ceased to travel in 1782) was now Assistant in Gloucestershire.] You should speak plainly and freely to Brother Seed. [See letter of June 23, 1771.] Before his illness I am afraid he had lost much ground. He should receive this stroke as a call from God, and for the time to come live as he did when he travelled first. Let both of you strongly exhort the believers everywhere to ’go on to perfection’; otherwise they cannot keep what they have.--I am, with love to Sister Wolfe, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Wolfe, at Mr. King’s, In Stroud, Gloucestershire. To Ann Bolton LONDON, November 28, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I have some business too; but I know not what business would be able to hinder my writing to you. But, whether you think of me or no, I shall hardly be angry at you. Too much attention to business (with the natural consequence of it), too little exercise in the open air, you may expect will always bring back your headache. Therefore you should never intermit your riding. It is not even worldly prudence; for one fit of sickness would take up more time than an hundred little rides. If, therefore, you would preserve yourself fit for business, to waive all other considerations, in every fair day which this season of the year affords you should snatch an hour for riding. Sammy Wells will always be useful, for he can take advice. But how is it with Billy Brammah [Samuel Wells and William Brammah were the preachers in Oxfordshire. See letter of Feb. 18, 1773.] Does he follow the advice I gave him concerning screaming and the use of spirituous liquors If not, he will grow old before his time, he will both lessen and shorten his own usefulness. Drop a word whenever you find an opportunity. He is upright of heart. He enjoys a good deal of the grace of God, but with a touch of enthusiasm. Nay, Nancy, I designed to have wrote but one page. But I know not how, when I am talking with you, though only by letter, I can hardly break off. But, indeed, as yet I have not touched on what I Chiefly intended. I see plainly that you are exposed to two dangers of entirely opposite natures. The one is (that which now assaults some of our friends in the West) refining upon religion, [See letters of Oct. 25 and Dec. 5.] aiming at something more sublime than plain, simple love producing lowliness, meekness, and resignation. The other is an abatement of zeal for doing good. I am a little jealous over you in this. Last year I warned you much on this very account. Did you follow that advice to let no fair occasion pass unheeded by [See his brother Samuel’s poem ’On the Death of Mr. William Morgan of Christ Church,’ in Journal, i. 104; and letter of Jan. 15, 1773, to Miss Bolton.] If you leaned a little toward an extreme (which I do not know), beware of gradually sliding into the other extreme! The good Lord guide you every moment! Do you find constant power over the old enemy, inordinate affection I pray do not stay another month before you write to, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To-- LONDON, December 1772. So far God has brought you already. You do believe He is able and willing to save you. You believe He is willing to save you now. The additional faith that He does save you is still wanting, and this is peculiarly His own gift. Expect it every moment, in every ordinance, in prayer, in hearing, in conversation, in the Lord’s Supper, in reading, perhaps in reading this letter. Look up! All is ready; why not now Only believe, and yours is heaven. [This letter is at the end of a volume of James Oddie’s sermons in MS.] To Philothea Briggs LEWISHAM, December 3, 1772. MY DEAR PHILLY,--You are yourself a living witness of this religion. But it is only in a low degree. I grant you are only just beginning to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. It is an unspeakable blessing that He shows you this in so clear and strong a light. And undoubtedly He is able to make you just as serious as Miss March or Nancy Bolton; and yet this is consistent with much cheerfulness. You shall have more or less of reproach, as He chooses. Your part is to leave all in His hands, who orders all things well. You might very properly have said, ’Sir, I have no connexion with these. They are to answer for themselves.’ Read the Short History of Methodism, [See Works, viii. 347-51; Green’s Bibliography, No. 229.] and you see it plain. Go straight forward, and you shall be all a Christian! I expect that you will be more and more a comfort to, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton LONDON, December 5, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--I know not that ever you asked me a question which I did not readily answer. I never heard any one mention anything concerning you on that account; but I myself was jealous over you. [See letter of Nov. 28.] Perhaps I shall find faults in you that others do not; for I survey you on every side. I mark your every motion and temper, because I long for you to be without spot or blemish. What I have seen in London occasioned the first caution I gave you. George Bell, William Green, [See Journal, iii. 265, iv. 94; C. Wesley’s Journal, i. 429; and letter of Nov. 26, 1762, sect. I. 6, to Bishop Warburton.] and many others, then full of love, were favoured with extraordinary revelations and manifestations from God. But by this very thing Satan beguiled them from the simplicity that is in Christ. By insensible degrees they were led to value these extraordinary gifts more than the ordinary grace of God; and I could not convince them that a grain of humble love was better than all these gifts put together. This, my dear friend, was what made me fear for you. This makes me remind you again and again. Faith and hope are glorious gifts, and so is every ray of eternity let into the soul. But still these are but means; the end of all, and the greatest of all, is love. May the Lord just now pour it into your heart as He never has done before. By all means spend an hour every other day in the labour of love, even though you cannot help them as you would. Commending you to Him who is able to make you perfect in every good word and work, I am Yours affectionately. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’] DOVER, December 9, 1772. SIR,--Many excellent things have been lately published concerning the present scarcity of provisions. And many causes have been assigned for it; but is not something wanting in most of those publications One writer assigns one cause, another one or two more, and strongly insists upon them. But who has assigned all the causes that manifestly concur to produce this melancholy effect at the same time pointing out how each particular cause affects the price of each particular sort of provision I would willingly offer to candid and benevolent men a few hints on this important subject, proposing a few questions, and adding to each what seems to be the plain and direct answer. I. 1. I ask first, Why are thousands of people starving, perishing for want, in every part of England The fact I know: I have seen it with my eyes in every corner of the land. I have known those who could only afford to eat a little coarse food every other day. I have known one picking up stinking sprats from a dunghill and carrying them home for herself and her children. I have known another gathering the bones which the dogs had left in the streets and making broth of them to prolong a wretched life. Such is the case at this day of multitudes of people in a land flowing, as it were, with milk and honey, abounding with all the necessaries, the conveniences, the superfluities of life! Now, why is this Why have all these nothing to eat Because they have nothing to do. They have no meat because they have no work. 2. But why have they no work Why are so many thousand people in London, in Bristol, in Norwich, in every county from one end of England to the other, utterly destitute of employment Because the persons who used to employ them cannot afford to do it any longer. Many who employed fifty men now scarce employ ten. Those who employed twenty now employ one or none at all. They cannot, as they have no vent for their goods, food now bearing so high a price that the generality of people are hardly able to buy anything else. 3. But to descend from generals to particulars. Why is breadcorn so dear Because such immense quantities of it are continually consumed by distilling. Indeed, an eminent distiller near London hearing this, warmly replied, Nay, my partner and I generally distil but a thousand quarters of corn a week.’ Perhaps so. Suppose five-and-twenty distillers in and near the town consume each only the same quantity. Here are five-and-twenty thousand quarters a week --that is, above twelve hundred and fifty thousand quarters a year--consumed in and about London! Add the distillers throughout England, and have we not reason to believe that half of the wheat produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless a way as throwing it into the sea, but by converting it into deadly poison--poison that naturally destroys, not only the strength and life, but also the morals of our countrymen! Well, but this brings in a large revenue to the King.’ Is this an equivalent for the lives of his subjects Would His Majesty sell an hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred thousand pounds Surely no. Will he, then, sell them for that sum to be butchered by their own countrymen But otherwise the swine for the Navy cannot be fed.’ Not unless they are fed with human flesh not unless they are fatted with human blood O tell it not in Constantinople that the English raise the royal revenue by selling the blood and flesh of their countrymen! 4. But why are oats so dear Because there are four times the horses kept (to speak within compass), for coaches and chaises in particular, than were some years ago. Unless, therefore, four times the oats grew now as grew then, they cannot be at the same price. If only twice as much is produced (which perhaps is near the truth), the price will naturally be double to what it was. As the dearness of grain of one kind will naturally raise the price of another, so whatever causes the dearness of wheat and oats must raise the price of barley too. To account, therefore, for the dearness of this we need only remember what has been observed above, although some particular causes may concur in producing the same effect. 5. Why are beef and mutton so dear Because most of the considerable farmers, particularly in the northern counties, who used to breed large numbers of sheep or horned cattle, and frequently both, no longer trouble themselves with either sheep or cows or oxen, as they can turn their land to far better account by breeding horses alone. Such is the demand, not only for coach- and chaise-horses, which are bought and destroyed in incredible numbers; but much more for bred horses, which are yearly exported by hundreds, yea thousands, to France. 6. But why are pork, poultry, and eggs so dear Because of the monopolizing of farms, as mischievous a monopoly as was ever yet introduced into these kingdoms. The land which was formerly divided among ten or twenty little farmers and enabled them comfortably to provide for their families is now generally engrossed by one great farmer. One man farms an estate of a thousand a year, which formerly maintained ten or twenty. Every one of these little farmers kept a few swine, with some quantity of poultry; and, having little money, was glad to send his bacon, or pork, or fowls and eggs, to market continually. Hence the markets were plentifully served, and plenty created cheapness; but at present the great, the gentlemen farmers, are above attending to these little things. They breed no poultry or swine unless for their own use; consequently they send none to market. Hence it is not strange if two or three of these living near a market town occasion such a scarcity of these things by preventing the former supply that the price of them will be double or treble to what it was before. Hence (to instance in a small article) in the same town, where within my memory eggs were sold eight or ten a penny, they are now sold six or eight a groat. Another cause why beef, mutton, pork, and all kinds of victuals are so dear is luxury. What can stand against this Will it not waste and destroy all that nature and art can produce If a person of quality will boil down three dozen of neat’s tongues to make two or three quarts of soup (and so proportionately in other things), what wonder if provisions fail Only look into the kitchens of the great, the nobility, and gentry, almost without exception (considering withal that the toe of the peasant treads upon the heel of the courtier), and when you have observed the amazing waste which is made there, you will no longer wonder at the scarcity, and consequently dearness, of the things which they use so much art to destroy. 7. But why is land so dear Because on all these accounts gentlemen cannot live as they have been accustomed to do, without increasing their income, which most of them cannot do but by raising their rents. The farmer, paying an higher rent for his land, must have an higher price for the produce of it. This again tends to raise the price of land. And so the wheel goes round. 8. But why is it that not only provisions and land but well-nigh everything else is so dear Because of the enormous taxes which are laid on almost everything that can be named. Not only abundant taxes are raised from earth and fire and water, but in England the ingenious statesmen have found a way to tax the very light! Only one element remains, and surely some man of honour will ere long contrive to tax this also. For how long shall the saucy air blow in the face of a gentleman, nay a lord, without paying for it 9. But why are the taxes so high Because of the national debt. They must be while this continues. I have heard that the national expense in the time of peace was sixty years ago three millions a year. Now the bare interest of the public debt amounts to above four millions. To raise which, with the other expenses of government, those taxes are absolutely necessary. II. Here is the evil. But where is the remedy Perhaps it exceeds all the wisdom of man to tell. But it may not be amiss to offer a few hints even on this delicate subject. 1. What remedy is there for this sore evil Many thousand poor people are starving. Find them work, and you will find them meat. They will then earn and eat their own bread. 2. But how shall their masters give them work without ruining themselves Procure vent for it, and it will not hurt their masters to give them as much work as they can do; and this will be done by sinking the price of provisions, for then people will have money to buy other things too. 3. But how can the price of wheat be reduced By prohibiting for ever that bane of health, that destroyer of strength, of life, and of virtue, distilling. Perhaps this alone will answer the whole design. If anything more be needful, may not all starch be made of rice, and the importation of this as well as of wheat be encouraged 4. How can the price of oats be reduced By reducing the number of horses. And may not this be effectually done (1) by laying a tax of ten pounds on every horse exported to France, (2) by laying an additional tax on gentlemen’s carriages. Not so much for every wheel (barefaced, shameless partiality!), but ten pounds yearly for every horse. And these two taxes alone would nearly supply as much as is now given for leave to poison His Majesty’s liege subjects. 5. How can the price of beef and mutton be reduced By increasing the breed of sheep and horned cattle. And this would be increased sevenfold if the price of horses was reduced, which it surely would be half in half by the method above mentioned. 6. How can the price of pork and poultry be reduced First, by letting no farms of above an hundred pounds a year. Secondly, by repressing luxury, either by example, by laws, or both. 7. How may the price of land be reduced By all the methods above named, all which tend to lessen the expense of housekeeping; but especially the last, restraining luxury, which is the grand source of poverty. 8. How may the taxes be reduced By discharging half the national debt, and so saving at least two millions a year. How this can be done the wisdom of the great council of the land can best determine.--I am, sir, Your humble servant. Other: Volume 5 [Note from the editor of the digital edition of Wesley’s Letters: Telford placed several of Wesley’s lengthier letters from this period in a separate location in the last half of vol. 5. I have chosen to relocate them within the file for year in which they were written.] CONTROVERSIAL AND NATIONAL I. To DR. RUTHERFORTH, in reply to his Four Charges to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Essex. II. To a FRIEND, on ’The Present State of Public Affairs.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 66: 64. VOLUME 6 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 6 Events DEVELOPMENTS IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA JANUARY 8, 1774 to DECEMBER 1776 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1774, Jan 4. Removal of hydrocele. June 4. Arrest in Edinburgh. . 20. Narrow escape near Newcastle. 1775, A Calm Address to our American Colonies published. Apr. 27. Death of Peter Bhler. June Serious illness in Ireland. 17. Battle of Bunker’s Hill. Aug. Asbury decides to remain in America. 1776, Jan. 3. Death of Westley Hall. July 4. American Declaration of Independence. Aug. 18 Wesley first meets Dr. Coke. Oct 15. Appeal for City Road Chapel, London. These three years of increasing labor and widespread influence may be regarded as the middle period in Wesley’s life. In 1777 he laid the foundation-stone of City Road Chapel and entered on the crowing years of his work. 1774 was marked with the removal of a hydrocele, and 1775 by the severe illness in Ireland. The papers announced he was dead and John Fletcher wrote urging Charles Wesley to fill his brother’s place if he was removed. Methodism in America was growing more influential, and providence kept Francis Asbury at his post when Wesley recalled him. Wesley’s Calm Address is mentioned in several of the letters, which will appeal to students of the period and to American readers in particular. The letters to Lord North and the Earl Dartmouth show Wesley as the patriotic Englishman deeply concerned in all that affected the well-being of his country and wide awake to the danger of any conflict with America. His Majesty’s Ministers must have felt the force and sanity of his counsels. Wesley’s relations with his preachers give much interest to the letters to Benson, Hopper, Bradburn, and others. They show how vigilantly he watched over the work and guided them at critical points. Such a man as Thomas Wride (to whom he wrote ’You bite like a bull-dog; when you seize, you never let go’) caused him much anxiety. His care for his friends is seen in his suggestion to Ann Bolton: ’At all hazards get an electric machine. It is your bounden duty. You are at no more at liberty to throw away your health than to throw away your life.’ Two years latter he tells her: ’I desire Mr. Valton or one of the preachers who will be so kind as to got to the Foundry and bring my gray horse down from Witney.’ He adds a postscript, ’If possible you should ride every day.’ The friendships with Elizabeth Ritchie and Hester Ann Roe, which did so brighten his later years, began at this period. Both were present at his death-bed. The care of Alexander Knox was not less beautiful. The letters to his wife and to his brother give added interest to this section of his correspondence. Nor we forget the Excise collector and Wesley’s four silver spoons: ’This is all the plate which I have at present and shall not buy any more while so may around me want bread." CONSOLIDATION AND ADVANCE JANUARY 11, 1777, TO DECEMBER 29, 1779 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1777, Apr. 21. Foundation-stone of City Road Chapel laid. May 15. John and Charles Wesley visit Dr. Dodd in Newgate (other visits: Feb 15, 18; June 25). Aug. 7. Fletcher at the Bristol Conference. 19. Coke casts his lot with Wesley. Oct. 17. Surrender of Saratoga. 1778, Jan. 1. First number of Arminian Magazine. May 11. Death of Earl of Chatham. 30. Death of Voltaire. June Rankin returns from America. Aug. 5. African Mission discussed. 11. Death of Toplady. Nov. 1. Opening of City Road Chapel. Dec. 30. Wesley burries Silas Told. 1779, M’Nab troubles in Bath, Wesley publishes Popery Calmly Considered. Oct. 8. Visits gardens at Cobham, Surrey. 13. Visits gardens at Stowe. The building of City Road Chapel gave Methodism a new status not only in the metropolis but also in the three kingdoms. Wesley laid the foundation-stone on April 21, 1777, and preached the opening sermon on November 1, 1778. He found that a new chapel meant almost a new congregation, and was well repaid for the constant anxiety and financial strain of the time. The letters show how heavy these burdens were and with what faith and courage he faced them. A new era of chapel-building set in all over the country, which repeated the success of City Road and gave fresh life to Methodism in many centers. At City Road also Wesley built a preacher’ house in 1779, where he spent some of the happiest days of his bright old age, and where he died on March 2, 1791. The other great event of the time was the publication in January 1778 of the first number of the Arminian Magazine, which has been a storehouse of Methodist life and history ever since. The period brought angry opponents; but Wesley told Christopher Hopper, ’It is my determination to answer none, but to go straight on my way.’ Amid the constant strain it is interesting to note Wesley’s diligent inquiry into the experience of many who were perfected in love. His zeal in repressing smuggling among his people, his loyalty to the Throne, and his interest in public affairs were conspicuous. A notable accession was made to the ranks of his helpers. He writes on June 25, 1777: ’Dr. Coke promises fair, and gives us reason to hope that he will bring forth not only blossoms but fruit.’ Wesley’s interest in the daily life of his friends gives a rare tenderness and charm to many letters. He seems to have been consulted on all the love affairs of the Connection, and the tragedy of his own marriage, which is seen in one or two final letters to his wife, made him the more anxious for the domestic well-being of his friends. THREE CROWDED YEARS JANUARY 6, 1780, TO MARCH 12, 1780 PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1780, Aug. 10. Letter to Bishop Lowth on ordination for America. Dec. 19. Visits Lord George Gordon in the Tower. 1781, Jan. 25. At his Nephew’s concert. Mark. 30. Opens Oldham Street Chapel, Manchester. Oct. 8. Death of Mrs. Wesley. 1782, Birstall Chapel Case. Jan. Plan for a Tract Society. Aug. Adam Clarke at Kingswood School. Wesley never showed more wonderful zeal than in these crowded days, which brought him within ten years of the close of his ministry. He tells Mrs. Bradburn on October 30, 1782: ’My disorders are seldom of long continuance; they pass off in a few days, and usually leave me considerably better than I was before.’ The letter describing his visit to Lord George Gordon in the Tower brings us into touch with one of the memorable events of the time, and the one to Earl Shelburne shows how wisely he could interpose in questions the4 affected public affairs. His appeal to Bishop Lowth on August 10, 1780, is evidence of his deep concern for religion in America, and helps us to understand the action he took in 1784. Above all, these letters show how intimately he was concerned in the life of his friends. The ill-health of Alexander Knox, Ann Bolton, and Elizabeth Ritchie moved him deeply. He is their best comforter. No one rejoiced more than he in the happy marriage of John Fletcher. His letters to Charles Wesley’s son and daughter are peculiarly tender and wise. His wife died in October 1781; but that leaves no ripple on the correspondence. His preachers are very near to his heart, and he never forgets their education. ’I allow you to give any books you please to any preacher to the value of forty shillings,’ he tells Thomas Rutherford on October 19, 1782. How deeply the action of the trustees at Bitstall distressed him is seen in his letters to Benson and Valton in November and December 1782. ’Here conscience is very deeply concerned. What I do I do unto the Lord. The question is, in the last resort, Methodism or no Methodism!’ Alive to all duty and opportunity, he is also sensitive to invisible things. ’I have myself since her death found a wonderful union of spirit with Fanny Cooper, and have sometimes suddenly looked on one or the other side, not knowing whether I should not see her.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 67: 65. 1772 ======================================================================== 1772 To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 11, 1772. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Mr. Hill, however, leaves me a little time to take breath, and I have some hope will not renew the combat. But I doubt he is too warm to be convinced. He ‘ sets his judgement by his passion.’ [Richard Hill published The Finishing Stroke, an angry attack on Fletcher, early in January 1773.] It is a shame for any Methodist preacher to confine himself to one place. We are debtors to all the world. We are called to warn every one to exhort every one, if by any means we may save some. I love prayer-meetings, and wish they were set up in every corner of the town. But I doubt whether it would be well to drop any of the times of preaching. Three-and-thirty years they have had at least as much preaching at Bristol as at Newcastle. [Benson was now stationed at Newcastle.] And the congregations are far larger than they were ten or twenty years ago. But I should not object to the transferring Wednesday night’s preaching to eight on Sunday morning. --I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles SHOREHAM, December 15, 1772. DEARBROTHER,--I have scarce had a day yet in London, except Sundays and the time of visiting the classes. Dr. Ford has never come near me, nor hardly near Billy Ley. I am afraid evasit, erupit [Cicero’s In Catilinam, ii. II: ‘ He is vanished, he is escaped ‘ (Cicero on Catiline)]. I have wrote to Mr. Fletcher to-day. As Mr. Hill is to fall upon me next, Mr. Fletcher will have a little time to breathe, and probably a little more while Mr. Hill is digesting my reply; for whom I think we shall between us find work for some time. Why, you will not set shoulder to shoulder, or you could say something about the Church; but two are better than one. If we live till August, stand by me, and we will put the matter home [See letter of May 30, 1773]. I believe we can depend on the Captain [Webb. See letter of Nov.] concerning America. He has been long enough with you: send him to us. I often cry out, Vitae me redde priori! [Horace’s epistles, I. Vii. 95: ‘Give me back my former life.’]. Let me be again an Oxford Methodist! I am often in doubt whether it would not be best for me to resume all my Oxford rules, great and small. I did then walk closely with God and redeem the time. But what have I been doing these thirty years My love to all. Adieu! To Thomas Wride SHOREHAM, December 16, 1772. DEAR TOMMY,--I am afraid there is truth in what you say, that poor John Murray [Murray was appointed to Waterford in 1773, and ‘ desisted from traveling’ in 1774. See letter of Nov. 5.] has not the work of God at heart, and that he will leave us as soon as he can conveniently. Two things, however, I desire in the meantime: one, that he will miss no congregation, at the peril of his life; the other, that he will preach no more at Terryhoogan [In the parish of Ballymore, where Wesley had some powerful services. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 143, 248]. On a Sunday morning.—I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Barton HERTFORD, December 18, 1772. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is a little thing to trust God as far as we can see Him, so far as the way lies open before us. But to trust in Him when we are hedged in on every side and can see no way to escape, this is good and acceptable with God. This is the faith of Abraham our father; and, by the grace of God, this is your faith!--I am Your affectionate brother. d been raised, and a list given showing the way in which it was distributed./p div align="center" style="text-align:center;text-autospace:ideograph-other" span class="MsoNormal"span style="font-size:12.0pt; MS Mincho""> [2] Charles Wesley met Dr. Ford in London in May 1760, ‘ who confirmed the others’ advice, of Bath; and went from me to press the same upon Lady Huntington. She’ (Mrs. Dewal, of Lewisham, ‘just lifted up from the gates of death ‘) ‘must go to Bath soon or to Paradise.’ He ‘dined at Mr. Duplex’s with Brother Ley, &c.,’ on September 8, 1766; and on August 25 wrote to his wife: ‘Mr. Ley has missed of Mr. Chapman’s curacy. Try all your interest to get him another, considering a good curacy will draw after it a good wife.’ William Ley had been a preacher in Ireland in 1759, and had a stormy time at Carrick-upon-Shannon, where he went with Wesley on June 10, 1760. See Journal, iv. 392; C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 241, 249, 263; and for Walter Chapman, of Bath, the heading to letter of March 29, 1737. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 68: 66. 1773 ======================================================================== 1773 To Mary Bishop LONDON, January 12, 1773. DEAR MISS BISHOP--I agree with you in your judgement of poor Nancy Dodd. But I would give her (as we say) a chance for life. Captain Webb is not sent to you as to the unawakened world. And perhaps he may do good to Rowland Hill by being abundantly more popular than him. The Fourth Check has done abundance of good. It has confirmed many in the truth. It has settled many that were wavering, and convinced not a few who were just fallen into the strong delusion. But you must not think anything will convince a warm Calvinist--no, not an angel coming down from heaven. In two or three hours I could teach you so much of grammar that you might go on without difficulty. ‘ True simplicity,’ Fenelon says, ‘ is that grace whereby the soul is delivered from all unprofitable reflections upon itself.’ I add, ‘ and upon all other persons and things.’ This is an unspeakable blessing; and it is the mere gift of God, not naturally annexed either to greatness or littleness of understanding. A single eye is a great help to this. Seek one thing, and you will be far less troubled with unprofitable reasonings.--My dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate brother. To Alexander Clark LONDON, January 12, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You see I was not mistaken. I told you Mr. Jaco would suit the people of Dublin [See letter of Aug. 10, 1772, to Clark]. But yet you do not take the matter quite. He is the right man, and he came in the right time. If he had come when I did, he could have done nothing; for the leaders were then out of their senses. And their distractions finished the life of Samuel Levick, one of the most sensible and amiable men breathing. But we recovered when Mr. Jaco came; so all things concurred for the recovery of the Society. The sale of books depends upon the preachers. Unless they make a point of it, nothing is done.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, At the New Room, In Dublin. To John Murray LONDON, January 15, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Now that you labor in Dublin, the conversation and advice of Mr. Jaco may be of great service to you. And it will be your wisdom to pick out the most serious and solid persons in the Society for your acquaintance. Now give yourself to prayer and reading and meditation, that your profiting may appear to all men.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 15, 1775. Let me know, not more seldom than once a month (unless something extraordinary prevent), how you are yourself both as to your bodily health and with regard to your better part; and how the work of God goes on among your neighbors, particularly in any remarkable instance. Consider I am not likely to trouble you long: my day is far spent. I am therefore the more desirous to help you forward who are in the morning of life. Happy if foreboding here your little stay, You make your morning bear the heat of day. [See Journal, i. 103; and letter of Nov.28, 1772.] Do you find as near and as constant a communion with God as when I saw you last Are you now continually sensible of His loving presence and continually happy in Him Do you enjoy an uninterrupted spirit of prayer and a power in everything to give thanks Does not company or hurry of business ever hinder your attention to the presence of God Are you ‘ never hindered by any person or thing’ from running your course with even joy Your affectionate brother. To John Fletcher SHOREHAM, January, [15], 1773. DEAR SIR,--What an amazing work has God wrought in these kingdoms in less than forty years! And it not only continues but increases throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland; nay, it has lately spread into New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina. But the wise men of the world say, ‘ When Mr. Wesley drops, then all this is at an end!’ And so it surely will unless, before God calls him hence, one is found to stand in his place. For * [Homer’s Iliad, ii. 204: ‘ The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler.’]. I see more and more, unless there be one * [leader], the work can never be carried on. The body of the preachers are not united; nor will any part of them submit to the rest: so that either there must be one to preside over all or the work will indeed come to an end. But who is sufficient for these things qualified to preside both over the preachers and people He must be a man of faith and love and one that has a single eye to the advancement of the kingdom of God. He must have a dear understanding; a knowledge of men and things, particularly of the Methodist doctrine and discipline; a ready utterance; diligence and activity, with a tolerable share of health. There must be added to these, favor with the people, with the Methodists in general. For unless God turn their eyes and their hearts towards him, he will be quite incapable of the work. He must likewise have some degree of learning; because there are many adversaries, learned as well as unearned, whose mouths must be stopped. But this cannot be done unless he be able to meet them on their own ground. But has God provided one so qualified Who is he Thou art the man! God has given you a measure of loving faith and a single eye to His glory. He has given you some knowledge of men and things, particularly of the whole plan of Methodism. You are blessed with some health, activity, and diligence, together with a degree of learning. And to all these He has lately added, by a way none could have foreseen, favor both with the preachers and the whole people. Come out in the name of God! Come to the help of the Lord against the mighty! Come while I am alive and capable of labor! Dum superest Lachesi quod torqueat, et pedibus me Porto meis, nullo dextram subeunte bacillo. [Juvenal’s Satires, iii. 27-8: ‘ While Lachesis has some thread of life to spin, And I walk on my own feet, without the help of a staff’]. Come while I am able, God assisting to build you up in faith, to ripen your gifts, and to introduce you to the people. Nil tanti. What possible employment can you have which is of so great importance But you will naturally say, ‘ I am not equal to the task; I have neither grace nor gifts for such an employment.’ You say true; it is certain you have not. And who has But do you not know Him who is able to give them perhaps not at once, but rather day by day: as each is, so shall your strength be. ‘But this implies,’ you may say, ‘ a thousand crosses, such as I feel I am not able to bear.’ You are not able to bear them now; and they are not now come. Whenever they do come, will He not send them in due number, weight, and measure And will they not all be for your profit, that you may be a partaker of His holiness Without conferring, therefore, with flesh and blood, come and strengthen the hands, comfort the heart, and share the labor of Your affectionate friend and brother. To Martha Chapman LEWISHAM, January 19, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER, --If nothing unforeseen prevent, I shall be at Newbury on Monday, March 8. You should not be content with coming yourself, but bring Mr. and Mrs. Jacques with you. I doubt not but you will see a still greater increase of the work of God at Watlington: only lose no time! Be instant in season, out of season! In due time you will reap if you faint not. God gives the full assurance of hope sooner or later as it seemeth Him good. But the main point is, let your heart be whole with Him. Let no false rival claim a part, Nor sin disseize Him of His own! --I am, dear Patty, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Barton, Beverley [3] LEWISHAM, January 21, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--Consult with some experienced and sensible person upon every step you take. Concerning removing to Hull, you would do well to consult Thomas Snowden, or someone that lives there. It would be expedient, too, to take good advice before you enter upon any new business. Everything now is full of uncertainty and danger, during the amazing dearness of provisions. Hence most people have just money to buy food, and have nothing more to lay out. Yet the promise stands sure, ‘ Seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and these things shall be added unto you.’ Yea, surely the Lord will sooner make windows in heaven than suffer His truth to fail. Peace be with your spirits!--I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Pywell () [4] LONDON, January 26, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--When the providence of God sent you to Salisbury, I was in hopes it would be of use to that poor widower. But let him now remember he cannot serve God by halves. Let him not think of being almost a Christian. If he would do anything to purpose, let him instantly throw off every weight and uniformly and steadily run the race that is set before him. Now let him be thoroughly obedient to the heavenly calling. Probably he will not have another call. Your own soul will be quickened if you earnestly exhort believers without fear or shame to press after full salvation as receivable now, and that by simple faith. At all opportunities encourage Mr. Asbury to do this with all plainness Then the Lord will be with him wherever he goes, and he will see the fruit of his labor. I hope he gives you employment, that you have a band or two, if not a class also. A few hours you may likewise employ very profitably in visiting the sick. Redeem the time, be zealous! be active, and you will be more and more near to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, January 29, 1773. DEAR SAMMY,--If David Evans [The preacher at Macclesfield] is satisfied, all is well. You will not want work, nor a blessing upon it, if you are zealous and active. John Hallam is a good man, though a queer one; I am in hopes he will do good. There is a surprising willingness in almost every one that has answered the Circular Letter [See letters of Dec. 12, 1772, and Feb. 6, 1773.], which I hope is a token for good. Some of our preachers have asked ‘ Why will you refuse the help of the poorer members ‘ I answer, I do not refuse; though neither do I require it, for fear of distressing any. The little draft on the other side is for your mother [His mother was dependent on him. Wesley’s care for his preachers was unceasing. See letter of Aug. 5, 1771].--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Bardsley, Mr. Toon’s, Hatter, Loughborough. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 29, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--In obedience to that direction, ‘ In wickedness be ye children, but in understanding be ye men,’ I would in every respect both act and speak in the most accurate manner I could. And in speaking for God, particularly in public, we have a farther direction, ‘ If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.’ Now, in the oracles of God there is no improper expression. Every word is the very fittest that can be. If, therefore, when I am speaking in pubic or private you should observe me drop any improper expression, or if you see any such in my writing (for I often write in hast), I shall be obliged to you for telling me of it. And this I should look upon as an additional proof of your real affection for me. ‘ I would fain cure my friend,’ says that excellent man Dr. Hammond [Dr. John Hammond (died 1617), physician to James I], ‘ not only of the plague, but even of warts.’ So I would do to you. I would fain remove the Last blemish which I may at any time observe either in your temper or words or actions. Deal you so with me and with all that you love. This is not wordly but heavenly wisdom. I do not advise either Sammy Wells [Samuel Wells, then Assistant in Oxfordshire, and her brother Edward] or Neddy Bolton to use any harder words than are found in St. John’s First Epistle. But I advise both them and you to improve your understanding by every possible means. It is certain knowledge is an excellent gift of God when under the guidance of love. I thank you and our other friends for your kind assistance. As soon as it is convenient you will answer my questions. Indeed, you leave nothing undone to oblige, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Mrs. Savage LONDON, January 30, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I rejoice to hear that the work of God does not decrease among you and that you find an increase of it in your own soul. Perhaps the best way to examine your own growth is, first, to consider whether your faith remains unshaken. Do you continually see Him that is invisible Have you as clear an evidence of the spiritual as of the invisible world Are you always conscious of the presence of God and of His love to your soul In what sense do you pray without ceasing Are you never in an hurry, so as to dim the eye of your soul or make you inattentive to the voice of God Next, consider your hope. Do you thereby taste of the powers of the world to come Do you sit in heavenly places with Christ Jesus Do you never shrink at death Do you steadily desire to depart and to be with Christ Do you always feel that this is far better Can you in pain and trouble rejoice in hope of the glory of God You may answer me at your leisure. I hope to see you in March [He was at Worcester on Tuesday, the 16th]; and am, dear Molly, Yours affectionately. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, February 6, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I agreed last year (though contrary to my judgement that we would have no more weekly subscriptions. I purposed likewise in my own mind to concern myself with the debt no more. But upon reflection it seemed to me there was one way still -- namely, not to apply to the poor at all (though I would not reject any that offered), but to take the burthen on myself and try my personal interest with the rich. I began at London, where about five hundred pounds are subscribed. Afterwards I wrote to many in the country. Liverpool Circuit has subscribed about an hundred pounds; Bradford Circuit an hundred and thirty. It must be now or never. I do not know that I shall concern myself with this matter any more. Till now we have never had a rational prospect of clearing the whole debt in one year [See letter of Jan. 29 to Samuel Bardsley]. Now it may be done. It certainly will if our brethren in other circuits do as those above mentioned have done. What I desire of you is to second the letters I have wrote, encouraging each man of property in your circuit to exert himself--at least, to send me an answer; this, you know, is but common civility. Now do what you can; and show that you, my old friend are not last and least in love towards Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Bennis LOND0N, February 12, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--When we draw near to God in His appointed ways, He will surely draw near to us. Pray remind Mr. Glassbrook of using the same means; then he and you will find the same blessing. Write to Waterford to Brother Slater, and encourage him to do there as he did at Limerick. I can observe, by Mrs. Dawson’s manner of writing, a very considerable change in her spirit, more acquaintance with God, more humility, and more artless, simple love. I am much pleased that you visit so frequently. Continue to lead the simple, and God will give you more wisdom. As long as you trust not in yourself, but in Him that has all power in heaven and in earth, you will find His grace sufficient for you and His strength made perfect in your weakness. Look to Him continually, and trust in Him, that you may increase with all the increase of God.--I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Ann Boron LONDON, February 18, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,-- In doing and bearing The will of our Lord, We still are preparing To meet our reward. It is very possible you may be ‘as sorrowful yet always rejoicing’; you may ‘suffer with Him,’ and yet in everything give thanks. You will as long as your whole heart and your whole life are devoted to God. I am concerned on account of poor William Brammah [See letter of Nov. 28, 1772]. He cannot, he will not take advice. Spirituous liquors in all dropsical disorders are deadly poison. Indeed, they give a little present ease; but they lay the foundations for ten times more pain than that which they remove. I say once more (1) let him wholly abstain from these; (2) let him never scream, or preach too long; (3) let him eat early and light suppers; (4) let him never sit up till ten: and he will be as well able to preach in the morning as I am. On Monday, March 8, I hope to be at Newbury; on Monday, 15th, at Stroud; on Tuesday, the 16th, at Worcester. You will contrive to be with me where you can. I do not find any fault with you at present; only I am afraid you are not careful enough of your health. Otherwise I rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things.--I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Philothea Briggs LONDON February 20, 1773. I often heard my own mother make the same complaint with you. She did not feel for others near so much as my father did; but she did ten times more than he did. You must labor to do so much the more, and pray that God may supply whatever is wanting. One degree of forgiveness is due to every one, though impenitent; still I love him as I love all men. But the other degree, whereby I should again receive him as a friend, is only due to one who says, ‘ I repent ‘--that is, convinces me that he does really repent and is entirely changed. It is certain God has given you a talent, and I still think it ought to be used. I grant, indeed, to be hid and to be still is more agreeable to flesh and blood; but is it more agreeable to Him ‘ who hath left us an example that we might tread in His steps’ Yours affectionately. To John Valton [6] LONDON, February 23, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--In all stations you can have but one rule, your own conscience directed by the Word of God. Two or three dozen of the Instructions for Children (better than any spelling-book) and of the Tokens for Children you are welcome to. It would be extremely proper to receive a little of your patients toward the support of the school. If the chalk-workers do not come to hear, I advise you to suspend preaching among them for a month or two (possibly it may have a good effect). Do this the rather that you may have that time for yourself. Let it be sacred! Employ no part of it but in private exercises. Keep steadily to the, beginning from this time, and your soul will revive.--I am Your affectionate brother. To John Valton, At Purfleet. To Thomas Ball and Alexander Mather [7] LEWISHAM, February 27, 1773. The thing which I desire you to do is this, to see that an exact account be kept of all the books in Great Britain and Ireland printed and sold on my account. You comprehend how many particulars are contained under this general. To do this accurately will require much thought. But you will bear that burthen for God’s sake and for the sake of Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson [8] LONDON, March 2, 1773. DEAR JOSEPH,--Certainly you cannot stir unless you are clearly satisfied of your call from God. An impression on the mind of another man is no rule of action to you. The reasons you give on the other side are weighty, and will not early be answered. At present you do seem to be in your place, and your labor will not be in vain. If you could transfer a night in a week from Newcastle to some new place, I think it might do well.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Moon LONDON, March 2, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--He that governs all things wen for His own glory and for the good of them that love Him sees that it is best for you to be led in a strait and thorny way, and therefore permits it by His adorable providence. And you experimentally find that all these things are for your profit, that you may be a partaker of His holiness. Now, if hereby you attain but one degree more of the mind which was in Christ Jesus, what an immense gainer will you be in that day when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed! Beside that, there is a reward for bearing as well as for doing His will; so that these light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. I hope you have not lost any of the little number that used to meet with you; and that the select society meets still and encourage one another to hold fast their confidence. Look up, and receive a fresh supply of grace!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Emma Moon, At Mr. George Merryweather’s, In Yarm, Yorkshire. To Isaac Twycross LONDON, March 6, 1773. DEAR ISAAC,--If you are sober-minded and watch unto prayer, you may recover all you have lost. And you may likewise lay in a stock of learning which may be of use to you all your life. You have now greater need than ever to redeem the time. Drop a word in season whenever occasion offers, and it will not always fall to the ground.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper [9] LIVERPOOL, March 21, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have saved us an hundred pounds with regard to the house at Bradford. An hundred pounds less shall serve there, which may be applied to better purposes. So you may use your free thoughts on any other head (directing to Dublin) when you please. It is certain there has been little management at the Orphan House, or you would not have been a penny in debt. However, do all you can in your own way toward discharging the General Debt. I do not know where Peggy Dale could have made a better choice [She was married March 4 to Edward Avison. See heading to letter of June 1, 1765]. Peace be with your spirits!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Barton, Hull LIVERPOOL, March 22, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you are removed to Hull [See letter of Jan. 21.]. Probably Brother Barton and you will have an advantage with regard to business. Certainly you have the advantage of such fellow travelers in the way to heaven as you could not find at Beverley. Yet I do not doubt a few names are left there that will not easily be moved from their steadfastness. And when two or three such are gathered together, we know our Lord is in the midst of them. Now make full use of the advantages you enjoy. And expect all the residue of the promises He has given you to taste of His pure love. What remains but that you should be filled therewith--I am, with love to Brother Barton, dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Barton, In Hembrough Square, Silver Street, Hull. To George Shadford [10] [End of March] 1773. DEAR GEORGE,--The time is arrived for you to embark for America. You must go down to Bristol, where you will meet with Thomas Rankin, Captain Webb, and his wife. I let you choose, George, on the great continent of America. Publish your message in the open face of the sun, and do all the good you can.--I am, dear George, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Bennis DUBLIN, April 1, 1773. I fear you are too idle: this will certainly bring condemnation. Up, and be doing! Do not loiter. See that your talent rust not: rather let it gain ten more; and it will, if you use it [On March 16 she had written of herself as ‘the same poor, tottering, feeble creature’]. You are permitted to be in heaviness to humble and prove you yet more. Then you shall come forth as gold. If you love me, you will both write and speak freely to, my dear sister, Your affectionate. To Mrs. Woodhouse DUBLIN, April 1, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--In such a case as you describe I do not see how you could well leave your brother. Where there is sickness, and especially an apprehension of death, we do not know how to break away from a friend. If the house is not built at Misterton [Six miles south of Epworth, and frequently visited by Wesley] as I directed, the people there must not expect to see me any more. I shall take it as both an instance of injustice and of personal disrespect to myself. Mr. Fletcher [See letter of July 30], of Gainsborough (if I understand the thing), refused to receive our preachers any longer. If so, they were not to blame in quitting the place; for they could do no otherwise. I believe my wife is still at Bristol, where I left her when I set out for Ireland. The preaching-house at Bradford in Yorkshire brings in, one way or other, near fifty pounds a year. The debt upon it is not much above five hundred pounds; so that in a few years it may clear its own debt [See letter of March 21]. But I know of no such other instance in England. I know not of one house beside that can even clear its own current expenses, much less yield an overplus to pay debt. If any preacher talks thus, he is either a fool or a knave: he has lost either his wits or his honesty. Besides, what must such an one think of me Does he think I am such a blockhead as to take all these pains for nothing to pay debts which would shortly pay themselves And how came any single preacher to know the state of all the houses in Great Britain so much better than I do I hope John Peacock [Peacock, the second preacher in Lincolnshire West, became an itinerant in 1767; after a useful and diligent ministry, he retired in 1796, and died at Burlington (Bridlington) in 1803] does not talk after this rate. Mr. Lee has raised near an hundred pounds in Leeds Circuit. He has common sense, and feels the burthen of Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, Owston Ferry. To Philothea Briggs April 8, 1773. One cannot be saved from evil tempers without being all devoted to God; neither can a soul be all devoted to God without being saved from sin: but it is often exceeding hard to judge of others, whether they are saved from all evil tempers, and whether they are all devoted to God or not; yea, it is hard to judge of ourselves--nay, we cannot do it without the anointing of the Holy One given for that very purpose. Out of darkness God will command light to shine. Be plain and open to all; then, whether they are sincere or insincere, you will have a conscience void of offence. You find all things work together for good. They must while the hairs of your head are all numbered. Yours affectionately. To Thomas Wride TULLAMORE, April 15, 1773. DEAR TOMMY,--Six pounds lie in John Johnson’s hands. Let it be paid into the hands of Ezekiel Saunderson and Jas. Stewart. Let the forms and desk at Belfast be finished immediately. Out of what remains you may pay Brother Stewart what is due to him from the Society--I suppose about thirty shillings.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Boron [11] CORK, May 2, 1773. I have, indeed, often grieved on your account, but it was for your sufferings. And yet I constantly saw the wise end of your sufferings, that you might be more largely a partaker of His holiness. Indeed, you have reason to be satisfied with our Lord’s disposal of you, and to praise Him for all His dispensations. Even those circumstances which are not joyous but grievous yet work together for good. At first this does not always appear; but in a little while light springs out of darkness. It is no wonder you should many times be at a loss how to express what you feel. The language of men is too weak to describe the deep things of God. But sometimes one word may express much. One of our preachers that sometime since labored in this town, though full of faith and love, could find no utterance till he just said ‘Peace! Peace!’ and died [This may have been John Dillon, who labored at Cork in 1786 and died in 1770]. You make me amends for not answering me before on that head by doing it so distinctly now. That is the danger, lest on such an occasion we should not be so fully recollected. But in this and all things His grace is sufficient for us--sufficient to make us more than conquerors, especially when we give ourselves to prayer for this very thing before the trial comes. In most parts of this kingdom there is such a thirst after holiness as I scarce ever knew before. Several here in particular who enjoy it themselves are continually encouraging others to press after it. And two of our traveling preachers who for some years disbelieved it are now happy witnesses of if. I hope you do not forget poor Ally Eden. She has need of comfort; so we will not reprove her. Yours most affectionately. To Mary Bishop LIMERICK, May 9, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--So he [‘Mr. Hadden’; in pencil, in another hand] is in peace. It has in all ages been allowed that the communion of saints extends to those in paradise as well as those upon earth as they are all one body united under one Head. And Can death’s interposing tide Spirits one in Christ divide But it is difficult to say either what kind or what degree of union may be between them. It is not improbable their fellowship with us is far more sensible than ours with them. Suppose any of them are present, they are hid from our eyes, but we are not hid from their sight. They no doubt clearly discern all our words and actions, if not all our thoughts too; for it is hard to think these walls of flesh and blood can intercept the view of an angelic being. But we have in general only a faint and indistinct perception of their presence, unless in some peculiar instances, where it may answer some gracious ends of Divine Providence. Then it may please God to permit that they should be perceptible, either by some of our outward senses or by an internal sense for which human language has not any name. But I suppose this is not a common blessing. I have known but few instances of it. To keep up constant and close communion with God is the most likely means to obtain this also. Whatever deigns a man has, whatever he is proposing to do, either for himself or his friends, when his spirit goes hence all are at an end. And it is in this sense only that ‘ all our thoughts perish.’ Otherwise all our thoughts and designs, though not carried into execution, are noted in His Book who accepts us according to our willing mind and rewards intentions as well as actions. By aiming at Him in all things, by studying to please Him in all your thoughts and words and actions, you are continually sowing to the Spirit; and of the Spirit you will reap life everlasting.—I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Philothea Briggs SLIGO, May 20 1773. With regard to you, I see an adorable providence You will reap huge profit from this affliction. True, at present it is not joyous but grievous; but it will bring forth glorious fruit. Your part is to be still. Know that the Lord reigneth, that all is under His wise disposal. Without His leave none can speak and none can hear. Trust Him farther than you can see Him. The waves cannot come an hair’s breadth farther than His sovereign wisdom wills. Keep one point in view, to do and suffer His will; then nothing can hurt you. To Hannah Ball [12] NEAR ENNISKILLEN, May 23, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I thank you for your comfortable letter. Right ’ precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.’ Where there is any eminent instance of mercy in this kind, it is almost always a means of convincing and converting others. It is a season one would wish to improve to the uttermost; for then the windows of heaven are open. It cannot be doubted but your heaviness was owing in part to diabolical agency. Nay, and Satan sometimes by God’s permission weakens the body. Nevertheless we are even in that weakness to use natural means just as if it was owing to natural causes. I believe it would be of use if you took a cupful of the decoction of burdock (sweetened or unsweetened) both morning and evening. I never remember its having any ill effect on any person whatsoever. Our point is to improve by everything that occurs--by good or ill success so called, by sickness or health, by ease or pain; and this we can do through Christ strengthening us. We know chance is an empty sound: the Lord sitteth on His throne, and ruleth all things well. Love Him; trust Him; praise Him.--My dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To James Creighton [13] ENNISKILLEN, May 24, 1773. REVEREND SIR,--Your important questions deserve a father answer than I have now leisure to give. I therefore beg your acceptance of two or three little tracts [I could not here procure ant other Copy of the Appeal than this dirty one] wherein they are answered at large. (1), (2), (3) The Methodists, so called, observe more of the Article, Rubrics, and Canons of the Church than any other people in the three kingdoms. They vary from none of them willingly, although the English Canons were never established by law. (4) They maintain that no man can be saved by a faith which is without works: that (5) faith does not necessarily produce good works; (6) neither universally and instantaneously: (7) that no man can be saved without his own endeavors: (8) that a man is not entirely passive in the business of salvation. (9) Revelation is complete: yet we cannot be saved unless Christ be revealed in our hearts; (10) neither unless God cleanse the thought of our hearts by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit. May God enable you perfectly to love Him and worthily magnify His holy name.--I am, reverend sir, Your brother and servant for Christ sake. To Richard Locke LONDONDERRY, May 28, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Your letter reached me yesterday. I am sorry for William Sparks; but pride must have a fall. T. Johnson has better work. He never sent down John Pawson [Pawson was at Bristol] (nor would he have been sent) on any such errand. They are two pious men. I am not without hope that Joseph Jones will recover, if he is at present a little out of the way. Sam. Stevens is a poor man indeed! ’Tis well if he has not fallen to rise no more. Mr. Furz [John Furz, Assistant at Brecon. See heading to letter of Oct. 23, 1759] is a man of an unblameable behavior; but he must not look to escape slander more than his neighbors. It is your part to go straight forward, neither looking to the right hand nor to the left. Possibly, if I live till autumn, I may call upon you at Burnham! Press on for the whole image of God.--I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDONDERRY, May 30, 1773. DEAR BROTHER,--I have had no letter from any of our preachers to stop Mr. Davis coming to help us [See letter of July 10, 1772, to his brother]. But I easily foresaw there would be objections to the largeness of the salary. If a few of our brethren would asset herein, that matter will be quite easy. I really believe his heart is with us and that God will make him useful to the people. He is given to us, and we should take care to be as useful to him as we can. Nay, but you have intended again and again to stand by me at this and that Conference, and then left me to stand by myself [Charles Wesley was keeping aloof from the work of Methodism, to his own loss and his brother’s. See letter of Dec. 15, 1772]. It is certain we two can turn the tide. I alone can only stem it. I have been in two mobs since I came into Ireland, one in the South and one in the North. The Protestant mob was far the worst. But I am still in an whole skin [For the riot at Waterford on April 25, and the more serious one at Enniskillen on May 24-5, see Journal, v. 503-4, 507-9]. Durn vivimus vivamus [‘Whilst we live let us live’]. Peace be with you and yours. Adieu. To Miss Cummins [14] CLONMAIN, June 8, 1773. Do not think it strange, my dear Miss Cummins, that I write to you; the regard I have for you constrains me. It is possible I may see you no more: I am not young, and you are not healthy; nay, and the ten thousand gates of death stand continually open to every child of man. Will you take it ill, then, that I tell you freely you have been much upon my mind Ever since I saw you first, I felt an earnest desire that you should be wise and happy; that you should make the best of a few uncertain days, and improve the time which flees away as a shadow and knows not to return. Believe me, my dear maid, what are called pleasures and diversions can give you no solid happiness. They are poor, empty, insignificant trifles; and you was made for better things. You are not only to consider yourself as having an agreeable person; you are an immortal spirit. You was made a little lower than the angels, that you may live with them for ever. You are come forth from God, and are returning to God as fast as a few fleeting years can carry you. But I am in pain for you: I am concerned lest you should forget this, like other pretty, giddy, unthinking creatures. What if it should be said of you,-- At dawn poor Stella danced and sung; The gazing youth around her bowed: At night her passing-bell was rung; I saw, and kissed her in her shroud! O make haste! Be a Christian, a real Bible Christian now! You may say, ‘ Nay, I am a Christian already.’ I fear not. (See how freely I speak.) A Christian is not afraid to die. Are not you Do you desire to depart and to be with Christ A Christian is happy in God. Are you Can you say, I noting need, beneath, above, Happy, happy in Thy love A Christian (though perhaps he never heard the name of a Methodist) has power over all sin. Have you If not, it is certain you may; for God is no respecter of persons. Whatsoever He has given to any other He is willing to give to you also. O let your heart cry to Him, ‘ What I know not teach Thou me. Let me not die before I long to die! Give me the wisdom that sitteth by Thy throne, and reject me not from among Thy children!’ To His care I tenderly commit you; and am, my dear Miss Cummins, Yours affectionately. If you love me, hear Mr. Saunderson preach. To Ann Bolton LIVERPOOL, July 7, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--You will not be sorry to hear that God has once more brought me safe to England, and that I hope to be with you at Witney (coming from Birmingham) on Thursday, the 15th instant. Probably I shall preach abroad at half-hour after six. You know I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, July 17, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--By the blessing of God I reached this place an hour ago in nearly as good health as I left it. I am glad my friend [His wife] was at your house; she would receive no hurt, and possibly a little good. I think Tho. Mitchell [The three preachers at Birstall in 1772 were Thomas Taylor, Thomas Mitchell, and John Nelson. In 1773 Mitchell remained. See letter of Aug. 15, 1751, about the riotous mob at Wrangle, where he was thrown into a pond] at least may spend another year in Birstall Circuit. There did seem to be a providential call for what was done at Harrogate! I am glad you find your soul unencumbered. You are just in your place. Stand fast in glorious liberty!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bosanquet, At Morley Common, Near Leeds. To Ann Bolton [15] LONDON, July 18, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your late conversation was exceeding pleasant to me. I had sometimes been almost inclined to think that your affection was lessened; but now I believe it is not. I trust your love is not grown cold. This gave me much satisfaction, though I could not but be concerned at seeing you so encumbered with worldly business. Surely it will not be so always. But God’s time is best! Two or three of those little things I have sent you :-- With peaceful mind thy race of duty run: God nothing does, or suffers to be done, But what thou wouldst thyself, if thou couldst see Through all events of things as well as He. Let thy repentance be without delay: If thou defer it to another day, Thou must repent for a day more of sin, While a day less remains to do it in. Nor steel nor flint alone produces fire, Nor spark arises till they both conspire: Nor faith alone, nor works without it right; Salvation rises when they both unite. If gold be offered thee, thou does not say, ‘To-morrow I will take it, not to-day’: Salvation offered, why art thou so cool To let thyself become to-morrows fool Prayer and thanksgiving is the vital breath That keeps the spirit of a man from death: For prayer attracts into the living soul The life that fills the universal whole; And giving thanks is breathing forth again The praise of Him who is the life of men. Two different painters, artists in their way, Have drawn religion in her full display. To both she sat: one gazed at her all o’er; The other fixed upon her features more. Hervey has figured her with every grace That dress could give; but Law has hit her face. The specious sermons of a learned man Are little else than flashes in the pan. The mere haranguing upon what they call Morality is powder without ball: But he who preaches with a Christian grace Fires at your vices and the shot takes place. Faith, Hope, and Love were questioned what they thought Of future glory, which Religion taught. Now Faith believed it firmly to be true, And Hope expected so to find it too: Love answered, smiling with a conscious glow, Believe! Expect! ! I know it to be so.’ Go on in this humble, gentle love, that you may abound therein more and more. Aim at nothing higher than this. And may the God of love still possess you whole, and guide your every thought and word and work. Continue to pray for Your affectionate brother. To John Fletcher LEWISHAM, July 21, 1773. DEAR SIR,--It was a great satisfaction to me that I had the opportunity which I so long desired of spending a little time with you [Wesley got to Madeley on Friday, the 9th, preached twice in the church on Sunday, and left on Monday. See Journal, v. 517], and I really think it would answer many gracious designs of Providence were we to spend a little more time together. It might be of great advantage both to ourselves and to the people who may otherwise soon be as sheep without a shepherd. You say, indeed, ‘Whenever it pleases God to call me away, you will do all you can to help them.’[See letter on Jan. 15 to him.] But will it not then be too late You may then expect grievous wolves to break in on every side, and many to arise from among themselves speaking perverse things. Both the one and the other stand in awe of me, and do not care to encounter me. So that I am able, whether they will or no, to deliver the flock into your hands. But no one else is. And it seems this is the very time when it may be done with the least difficulty. Just now the minds of the people in general are on account of the Checks greatly prejudiced in your favor. Should we not discern the providential time Should we stay till this impression is worn away Just now we have an opportunity of breaking the ice, of making a little trial. Mr. Richardson [John Richardson, Wesley’s clerical assistant. Conference met on Aug. 3 in London] is desirous of making an exchange with you and spending two or more weeks at Madeley. This might be done either now or in October, when I hope to return from Bristol. And till something of this kind is done you will not have that * [Affection] for the people which alone can make your labor light in spending and being spent for them. Methinks ‘tis pitty we should lose any time. For what a vapor is life! Could not you spare a few days to be with us at the Conference Probably it would be a means of strengthening you.--I am, dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LEWISHAM, NEAR LONDON, July 30, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am sorry for poor Mr. Fletcher [See letter of April 1 to her]; but still more for poor Mary Meggot [Was she the widow of Samuel Maggot See Journal, v. 465; and letter of Feb. 10, 1783], of whom I expected [better] things. She may now keep the room for her new guests, for certainly we shall have nothing to do with them. The point they aim at is this--to make Calvinists. Our point is to make Christians. They endeavor to convert men to the dear Decrees; we to convert them to God. In every place they have used their whole strength in opposition to us. But you and many more will not be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Stand fast in the truth which you have received, and be not removed from the hope of the gospel. I desire the building [The chapel at Misterton] may be finished without delay. Follow after all the fullness of the promises. My wife joins with me in love to you, with, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Joseph Benson LEWISHAM, July 31, 1773. DEAR JOSEPH,--I am glad you have preached so much abroad: this will everywhere do most execution. Some time since, I promised you to Billy Thompson for his fellow laborer the ensuing year; and you will have no cause to repent of it, for his heart (as well as yours) is in the work. Mr. Hopper desires to spend another year in the Newcastle Circuit. I refer it to him whether it would not suffice to have preaching at Newcastle five nights in a week. ‘God has made practical divinity necessary, and the devil controversially.’ [See heading to letter in Dec. 1751 to Bishop Lavington]. Sometimes we must write and preach controversially, but the less the better. I think we have few if any of our travelling preachers that love controversy. But there will always be men de pste [Titus i. 11:’whose mouths must be stopped.’]--Antinomians and Calvinists in particular. By our long silence we have done much hurt both to them and the cause of God.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper, LEWISHAM, July 31, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I believe what you desire is for the glory of God, and have therefore no objection to your spending! another year in the Newcastle Circuit. I am glad you have preached on the Ballast Hills. Follow the blow, and you will soon see the fruit. Billy Smith [Hopper stayed at Newcastle in 1773. William Smith married Mrs. Wesley’s daughter, and was a leading Methodist layman in Newcastle] will nearly supply your place at the Conference, and you will find full employment where you are. We have money in hand both for Dundee and Edinburgh [See letter of Aug. 7]; but I do not think right that a shilling more should be given to either till the houses are settled in another manner. I am sorry so much has been given already.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Savage, LEWISHAM, July 31, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I did receive a letter from you while I was in Ireland; but whether I answered it or no I cannot tell. It gives me pleasure to hear that you still stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and that His blessed work still continues to widen and deepen among you. It will do so as long as you walk in love and strive together for the hope of the gospel. As God has made Mr. Wolfe an instrument of promoting this among you, I think it will be well for him to stay another year [Francis Wolfe and Richard Seed were the preachers in Gloucestershire. Wolfe was appointed to Bristol by the Conference of 1773, and Seed to Derryshire]. When I was at Worcester [He was there on March 16], a young woman had just joined the Society who had her fortune in her own hands. Is she with you still And is she married or single I have a particular reason for asking. How has Mr. Seed behaved Is he serious, zealous, active And has God prospered his word--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, August 7, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Before any more money is paid for Dundee house security must be given that the house shall be settled according to our plan as soon as the debt upon it is paid. As to Edinburgh house, you say, ‘ If they pay the interest and the out-rent, it is no mater whether you pay one shilling more.’ No matter! What becomes then of the Preaches’ Fund Blessed committee, who lent near two hundred pounds out of it! We have gone a few steps farther towards a general trust; but that matter goes on very slowly. You are to cure Robert Swan of preaching too long. We all judge it best that the four preachers should follow one another through the whole circuit.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, August 8, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--It gives me much pleasure to observe that you do not lose your simplicity. You seem not only to retain simplicity of spirit (the great thing), but likewise of sentiment and language. God has indeed dealt very graciously with you from the beginning hitherto. He has led you tenderly by the hand from grace to grace and from faith to faith; and you may well say,-- The mercy I feel To others I show; I set to my seal That Jesus is true. Go on in His name, and earnestly exhort all that know Him to press forward to the mark. Encourage them to aspire after full salvation--salvation into the whole image of God. Beware you do not decline in your zeal for this; let no prudence, hinder you. Let prudence ‘ guide not cool its fires.’ Still let it for His glory burn With unextinguishable blaze; And trembling to its source return, In flames of love and joy and praise. But I had forgotten that I am in haste. I hope Mr. Severn [William Severn, just admitted on trial, and appointed to Gloucestershire. See letter of June 23, 1776] will be a blessing to many. He is alive to God. This day I set out for Bristol, and thence to Cornwall; but I hope to, be at Bristol again on the 28th instant. Life is short! We have need to improve every moment! Adieu! To Hannah Ball BRISTOL, September 1, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I was glad you had an opportunity of spending a few days in London, and also that you was not ashamed to declare what God had done for your soul This is the way, not only to receive an increase of grace yourself, but likewise to impart it to others. Even this kind of simplicity, the speaking artlessly, as little children, just what we feel in our hearts, without any reasoning what people will think or say, is of great use to the soul. I hope you will be able to speak to Mr. Saunderson [Hugh Saunderson, Assistant of the Oxford Circuit] without the least reserve. He has tasted of the pure love of God, and should be encouraged to hold it fast. But I wonder a little how some of our friends at Witney come to take exception at honest John Wittam [Wittam, who had come from Armagh, was second preacher]. He is an Israelite indeed; not much polished but serious, solid, and sensible. I preferred him before two or three young men (who offered for Oxfordshire), because I have seen the proof of him.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss Ball, At Mr. Ball’s, Laceman, In High Wycombe, Bucks. To Philothea Briggs BRISTOL, September 8, 1773. MY DEAR PHILLY,--We have the clearest proof, when we have to do with children, that ’the help which is done upon earth God doeth it Himself.’ All our wisdom will not even make them understand, much less feel the things of God. The Instructions for Children [See letter of Feb. 23] contain the best matter that we can possibly teach them. But nothing less than the finger of God can write it on their hearts. On Saturday night He sent another shower of grace upon our children at Kingswood [See Journal, v. 525]. Sixteen of them were deeply affected, and I think thirteen found peace with God. Four or five of them were some of the smallest we had, not above seven or eight years old. Although there may be some use in teaching even very young children to ’say their prayers daily,’ yet I judge it to be utterly impossible to teach any to ’practice prayer’ till they are awakened. For what is prayer but the desire of the soul expressed in words to God, either inwardly or outwardly How, then, will you teach them to express a desire who feel no desire at all When, therefore, Madame Guyon talks in that manner, it often makes me afraid that both she and her teacher, Archbishop Fenelon, talked by rote of the things they knew not. Both of them had an amazing genius, but I doubt full little experience. It is exceeding certain neither his nor her writings are likely to do us any solid service. We have all the gold that is in them without the dross, which is often not only useless but dangerous. Let you and I keep the good old way: In doing and bearing The will of our Lord, We still are preparing To meet our reward. Go on steadily in this path: there is none better. By patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality. You shall reap if you faint not.--I am, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Bennis [18] BRISTOL, September 10, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--When two or three agree to seek God by fasting and prayer, it cannot be that their labor should be in vain; especially if they add their endeavors to their prayers for the increase of the work of God. I hope you will encourage every preacher to visit the whole Society in order from house to house: dinner or drinking tea does not answer the same intention. This may and ought to be done over and above. I thought you had been in more danger of being hurt by worldly abundance than worldly care. But we cannot stand under either one or the other unless we be endued with power from on high, and that continually from hour to hour, or rather from moment to moment. Yet distress is not sin; we may be grieved, and still resigned. And this is acceptable with God. In all these cases you should remember that observation never to be let slip,-- With even mind thy course of duty ran: God nothing does, or surfers to be done, But thou wouldst do thyself, if thou couldst see The end of all events as well as He! [See letter of July 18]. --My dear sister, adieu. Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson BRISTOL, September 10, 1773. DEAR JOSEPH,--If Mr. Thompson [The Assistant in Edinburgh. See letters of July 31 and Oct. 23 to Benson] consents, all is well. The more you preach abroad, both in England and Scotland, the better. Only take care not to do more than you can do, not to go beyond your strength. And keep to the plain, old Methodist doctrine laid down in the Minutes of the Conference. At Trevecca you were a little warped from this; but it was a right-hand error. You will be buried in Scotland if you sell your mare and sit still. Keep her, and ride continually. Contrive (you and Mr. Thompson) how this may be. Sit not still at the peril of your soul and body! Mr. Fletcher [John Fletcher] ought to have received their thanks.--Dear Joseph, adieu! Do all you can for poor Scotland, and write how things are there. To Francis Wolfe [19] BRISTOL, September 15, 1773. Franky, are you out of your wits Why are you not at Bristol To the Countess of Huntingdon BRISTOL, September 16, 1773. MY DEAR LADY,--Your last favor gave me unspeakable satisfaction and occasioned much thankfulness to God. Indeed, I could not look upon it in any other view than as an answer to many prayers which I have been led to offer up from time to time, particularly when I have heard of your Ladyship’s meeting with any difficulty or affective providence of any kind. I have then let my heart melt within me, and have longed to tell your Ladyship either by word or writing what part I have in your sufferings. This lay the weightier upon me when I considered how few are now left below of those who many years ago rejoiced to see the undaunted fervor with which your Ladyship left the quiet pleasant shades to come abroad and espouse in open day the cause of a despised Saviour. What a blessing is it that His love and guardian care have preserved you from those early days in known and unknown dangers, and carried you through honor and dishonor, evil report and good report! O may you still (like that man of God that is gone before us into Abraham’s bosom) Stand like an iron pillar strong And steadfast as a wall of brass! It is extremely remarkable that the gentleman of the province should undertake to build the Orphan House. Surely this is the Lord’s doing! Will your Ladyship permit me just to mention a thought which has passed through my mind: might it not be for the glory of God to adhere in part to the original design --to have some orphans there (a glorious charity) as well as an academy I just take the liberty to mention this, and leave it to your Ladyship’s mature consideration. Wishing your Ladyship a continual increase of faith and loving zeal, I remain, my dear Lady, Your Ladyship’s most affectionate servant. To John Bredin BRISTOL, September 18, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Observe and enforce all our Rules exactly as if you were in England or Ireland. By foolish complaisance our preachers in Scotland have often done harm. Be all a Methodist; and strongly insist on full salvation to be received now by simple faith.--I am Yours affectionately. To John Valton BRISTOL, September 18, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--When Dr. Monkley attended that good man Mr. Colley [Benjamin Colley, a native of Tollerton in Yorkshire. He joined the Methodists in 1761. See letters of May 2, 1767, and Oct. 13, 1784 (to Valton)] in his consumptive disorder, he said one day, ’I can’t imagine how it is none of my medicine have any effect.’ After pausing he asked one standing by, ‘ Is this gentleman lately married’ On her answering, ‘ About four months since,’ he replied, ‘ Then he is a dead man.’ Finding Sam. Levick in Dublin of a consumptive habit, having been married some months, I advised him to leave his wife there and ride with me round the kingdom. But she persuaded him to remain with her; in consequence of which in a few months more she buried him [See letter of Jan. 12 to Alexander Clark]. Humanly speaking, this would be the case with you if you marred during your present state of health. I think you ought at all events to take a journey of a thousand miles first.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Valton, At Purfleet, Essex. To Mary Bishop BRISTOL, September 19, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is certainly most profitable for us to have a variety of seasons. We could not bear either to be constantly in storms or constantly in a calm; but we are not certain, we cannot judge what proportion of one or the other is best for us. So it is well we are not left to our own wisdom, that we do not choose for ourselves. We should make strange work; but we know He that chooses for us orders all things well. There are excellent things in most of the Mystic writers. As almost all of them lived in the Romish Church, they were lights whom the gracious providence of God raised up to shine in a dark place. But they do not give a dear, a steady, or an uniform light. That wise and good man Professor Francke [August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) was professor at Halle 1692, and founded his famous Orphanage there in 1695] used to say of them, ‘ They do not describe our common Christianity, but every one has a religion of his own.’ It is very true: so that if you study the Mystic writers, you will find as many religions as books; and for this plain reason, each of them makes his own experience the standard of religion. Madame Guyon was a good woman and is a fine writer, but very far from judicious. Her writings will lead any one who is fond of them into unscriptural Quietism. They strike at the root, and tend to make us rest contented without either faith or works. It is certain the Scripture by ‘ prayer’ almost always means vocal prayer. And whosoever intermits this for any time will neither pray with the voice nor the heart. It is therefore our wisdom to force ourselves to prayer-- to pray whether we can pray or no. And many times while we are so doing the fire will fall from heaven, and we shall know our labor was not in vain.--I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. PS.--It is on Wednesday sennight (the 29th inst.) that I purpose to preach at Bath (in my return from Bradford) at twelve o’clock. To John Valton BRISTOL, September 20, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--My first advice to you was, Preach the gospel everywhere. But you shrank back. I have now another proposal to make to you, which requires one that has an honest heart and much industry. Come and take charge of the books at London. I think it would take you up six or seven hours a day. And you would have opportunity of preaching every Sunday and (if you chose it) frequently on weekdays. I would give you either five-and-twenty pounds a year with your board and a room in the Foundery, or fifty pounds without it. If you incline to accept of it, send me word immediately, and we can talk father. I will speak to no one else till I hear from you.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Valton, At Purfleet, Essex. To Philothea Briggs BRISTOL, September 29, 1773. MY DEAR PHILLY,--Your own experience may give an answer to your question. You did yourself enjoy a foretaste of that constant communion with God, though it did not continue long [See letter of May 8, 1780]. And you know it was given you in a moment. It was the same case with Sally Ryan, with Nancy Bolton, and with all those whom I have known that are now enabled to pray without ceasing. To every one of them that blessing was given in an instant. So it will be given to you again; although probably you will find a strong hope first which will incite you to cry out, Big with earnest expectation, See me sit at Thy feet, Longing for salvation. Grace in one sense will make an things new. And I have sometimes known this done to such a degree that there has been no trace of the natural temper remaining. But generally the innocent natural temper does remain, only refined, softened, and cast into the mould of love. I make no doubt but Charles Perronet would be as well as me in six months if he would punctually follow Dr. Cadogan’s rule [William Cadogan (1711-97), physician to London Founding Hospital 1754]. But without steady, unintermitted exercise he never can have health. On Saturday se’nnight I hope to be in London.--I am, my dear Philly, Yours affectionately. To Miss Phil. Briggs, At Miss March’s, In Worship Street,, Moorfields, London. To John Valton BRADFORD (UPON AVON), September 29, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--All is well. Persons enough offer for the place [To take charge of Wesley’s Book-Room in London. See letters of Sept. 20 and Oct.20] who know it is easier by far than that of a merchant’s clerk. Am in no haste to change. Probably I shall do nothing more till I come to London. You was present at the Conference, and heard what was then said concerning unqualified preachers. I think Rd. Packer [Richard Packer came to London from Northamptonshire, was verted at the Foundery, and became a prosperous builder in Mile End. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, pp. 477-8] is as weak as most. Yet he has been often useful; and, what is stranger, in several places they are fond of him!--I am Your affectionate brother. I hope to be in town this day se’nnight. To Certain Proprietors of East India Stock [End of September 1773.] TO ALL WHO HAVE HAD EAST INDIA STOCK LATELY TRANSFERRED TO THEM, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THEM FOR VOTING AT THE ELECTION FOR DIRECTORS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT. GENTLEMEN AND LADIES,--Do you know what the oath is which you are to take before you will be admitted to vote It is as follows: ‘ I, A B, do swear that the sum of five hundred pound, or more, of the capital stock of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies doth at this time belong to me in my own right, and not in trust for any other person or persons whatsoever. So help me God.’ Do not you hereby call upon God either to help you or to send down His curse upon you as your oath is true or false If you consider this, can you take a false oath can you call God to witness to lie Are you not doing this if the stock standing in your name is not your real and true property Have you not given a note of your hand for it, which is to be returned upon your retransferring the stock Are you either benefited or hurt by the rise or fall of the stock If not, can you say you are proprietor at all Does it alter the case, though a third person lend you the money to pay for that stock which you are so to retransfer Still you nether gain nor lose by the rise or fall of the stock: a plain proof that you have no property therein. Weigh this in time; and do not, to oblige a friend, bring the guilt of perjury on your own soul. To James Barry BRISTOL, October 1, 1773. DEAR JAMES,--Sister Haughton is an upright woman and desires to please God. I advise her rather to throw her high head into the fire than to pain one of the little ones. She will have no fewer scholars. God will make her amends. My mother never would suffer one of her children to ’go to a dancing-school.’ But she had a dancing-master to come to her house who taught all of us what was sufficient in her presence. To this I have no objection. If I had convenience, I would be glad to have all our preachers taught, even by a dancing-master, to make a bow and to go in and out of a room.--I am, with love to Sister Barry, dear James, Your affectionate friend and brother To Hannah Ball LONDON, October 4, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--The being sealed by the Spirit in the full sense of the word I take to imply two things: (1) The receiving the whole image of God, the whole mind which was in Christ, as the wax receives the whole impression of the seal when it is strongly and properly applied; (2) The full assurance of hope, or a clear and permanent confidence of living with God in glory. Either of these may be given (and sometimes is, though not frequently) separate from the other. When both are joined together, then I believe they constitute the Seal of the Spirit. But even this admits of various degrees: a degree of it I trust you have. Work and pray! Do and suffer the whom will of Him that calleth you! And He will supply whatever is wanting.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, October 7, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I came hither last night. For two or three weeks I was not well, but am now recovering daily [See letter of Oct 17]. In town or country Brother Swan [Swan was two years at Haworth after leaving Newcastle. See letter of Oct. 7] must conclude in an hour, or else he cannot be a travelling preacher after this year. His daughter must go to service: you observe well, it will not be safe to keep her at the Orphan House. I am glad to hear that you have but one circuit; that will be most for the glory of God. The case of Brother Hilton [See letters of Oct 9, 1767, and Nov. 12, 1773, to Hopper] exceedingly delicate. Shall I tell you my thoughts freely They are the same with yours. I think he is pursuing what will never come to pass. But which of us can convince him of this How easily we believe what we desire! However, it is the part of a friend to try: you love him well, and you will give him still more cause to love you if you can persuade him to drop the whom affair and put it out of his head for ever. That is a good point carried, the persuading the classes to meet at their own houses. The fruit of this will soon appear both by the increase of their grace and their number. If I was in Joseph Benson’s place, I would not be buried at Dunbar--no, nor at Edinburgh, nor any one place whatever. Who hath required this at his hands The Lord go before him! Why should we not call sinners to repentance in every market town [See letter of Oct. 23]. Peter Jaco [Peter Jaco, now in Dublin, was tall and handsome. He dies in 1781. See letter of Sept. 3, 1756, n, to Samuel Walker] would willingly travel. But how Can you help us to an horse that will carry him and his wife What a pity we could not procure a camel or an elephant! I do not despair of the salvation of a lunatic.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. PS.--My wife sends her love; she has her old companion the gout. To Samuel Sparrow WINDMILL HILL, October 9, 1773. DEAR SIR,--On Scripture and common sense I build all my principles. Just so far as it agrees with these I regard human authority. God could not command me to worship a creature without contradicting Himself: therefore, if a voice from heaven bade me honor a creature as I honor the Creator, I should know this is the voice of Satan, not of God. The Father and the Son are not ’ two beings,’ but ’ one.’ As He is man, the Father is doubtless ’greater than the Son’; who as such ’can do nothing of Himself,’ and is no more omniscient than omnipresent. And as man He might well say, ’ I ascend to my Father and your Father,’ and pray to His Father and His God. He bids His disciples also to pray to Him, but never forbids their praying to Himself. I take this to be the plain, obvious, easy meaning of our Lord’s words, and the only one wherein they are reconcilable with an hundred passages both of the Old and New Testament. With regard to original sin (I mean the proneness to evil which is found in every child of man), you have supposed it in the essays with which you favored me [See letter of Feb. 26, 1772, to him], almost from the beginning to the end: and you have frequently asserted it; although you could not assert it in plainer terms than the honest, unbiased heathens have done: Vitiis nemo sine nascitur [Horace’s Satires, I.iii.68: ‘No one is born without vices’]. Hence Omnes natura proclives ad libidinem [Terence’s Andria, I. i. 51. ‘All, by nature are prone to evil desire’]. Hence Dociles imitandis turpibus et pravis omnes sumus [Juvenal’s Satires, xiv. 41: ‘All are apt to imitate shameful and vicious things’]. But I believe nothing can set this point in a more clear and strong light than the tract which I beg you to accept of [Fletcher’s Appeal]. Accept likewise the best wishes of, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, October 17, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I was laid up for a week or two last month; but have now nearly recovered my strength [See letter of Oct. 7]. If I live till spring and am as well as I am now, I shall move northward as usual. I am glad you have begun that little meeting for prayer. It will not be without a blessing. T. Lee [Thomas Lee, the Assistant at Birstall] may have half a dozen of the Instructions for Children [See letter of Feb. 23] to give as he sees needful. If you undertake the care of the books, I shall be under no farther concern about them; for I know what you do you will do in earnest. I wish you would immediately cause all the books which are at Birstall to be removed to your house [See letter of Nov. 17]. You will then be so kind as to send me a catalogue of them and of the books which you would have sent down. All those who keep my books for the future I shall desire to state their accounts once a month. But I do not know what you send me the bills for.--I am, my dear Your affectionate brother. To John Valton WITNEY, October 20, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--When all circumstances are considered, I think you place the matter upon the right footing. If you are promoted, and if you recover your health (and in order to which you should ride every day), then it seems you will be called to marry [See letter of Sept. 18 to him].--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, October 22, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--Arthur Kershaw is exceedingly happy in God, and I believe he will be an useful preacher. Two months longer he must stay Northampton; then he may make a trial in Epworth Circuit. In the meantime William Thom may labor there, of whom Mr. Rhodes gives me a good account. I am afraid Lady Huntingdon’s preachers will do little good wherever they go. They are wholly swallowed up in that detestable doctrine of Predestination, and can talk of nothing else. I am glad to hear so good an account of Mr. Woodhouse. We have to do with a God that heareth prayer. If you seek Him with your whole heart, He cannot withhold any manner of thing that is good.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Joseph Benson LONDON, October 23, 1773. DEAR JOSEPH,--I wish every one of our preachers who goes to Scotland were of the same mind with you. We are not called to sit still in one place; it is neither for the health of our souls nor bodies. Billy Thompson [See letter of Sept. 10] never satisfied me on this head, not in the least degree. I say still we will have traveling preachers in Scotland or none. The thing is fixed; the manner of effecting it is to be considered. Now set your wit to this: find out the t p [‘The manner’]. How shall this mater be accomplished You did not do well in selling your horse [See letter of Sept. 18, 1774],’ and thereby laying another bar in the way. Though I am (by the exquisite negligence of my late bookkeeper [See letters of Sept. 20 and Nov. 6] ) a thousand pounds worse than nothing, I would have spared a few pounds to have eased that burthen. However, you must do as you can. Our preachers shall either travel there as in England, or else stay in England.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Martha Chapman NEAR LONDON, October 27, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--Now is the hour and the power of darkness. But In vain does Satan rage his hour; Beyond his chain he cannot go. And I doubt not most of those that are scattered abroad in the dark and cloudy day will again be gathered in by our good Shepherd. It is right, therefore, to be concerned for them; but not to sorrow as those without hope, seeing the Lord hath not forgotten to be gracious. You that are spiritual, labor to restore them that are fallen, in the spirit of meekness; and your labor shall not be in vain. Meantime in your patience possess your own soul. All things shall work together for your good, shall bring you nearer to God. Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, October 31,1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I have laid your letter so carefully by that I cannot find it. But as I am going into Norfolk early in the morning, I will not stay till I come back before I write. There is upon the whole nothing new under the sun. But that violent jealousy among your young women is utterly a new thing among the Methodists; I have known nothing like it in the three kingdoms. And yet I do not know that they have either less sense or less grace than others of their age or sex. But this is one proof among a thousand that if God leave us for a moment to ourselves, there is no folly into which our subtle adversary may not drive the wisest of the human race. Yet I do not see that you are at liberty to give up your charge on this account. It seems you should simply lay the whole affair before Mr. Pawson and Allen [John Pawson was a Supernumerary in Bristol; John Allen, who became an itinerant in 1766 and died in 1810, was Wesley’s Assistant]. They are candid and impartial judges, prejudiced neither on one side nor the other; and I believe they will be able to judge on every emergence what steps are the most proper to be taken. One reason, it may be, why this was permitted, was to confound the pride of your understanding. You had been accounted a woman of sense and commended for it. And our nature readily receives such commendation. But see how little your sense avails! You can do no more herein than if you was an idiot. ’ The help that is done upon earth He doeth it Himself,’ whether with or without instruments. Let your whole soul be stayed upon Him for time and eternity. I am always wen pleased to hear from you. And you can speak freely to, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To Joseph Benson LONDON, November 6, 1773. I came to London. The rest of the week I made what inquiry I could into the state of my accounts (at the Room). Some confusion had arisen from the sudden death of my bookkeeper; but it was less than might have been expected. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, November 12, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--We see not how the work can continue, and we saw not (beforehand) how it could ever come to what it is now. All we can say is, It is the Lord’s doing. And He must see to His own work. You must contract your sails if you live another year, and not take so large a compass. Unless you should pass into a warmer climate, Northumberland is cool enough. I am glad you spoke freely to Brother Hilton [See letters of Oct. 7, 1773, and Aug. 18, 1775; and for Erskine, April 24, 1765]. It would do immense mischief; humanly speaking, it would be the greatest stumbling that was ever in Edinburgh yet. And truly there need be no more while good Dr. Erskine lives. But the preachers in Scotland never had their wages yet--I mean not from Scotland. We are obliged to supply them every year. English people we certainly may cure. We have the staff in our own hands. Therefore mend them or end them. Let them meet in band and class where you appoint or nowhere. Stand your ground. Kill or cure.... To Thomas Wride LONDON November 12, 1773. DEAR TOMMY,--The matter is short; I see no reason yet why you should remove from York Circuit [Wride was second preacher at York. See letter of Aug. 29, 1774, to him]. Do all the good you can there. Observe and enforce all our Rules. Exhort all the believers to go on to perfection and be gentle to all men.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, November 17, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am afraid the assortment of books which is at Birstall house is exceeding imperfect. As soon, therefore, as we receive the account from you, we shall send down such small books as are wanting and such as are most called for and most useful [See letter of Oct. 17]. My health seems now to be as well established as for many years. And this we are sure of--health we shall have if health be best. What have we to do but to make the best use of all our talents, and according to our power to glorify Him with our bodies and with our spirits--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Hannah Ball LONDON, November 18, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--You never did anything to disoblige me yet, nor anything (that I remember) which I wished undone. At all hazards you should prevent any misunderstanding between Mr. Saunderson and Brother Westrup. The best way is for them to talk calmly and freely together and reason the matter over. Then I think both of them will agree to what shall appear best upon the whole. Those fears are not from Him that calleth you. Give no place to them any farther than as they stir you up to prayer. A trying time there may be, and yet a growing time: this we frequently find. You should in any wise speak freely to Mr. Saunderson and tell him whatever you think or fear. Discipline must be kept up; only I would make an exception with regard to that gentlewoman you mention. Be more and more zealous and active for God!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis SHEERNESS, December 1, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--Some time since, when I heard Brother Bennis had got very rich, I was in fear for you lest the world should again find a way into your heart and damp your noblest affections. I am not sorry that you have not that temptation. It is most desirable to have nether poverty nor riches; but still you cannot be without temptation unless you would go out of the world. How far that sudden emotion which you speak of is a preternatural dart from Satan and how far it springs from your own heart it is exceeding hard to judge. It is possible it may be nether one nor the other, but a mere effect of the natural mechanism of the body, which has no more of good or evil than blushing or turning pale. But whether it be natural or preternatural, it is grievous to one whose conscience is tender. We may therefore undoubtedly pray against it. And surely He can and will deliver us. Come, therefore, boldly to the throne of grace, and find grace to help in time of need. You will find full employment in Waterford: I believe that Society wants your exertions. See, therefore, that you be not weary of well doing.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, December 4, 1773. DEAR TOMMY,--Captain Webb does not willfully tell lies, but he speaks incautiously; so that we must make large allowance for this whenever he speaks, otherwise we shall be deceived. But where is he now, and what is he doing I fear his wife will have need of patience. If you suffer any one to remain a leader who does not stay at the Society, that will be your fault. Improper leaders are not to be suffered upon any account whatever. You must likewise deal honestly with the Societies, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear. Only do not tell them continually ’You are dead,’ for that will surely make them so. Endeavor to quicken their hope by speaking strongly and at the same time cheerfully. Exhort them to look for better days—yea, such as they have never seen yet. I judge George Shadford will do good at New York. So would Robert Williams for a little time. You have hurt yourself by giving way to reasoning, and if you don’t take care you will hurt others. There has been good, much good done in America, and would have been abundantly more had Brother Boardman and Pilmoor continued genuine Methodists both in doctrine and discipline. It is your part to supply what was wanting in them. Therefore are you sent. Let Brother Shadford, Asbury, and you go on hand in hand, and who can stand against you Why, you are enough, trusting in Him that loves you, to overturn America. Go on in His name and in the power of His might, and all your enemies shall be found liars. Read David Brainerd again, and see your pattern! He was a good soldier of Jesus. Ah! but he first suffered, and then saw the fruit of his labor. Go and do likewise! I have written to Robert Williams and given him leave to print the Notes on my account; nothing on his own. I never knew he did till afterward. Be of good courage! Strengthen yourself in the Lord, and you will see good days, and will send better news to, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Savage LONDON, December 11, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--Whatever was reported concerning Brother Wolfe [Francis Wolfe had removed from Gloucestershire to Bristol] it did not come to my ears. I never heard anything of him but good; nor do I know of anything laid to his charge. I advise you to speak very freely to Mr. Collins [William Collins, Assistant in Wiltshire South. See letter of May 6, 1774, to her]. He has much experience in the things of God, and has likewise seen so much of trouble and temptation that he knows how to sympathize with those that are tempted. By stirring up the gift of God that is in you, you will find a constant increase of inward life. Labor to be more and more active, more and more devoted to Him. Be ready to do and suffer His whole will; then will He Sink you to perfection’s height, The depth of humble love. --I am, dear Molly, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, December 12, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--How easily we believe those we love! I believe it was as you say, and that it was only business, not want of affection, which kept you so long from writing. And so long as that business is not your choice, but providentially laid upon you, it is certainly best for you as bring ordered by unerring Wisdom. But I am startled at what you speak of Laving Witney [See letter of Jan. 20, 1774]. I do not well understand it. Where can you have the same opportunities of personal improvement (Unless it were at London or Bristol.) Where can you have so large a field of action so many opportunities of improving others What advantages have you reason to expect which will countervail this loss A design of so important a kind should be long and thoroughly weighed. I can conjecture only one advantage--more leisure, more freedom from hurry of business. That you will have no living souls near you, that all are dark and dead, is surely no reasonable motive for going anywhere. I am afraid lest you should be too hasty, lest you should run before the Spirit. Remember our dear friend Ally Eden [See letters of Feb. 11, 1772, and March 27, 1781]. She took one step without consulting any friend (save those under her own roof), and how dearly has she repented it! But perhaps you may give me reasons I am yet unacquainted with, so I suspend my judgement. I want to find you exactly right in all things. I wish you to be wise and good as an angel! I cannot tell you how near you are to, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Thomas Carlill LONDON, December 17, 1773. DEAR TOMMY,--I was a good deal out of order when I was at Bristol [In September. See Journal, vi. 3], both with a sore throat and with the rheumatism; but am now, by the blessing of God, just as well as I was before. Put an end to smuggling at all hazards. You should eat a small crust of bread every morning, fasting, and I think it will cure you of your gravel.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Pywell LONDON, December 19, 1773. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is plain the wisdom and power of God order all things well. He has brought you to the right place [She had been in Stenton near Derby in 1772. See letters of Jan. 22, 1772, and Dec. 29, 1774], and you have no need to be careful for anything, but only in everything to make your requests known unto Him with thanksgiving. I am glad to hear that Mrs. K—y’s love does not grow cold. One part of your work is to stir up all who have believed to go on to perfection and every moment to expect the full salvation which is received by simple faith. I am persuaded your bring where you are will be for good. Speak to all about you, and spare not. God will bear witness to His own truth.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Walter Churchly LONDON, December 23, 1773. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You and I love one another; therefore we speak freely. (1) ’They have thrown themselves on Providence.’ Not at all. From a very low state most of them had thrown themselves into plenty and honor. (2) ’ It is possible they may do good.’ True; but it is probable they may do harm. They have everywhere done our Societies all the harm they could. (3) ’The place they now have is a cold place.’ I see no good of their having any at Hay. The land is wide enough. (4) They have no inclination to peace. (5) ’Our neighbors will see our professions true.’ I do not profess any coalition with Calvinism. I see the mischievousness of it more and more. (6) ’Their preaching would not lessen the number of our hearers.’ Indeed it would if the people minded what they say. And besides, it would puzzle and perplex those that still hear us, and probably set many an one’s sword against his brother. (7) ’They do not intend Antinomianism.’ But they preach it continually. (8) ’And our people will not hear Calvinists.’ Indeed they will if they play with the fire. You forget my brother’s verses: What my soul does as hell-fire reject, A Pope--a Count--a leader of a sect. [Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley, vi. 62]. I am of no sect, but the Church of England. If James Barry or Stephen Proctor [The preacher at Brecon] is faulty in the Article you mention, tell them of it, and I am persuaded they will mend. You will do well to remind them in particular of teaching the children and visiting the sick. I believe they will take it kindly.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Sparrow LONDON, December 28, 1773. DEAR SIR,--Upon the head of Authority we are quite agreed. Our guides are Scripture and reason. We agree, too, that preachers who ’ relax our obligation to moral virtues, who decry holiness as filthy rags, who teach men that easy, palatable way to heaven, of faith without works,’ cannot easily fail of having a multitude of hearers; and that therefore it is no wonder if vast numbers crowd Blackfriars church and the chapel at the Lock [William Romaine was Rector of St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, from 1766 to 1795. Martin Madan was Chaplain of the Lock Hospital, 1750-80; he published Thelyphthora, in favor of polygamy, in 1780]. There is also too ’ just a ground for charging the preachers both there and at the Tabernacle with grievous want of charity.’ For most of them flatly maintain all who do not believe as they believe are in a state of damnation, all who do not believe that absolute decree of election, which necessarily infers absolute reprobation. But none were induced to hear my brother and me or those connected with us by any such means as these: just the reverse. We set out upon two principles: (1) None go to heaven without holiness of heart and life; (2) whosoever follows after this (whatever his opinions be) is my ’brother and sister and mother.’ And we have not swerved an hair’s breadth from either one or the other of these to this day. Thus it was that two young men without a name, without friends, without either power or fortune, ’set out from College with principles totally different from those of the common people,’ to oppose all the world, learned and unlearned; to ’combat popular prejudices’ of every kind. Our first principle directly attacked all the wickedness, our second all the bigotry, in the world. Thus they attempted a reformation, not of opinions (feathers, trifles not worth the naming), but of men’s tempers and lives; of vice in every kind; of everything contrary to justice, mercy, or truth. And for this it was that they carried their lives in their hands, that both the great vulgar and the small looked upon them as mad dogs and treated them as such; sometimes saying in terms, ’ Will nobody knock that mad dog on the head’ Let every one, then, speak as he finds; as for me, I cannot admire either the wisdom or virtue or happiness of mankind. Wherever I have been, I have found the bulk of mankind, Christian as well as heathen, deplorably ignorant, vicious, and miserable. I am sure they are so in London and Westminster. Sin and pain are on every side. And who can account for this but on the supposition that we are in a fallen state I have proved at large it can no otherwise be accounted for. Yet none need perish; for we have an almighty Saviour, one who is able and willing to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through Him.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To James Hutton December 31, 1773. DEAR JEMMY,--I am of the same mind still. I love you well; and I love to talk with you. But I have an awkward disorder, commonly called an hydrocele; on account of which I shall be next week in the surgeon’s hands [Dr. Samuel Wathen removed it on Jan. 4, 1774. See Journal, v. 474, vi. 8]. Any time after that I shall be glad to meet you either at John Folgham’s [Folgham was a member of the Foundery Society and one of the trustees of City Road Chapel. Wesley dined with him on Dec. 31, 1782, and at other times. See Journal Index] or anywhere.--I am, dear Jemmy, Yours affectionately. Editor’s Introductory Notes: 1773 [1] Murray appears in the Minutes of 1772 as third preacher at Newry, but had probably been moved to Dublin, where Peter Jaco had become Assistant and was labouring without a colleague. A folded sheet contains this letter and the preceding one to Alexander Clark. [2] Wesley was growing anxious about the future of Methodism. Charles Wesley was not fit to take the oversight after his brother’s death. Fletcher’s Checks had given fresh proof of his ability and whole-hearted devotion; and he was in growing favor with the preachers, who both loved and honored him. Whitehead says this letter was written from Shoreham, probably after careful consultation with its vicar, his old friend Vincent Perronet. See Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 353. Fletcher’s reply to this most important proposal is dated February 6, 1773, and is given in Moore’s Wesley, ii. 259-60. He promised that if Wesley died first he would do his best to help Charles Wesley to keep the Methodists together. He had thought he would one day offer Wesley his free service, but would not leave Madeley without a fuller persuasion that the time had come. He died in 1785. For Fletcher’s own plan for the future of Methodism, written in August 1775, see Telford’s Wesley, pp. 388-94. [3] Thomas Snowden was one of the first leaders and local preachers in Hull. He and his wife were Wesley’s hosts in 1759, and under their roof he is thought to have met Charles Delamotte. Snowden died in 1795. His wife lived till 1835. See Journal, iv. 331; Wesleyan Methodist Magazine 1837, pp. 885-99; letter of March 22, 1773; and for the dearness of provisions, December 9, 1772. [4] John Catermole and Francis Asbury were appointed to Salisbury (Wiltshire South) in 1770. The following year Asbury’s name appears under ‘America: Richard Boardman, Joseph Pilmoor, Francis Asbury, Richard Wright.’ He sailed from Bristol with Richard Wright on September 4, 1771. Was this letter written to Mrs. Pywell See letters of December 19, 1773, and December 29, 1774. [5] Mrs. Bennis wrote on January 23, 1773, that all the Societies in the three neighboring circuits had spent the 1st of the month as a day of fasting and prayer to intercede for a revival of God’s work. The congregations at Limerick since then had increased, and seventeen had been added to the Society. Edward Slater, ‘ a deeply pious, steady, good man,’ was stationed at Limerick in 1772. He came from Liverpool, and served as a preacher from 1770 to 1776, when his heath compelled him to retire to Manchester. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 397. [6] Valton began meetings in January 1772 for the lime-burners in a room offered by Mr. Watson that would hold a hundred. Mr. Bell, the manager, seemed inclined to build a chapel. On February 23 Valton preached to fifty persons. For Instructions for Children (1745), chiefly translated from Abbe Fleury and M. Poiret, and A Token for Children (1749), extracted from Janeway’s work with that title, see Green’s Bibliography, Nos. 62, 124. [7] After the death of Samuel Franks in 1773, Wesley found he needed help in his Book-Room affairs. Alexander Mather, the Assistant in London, had had charge. Thomas Ball, of Bath, was one of Wesley’s trusted friends. His daughter was marred to Edward Collinson, an ironmonger in Lombard Street, London, and a worker at the Foundery and City Road. For their reply see Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1842, p. 1013; and for Samuel Franks, the letter of November 6. [8] Thomas Webb lost an eye at the siege of Quebec in 1758, was converted in 1765, secured the first Methodist preaching-place in New York, came to England to get help for the Societies in America, and had set his heart on taking Benson back with him in April. Fletcher married the Captain to Miss Grace Gilbert on February 12, and wrote the same day to Benson: ‘ God has certainly a people, a great people, gathering together in that part of the world.’ ‘ Mr. Piercy, who has set West Bromwich together by the ears through his high principles, is gone over with six or seven of our dear Lady’s [Huntingdon’s] students. In all probability they will sow the seeds of discord and make a breach in the rising Societies.’ It was thought that there would be controversy, and Benson’s gifts would be of great service. On March 6 Charles Wesley wrote to Benson: ‘ I have barely time to say your own reasons for not yet going to America and Christopher Hopper’s are unanswerable. Mr. Fletcher is only the Captain’s echo. The Captain’s impressions are no more (or very little more) to be depended on than George Bell’s. He is an inexperienced, honest, zealous, loving enthusiast. God only knows whether you may not be called to America by-and-by. At present your call is not clear; therefore stand still, and send our friends a loving, explicit refusal.’ Benson declined the offer after much thought and prayer. Captain Webb settled in Bristol, and was the chief means of the erection of Portland Chapel, where he was buried in 1796. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 444-8. [9] The building of the Octagon in Great Horton Lane, Bradford, cost f997 8s. 9d., as an entry in the circuit-book for 1772 shows. Christopher Hopper and others signed the accounts as auditors. The land was purchased for f20 on a lease of 999 years and rental of f3 12s., and contained ‘ by estimation two days’ work.’ Wesley says that the place brought in about f50 a year, and the debt was f500. See Stamp’s Methodism in Bradford, pp. 45, 56; and letter of April 1 to Mrs. Woodhouse. [10] Thomas Rankin writes: ‘When the work in America came before the Conference [at Leeds], Mr. Wesley determined to appoint me Superintendent of the whole; and I chose my much-esteemed friend and brother Shadford to accompany me to that continent. I had proved his uprightness, piety, and usefulness in several circuits, where he had labored with me; and I knew I could depend upon him.’ Dr. Abel Stevens calls Shadford ‘one of the heroes of American as well as of English Methodism.’ ‘ He had a soul of flame, and was singularly effective in his preaching.’ He had ‘ a great harvest of souls in America.’ ’’ There is nothing in the records of early Methodism,’ says Dr. Buckley, ‘ which exhibits the sublimity of the conceptions of John Wesley concerning the work and his relations to it more dramatically than his letter to George Shadford.’ Shadford embarked at Pill on April 9, and arrived at Philadelphia on June 3. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 167; Steven’s History of American Methodism, ii. 85, 183; Buckley’s The Methodists, p. 136; and letter of March 2 to Joseph Benson. [11] On August 27, 1772, Miss Bolton consulted Wesley about Christian Perfection; on April 16, 1773, she wrote: ‘I find myself at some loss how to express what I feel and know of God and of His kingdom within me; but this I can say, I feel God is love.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1786 p. 284; and letter of February 11, 1772. [12] Miss Ball told Wesley on May 4 of her visits to the sick-bed of ’ a very wicked man,’ Charles Dean, in Wycombe. He and his wife and her sister were led to Christ. ‘Glory be to God for this great work!’ See Memoir, pp. 112-14. [13] Creighton was born at Cavan on February 5, 1738, and educated at Dublin University. He was curate at Swanlinbar, and was intending to preach against the Methodists; but resolved first to send some questions to Wesley. He read Wesley’s and Fletcher’s writings, and was led to seek the blessing of salvation. His brother Robert and his two sisters joined Wesley’s Societies and entertained the preachers; he says, ‘ My brother the Rev. James Creighton at first opposed us much on account of our religious principles, but is now through grace himself convinced at the truth.’ Creighton preached in the open air in many places, and in 1783 became one of Wesley’s clerical assistants in London. See Journal, v. 507n.; and letter of December 23, 1777. Crayton, as Wesley spells the name, wrote on the back ‘ First Letter.’ [14] Hugh Saunderson was second preacher at Armagh, when Miss Cummins lived. He was a zealous young man whom Wesley sent from England to supply in the Augher Circuit in 1768. When in Edinburgh an action was brought against Wesley and Saunderson, but the prosecutor was fined f1,000 (i.e. probably Scots equal to f83 6s. 8d.). Wesley says: ‘ I am not a preacher for the people of Edinburgh. Hugh Saunderson and Michael Fenwick are more to their taste.’ In 1782 Saunderson ‘pitched his standard and declared open war’ at Exeter. ‘ Part of the Society have joined him, the rest go on their way quietly.’ See journal, vi. 23-4, 279; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 215.. [15] Wesley says that in his journey from Liverpool, which he left on July 8, he read his old friend Dr. Byrom’s Poems, published that year, in which were ‘some of the finest sentiments that ever appeared in the English tongue; some of the noblest truths, expressed with the utmost energy of language and the strongest colors of poetry.’ He makes these selections for Miss Bolton’s benefit. See Journal, v. 517-21; Byrom’s Poems, ii. 345-53. [16] Benson was appointed the next month as Thompson’s colleague in Edinburgh. Hull, where he had been sent to allay some controversy between the Methodists and certain members of the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapel, was very anxious to obtain him as one of its preachers, and Benson could not bring his mind to go to Scotland. But his son says, in the manuscript Life, i. 329, that he had afterwards reason to thank God for it. [17] Swan had come from the Dales to Newcastle to be Hopper’s colleague. He was a native of Scotland, and was a successful itinerant for twenty-six years. He died on September 19, 1810, at Alnwick, where he spent his last fifteen years. See letter of October 7. [18] Mrs. Bennis asked on August 25, ’ How is it that I find disappointments in temporals (with which I am now surrounded) bear so heavy on me and be capable of giving me so much distress ’ [19] Wolfe was appointed to the Bristol Circuit. Perhaps he had lingered in his Gloucestershire Circuit. [20] Whitefield left the Orphan House at Bethesda, ten miles from Savannah, to Lady Huntingdon by his will for the same purpose as he held it. It was burnt down in June 1773. It had ceased to be an orphan house, and was now an academy. Hence Wesley’s suggestion. See his last letter to Whitefield, on February 21, 1770; and letter of August 4, 1775. [21] Valton’s health had suffered greatly through his ’ incessant labors and the unwholesome air of Purfleet.’ He was told that no expedient would restore him except exercise on horseback. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 72; and letter of September 20. [22] Miss Bishop writes from Bath on August 23 that she had lately read a new translation of Madame Guyon’s Life, ‘ and fear it has a tendency to betray the upright in heart into a state of comparative darkness and unresisted unbelief, under the mask of faith, passiveness, and resignation; till they are at last content to live under the hidings of His face.’ She adds: ‘ Their discourses on prayer are not so clear to me. Need a continued state of mental prayer exclude that which is vocal and social When the soul is not inclined to the latter and is blessed in the former, may it safely rest or ought it to do violence to itself that it may pray always with all prayer’ See Arminian Magazine, 1786, p. 518. [23] Valton did not accept this offer of Wesley’s, who had suffered much by the negligence of his book-keeper; but in 1775 re resigned his position at Purfleet, and was appointed to the Oxfordshire Circuit. See letters of September 29 (to him) and October 23. [24] This letter shows Wesley’s zeal for purity in public life. Thomas Marriott says: ‘It was earlier than October 1773, when the qualification for a vote as a proprietor was advanced by Act of Parliament from 500 to 1,000Stock to prevent the frauds at that time too prevalent, that Wesley addressed the following letter. [25] James Barry, now Assistant at Brecon, was for many years a faithful preacher. Atmore says that he labored much and suffered much. He died at Gainsborough in 1783. Mrs. Haughton was evidently a school mistress who wore the high head-dress then in fashion, and had given offence to some of the Methodists. See Journal, vi. 216n. [26] Arthur Kershaw and William Thom were admitted on trial as preachers in 1774. Kershaw was appointed to London, and Thom to Lincolnshire East, where Benjamin Rhodes was Assistant. Rhodes, the son of a schoolmaster at Misborough in Yorkshire, became a preacher in 1766, and died at Margate in 1815; his poem Messiah (1787) yielded two much-loved hymns—‘ My heart and voice I raise’ and ‘Jerusalem divine.’ Thom in 1797 joined with Alexander Kilham in forming the Methodist New Connection; see heading to letter of May 6, 1785. [27] Benson used generally to preach four times on Sundays and once or twice on other days. One Sunday, says the manuscript Life, i. 354, after preaching twice in chapel and twice to large congregations in the open air, he found such vigor and strength of body, ’ that I seemed as fit to preach after the labors of the day as in the morning when I began, if not more so.’ See letter of October 7. [28] Samuel Franks, ’a man of great uprightness and earnest piety, but naturally of a sensitive disposition,’ was Wesley’s Book Steward from November 1759 to 1773, when in a fit of despair he hanged himself at the Foundery. See Journal, vi. 4; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 155-6; and letters of October 23, 1773, and June 2, 1775. [29] In reply to the letter of September 10 Mrs. Bennis told Wesley: ’ Though the Lord has blessed my husband’s industry far above our expectation and has given me both the necessaries and conveniences of life, yet with these I feel such a measure of trouble and care and such a mixture of uneasiness as makes me often sick of the enjoyment…There is one particular evil that cleaves to me and causes me much bitterness of soul--that is, a hastiness of spirit with my children, a fire within, that like lightning suddenly flashes and is ready to burn up all before it.’ [30] Thomas Rankin had sailed for America in April with Captain and Mrs. Webb. He was Wesley’s Assistant in America, with George Shadford, Francis Asbury, Richard Boardman, Joseph Pilmoor, and Robert Williams as his colleagues. He says in his autobiography for July 1773 that Pilmoor ‘is returning to that simplicity of spirit that made him so useful when he first came over to America.’ Boardman and Pilmoor returned to England in the following January. Rankin met Brainerd’s brother in September 1774. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 175-81. [31] Thomas Carlill was a faithful and successful preacher from 1762 until his death on August 4, 1801. He was a man of ’facetious wit.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 69: 67. 1774 ======================================================================== 1774 DEVELOPMENTS IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA JANUARY 8, 1774, TO DECEMBER 27, 1776 To Joseph Benson, Edinburgh LONDON January 8, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--Many persons are in danger of reading too little; you are in danger of reading too much. Wherever you are, take up your cross and visit all the Society from house to house. Do this according to Mr. Baxter’s plan, laid down in the Minutes of the Conference [See Minutes for 1766; works, viii. 302-3, 315]. The fruit which will ensure (perhaps in a short time), will abundantly reward your labor. Fruit also we shall have, even in those who have no outward connection with us. I am glad you ’ press all believers ’ to aspire after the full liberty of the children of God. They must not give up their faith in order to do this; herein you formerly seemed to be in some mistake. Let them go on from faith to faith--from weak faith to that strong faith which not only conquers but casts out sin. Meantime it is certain many call themselves believers who do not even conquer sin, who are strangers to the whole inward kingdom of God and void of the whole fruit of the Spirit. We must not go on at Dunbar in this manner. Rather we must quit the place. For who will pay that debt On Tuesday I was under the surgeon’s hands, but am now (blessed be God) quite recovered [See next letter].--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To James Hutton LEWISHAM, January 8, 1774. DEAR JEMMY,--On Tuesday I was tapped by Mr. Wathen [See letter of Dec. 31, 1773], and now (blessed be God) I am well and easy. I hope yours is an hydrocele; because, if so, it admits of an easy remedy. The being tapped, if you have a skilful surgeon, is no more than being let blood. I expect dominucete’s fumes will do you neither harm nor good [Hutton wrote to the Moravian Society on Jan. 16 resigning his position as Chairman on account of his deafness. See Benham’s Hutton, p.496. Domine stekan a corruption of Dominus tecum]. If you can spare half an hour on Monday, I shall be glad of your company. I will endeavor to be at Mr. Atwood’s [Wesley dined with Atwood on various occasions, See Journal Index], house (one of the King’s musicians) by two o’clock on Monday. He lives at Pimlico, just behind the Queen’s Gardens. I suppose Mr. Rivington’s advertisement is only a puff, as the booksellers call it.--I am, dear Jemmy, Yours affectionately. To John Mason LONDON, January 10, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is nothing strange that those who love the world should not love to continue with us. Our road is too strait. Down the stream of nature driven, They seek a broader path to heaven. However, let us keep in the good old way; and we know it will bring us peace at the last. If you press all the believers to go on to perfection and to expect deliverance from sin every moment, they will grow in grace. But if ever they lose that expectation, they will grow flat and cold. Last week I was under the surgeon’s hands; but am now (blessed be God) better than I have been for some years.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, January 13, 1774. DEAR BROTHER,--Probably, if I live another year, I may need Mr. Wathen again; but as yet it is not easy to determine. However, I am at present perfectly well. Your advice with regard to Mr. D[avis] is good. He is very quiet, but not very useful To tell you my naked thoughts (which I do not tell to every one), I have talked with Ralph Mather again and again. I think verily I never met with such another man. I am much inclined to think (though he is not infallible, neither of an uncommon natural understanding) that he is now as deep in grace as G. Lopez was. I mean Dr. Boyce. I am glad Charles is at home. [But why should you not have him to your hour is the question. You are a man!] No truth in it at all. A mere Georgian story. I think God raised up out of the dust T. Olivers in the room of poor decrepit Walter Sellon. The conclusion of his book is noble: true, strong oratory. Goldsmith’s History and Hooke’s are far the best. I think I shall make them better. My view in writing history (as in writing philosophy) is to bring God into it. When I talk with Ralph Mather, I am amazed and almost discouraged. What have I been doing for seventy years! Peace be with you and yours! Adieu. To the Rev. Mr. C. Wesley, In Bristol. To Mrs. Bennis LONDON, January 18, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--A will steadily and uniformly devoted to God is essential to a state of sanctification, but not an uniformity of joy or peace or happy communion with God. These may rise and fall in various degrees; nay, and may be affected either by the body or by diabolical agency, in a manner which all our wisdom can neither understand nor prevent. As to wanderings, you would do right well to consider the sermon on Wandering Thoughts [See Works, vi. 23-32]: you might likewise profit by Elizabeth Harper’s Journal, whose experience much resembled yours, only she was more simple; and you may learn from her to go straight to God as a little child, and tell Him all your troubles and hindrances and doubts, and desire Him to turn them all to good. You are not sent to Waterford to be useless. Stir up the gift of God which is in you; gather together those that have been scattered abroad, and make up a band, if not a class or two. Your best way would be to visit from house to house. By this means you can judge of their conduct and dispositions in domestic life, and may have opportunity to speak to the young of the family. By motion you will contract warmth; by imparting fife you will increase it in yourself. As to the circumstance mentioned in the postscript of your last, I should think you would do well to exert yourself in that matter as much as possible [On Dec. 29, 1773, she wrote from Waterford, where she found the people very dead. There is no postscript to the printed letter]. It will be a cross: take up that cross, bear your cross, and it will bear you; and if you do it with a single eye, it will be no loss to your soul.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Isaac Twycross LONDON, January 18, 1774. DEAR ISAAC,--I have not received any letter from you since I saw you in London. There is no danger that I should be displeased at any one for speaking freely to me. You have known me long enough to know this. I speak just what I think to all, and I would have all speak so to me. I advise you, Let not mercy or truth forsake you whatever company you are in; but bind them about your neck and write them on the table of your heart!--I am Your affectionate brother. To be left at Mr. Bold’s [See letter of May 6 to Charles Wesley], In Brecon. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 20, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--You in your little station, as I in mine, have abundance of trouble and care and hurry. And I too have often thought, Had I not better throw off some part at least of the burthen But I think again, Is it my burthen Did I choose it for myself Is it not the cup which my Father hath given me And do I bear it for my own sake, or for the profit of many that they may be saved Let me not hurt my dear friend if upon such an occasion I speak with all plainness. You are now highly favored. I trust God has made you a partaker of His great salvation. He has given you a good understanding improved by experience and free conversation with many of His dearest children. He has placed you as a city set upon an hill in a situation wherein you have full exercise for all your talents. ’But there are many crosses therein.’ There are--that is, many means of brightening all your graces. And is it a little thing that would induce my sister, my friend to quit such a situation as this If, indeed, you could enlarge the sphere of your action; if you could be more extensively useful; or if you could have a closer union than you ever had yet with a person of very eminent grace and understanding, I should instantly acknowledge the call of God and say, ’ Go, and the Lord will be with thee!’ But I can see nothing of this in your present case. All dark, I fear; evil is before you. When John Fletcher pressed Mary Bosanquet [They were married in 1781] much, she said (desiring my advice concerning it), ’If I change my situation, it must be with one I can not only love but highly reverence and esteem: one that is qualified to be my guide; one who is eminent not only in grace but likewise in understanding.’ I would add, ’ And one that will furnish you with full liberty of action that you may exercise your every grace.’ Give me such an one for my beloved friend, and I will instantly wish you God speed! You see I speak without reserve; and I hope the die is cast. Speak you as freely to Your affectionate friend. To Thomas Wride LONDON, January 22, 1774. DEAR TOMMY,--John Hilton [See letters of Nov. 12, 1773 (to Christopher Hopper), and Aug. 18, 1775] is a pleasing preacher, but perhaps not so deep as some others. Yet I suppose he is and will be a popular one. He has a good person and an agreeable utterance. You did exactly right in not countenancing hymns [Wride said in a letter to Wesley that he refused to sing or sell certain fine new hymns made and printed by William Ramsden] not publicly received among us. Were we to encourage tittle poets, we should soon be overrun. But there is not the least pretence for using any new hymns at Christmas, as some of my brother’s Christmas hymns are some of the finest compositions in the English tongue. Arthur Kershaw [See letter of Oct. 22, 1773] should have wrote to me before he left Northampton. Where is he or what is he doing Tommy, be mild, be gentle toward all men.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, January 26, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--When I observe anything amiss in your temper or behavior, I shall hardly fail to tell you of it; for I am persuaded you would not only suffer it but profit by advice or reproof. I have been sometimes afraid you did not deal plainly enough with the young women under your care. There needs much courage and faithfulness, that you may do all that in you ties to present them faultless before the throne. I do not know whether there is any other outward employ which would be so proper for you as that you are now engaged in. You have scope to use all the talents which God has given you, and that is the most excellent way. You have likewise a most admirable exercise for your patience, either in the dullness or forwardness of your little ones. And some of these will learn from you, what is of the greatest importance, to know themselves and to know God. You must not, therefore, relinquish this station lightly--not without full and clear proof that God calls you so to do. Meantime bear your cross, and it will bear you. Seek an inward, not an outward change. What you want is only inward liberty, the glorious liberty of the children of God. And how soon may you enjoy this! Who knows what a day, an hour, a moment may bring forth How soon may you hear ’the voice that speaks Jehovah near’! Why should it not be to-day--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, February 9, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--The mob which hurt not me but the old hired chaise which I then used made their assault some months since at Enniskillen in Ireland. We are little troubled at present with English mobs, and probably shall not while King George III lives. In July I hope to see you in Cross Hall. My spring journey lies thus: Manchester, April 4; Monday, April 18, Halifax; Tuesday, Huddersfield, Dewsbury; Thursday, Bradford; Sunday, 24, Haworth Church. Surely, though we have seen great things already, we shall see greater than these. ’ If thou canst believe! ’ That is the point; then what is impossible--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, February 17, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--As our friends who write to me from Witney observe, Mr. Saunderson might be useful if he continued with you. But I have promised, not only to him but also to several at Edinburgh, that he should come with me when I came into Scotland [See letter of Feb. 27]. Joseph Bradford, who succeeds him for the present, is much devoted to God, and he is active and laborious. Tell him if you think anything wanting. I doubt not he will take it well. The manner wherein you receive advice encourages me to give it you freely [See letter of Jan. 20]. I am fully persuaded that is not the person. He has neither such a measure of understanding nor of spiritual experience as to advance you either in divine knowledge or in the life of God. Therefore yield to no importunity, and be as peremptory as you can consistent with civility. This is the wisest way with regard for you and the kindest with regard to him. I should have desired you to meet me at Stroud, March 14; but on this account [Probably the gentleman lived at Stroud] it seems not expedient. I have often examined myself (to speak without any reserve) with respect to you, and I find ’ no fever’s heat, no fluttering spirits dance,’ but a steady rational affection, ’ calm as the warmth of life.’ [Probably based on Young’s Night Thoughts, viii.] March 2, 1774. I found the above (which I thought had been finished and sent) among my papers this morning. I hope you did not think you were forgotten by, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles DEPTFORD, February 22, 1774. DEAR BROTHER,--I have seen Mr. Leddiard [One of Charles Wesley’s Bristol friends, evidently visiting London. See his Journal, ii. 270, 275, 279]. Speak a few words in the congregation, and the remaining tracts will be sold in a quarter of an hour [Wesley published his Thoughts on Slavery in 1774. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 298]. Surely you should reprint the depositions; only leaving out the names both of captains and ships. Read on. The farther you read in Thomas’s [A Scourge to Calumny, by Thomas Olivers. See letter of Jan. 13] tract the better you will like it. I never saw it till it was printed. Miss March [See letters of March 4, 1760, and June 17, 1774, to her] is likely to recover; she rides out every day. Mrs. G---is not joined with the Germans. I believe Miss B----is. Miss F----is in town. To-day, Henry Hammond [In 1766 Charles Wesley persuaded Hammond, ‘a poor wandering sheep that did run well for years, but left us upon his marriage, and Christ too,’ to go to Spitalfields Chapel after twelve years’ interruption. He returned to the fold, and was a regular attendant. See C. Wesley’s Journal, ii. 216-17] and Jo. Bates pleading on the one side, Mr. Horton and Ley on the other, Mr. D[avis] [See letters of Jan. 13 and May 6 to Charles Wesley] had a full hearing. In the end he desired (not demanded) that some compensation might be made him for his losses. This is to be referred to the committee which meets to-morrow night. I shall not be there, but at Lewisham. We join in love to you and yours. To Martha Chapman NEAR LONDON, February 25, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I should have been glad to see you at Newbury [He was there on March 7]; but the will of our Lord is best. You can never speak too strongly or explicitly upon the head of Christian Perfection. If you speak only faintly and indirectly, none will be offended and none profited. But if you speak out, although some will probably be angry, yet others will soon find the power of God unto salvation. You have good encouragement from the experience of her whom God has lately taken to Himself [Bilhah Aspernell. See letter of Nov. 9, 1753, to Mr. Gillespie]. Speak to all, and spare not. Be instant in season, out of season; and pray always with all perseverance, particularly for Yours affectionately. To Walter Churchey NEAR LONDON, February 25, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The deliverance of our two fellow travelers should certainly be matter of thankfulness, to grace prevailing over nature. And should it not be a means of stirring up those that remain to greater zeal and diligence in serving Him who will be our Guide even unto death Should not you labor to convince and stir up others, that they may supply the place of those that are called away And let us lose no time. Work while it is day; the night cometh, wherein no man can work.--I am Your affectionate brother. To John Fletcher LONDON, February 26, 1774. DEAR SIR,--In going down, my route lies, Tuesday, March 8, Bristol; Wednesday, the 16th, Worcester; Saturday, the 19th, Birmingham; Monday, the 21st, and Tuesday, Wednesbury. I do not know that I shall come any nearer to Madeley then. But if I live to return, I hope to be at Salop on Thursday, July 28, and at Madeley on Saturday and Sunday. The prejudiced will say anything, everything of us; but it is enough that we stand or fall to our own Master. That expression ’the necessary union between faith and good works’ must be taken with a grain of allowance; otherwise it would infer irresistible grace and infallible perseverance. You will please to send the Essays and Equal Check to London unstitched. I hope they will do good; but I doubt they will not shame the Calvinists. The young man did act by her instructions, which I never heard she had recalled. So at present what they do is her act and deed. ’Tis well He that is higher than the highest doth regard it. And what can hurt us while we cleave to Him with our whole heart--I am, dear sir, Ever yours. To Hannah Ball LONDON, February 27. 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--If not now, yet we shall probably live to meet again; and the great comfort is that we shall meet and part no more. Before Mr. Saunderson came into Oxford Circuit I promised him that he should travel with me in spring. Another will come in his place that is much alive to God. Some will be profited by one, and some by the other. There are two general ways wherein it phases God to lead His children to perfection--doing and suffering. And let Him take one or the other, we are assured. His way is best. If we are led chiefly in the latter way, the less there is of our own choice in it the better. It is when we fly from those sufferings which God chooses for us that we meet with ’spiritual deaths’ and ’spiritual martyrdoms,’ as some speak that is, plainly, God punishes us either by Himself or by the devil for going out of His way. Nay, but keep in His way! Do and suffer just what seemeth Him good.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis LONDON, March 1, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER.--Elizabeth Harper was frequently in clouds too; and in that case it is the best way to stand still: you can do nothing but simply tell all your wants to Him that is both able and willing to supply them. I enclose James Perfect’s letter, on purpose that you may talk with him. He has both an honest heart and a good understanding; but you entirely mistake his doctrine. He preaches salvation by faith in the same manner that my brother and I have done, and as Mr. Fletcher (one of the finest writers of the age) has beautifully explained it. None of us talk of being accepted for our works; that is the Calvinist slander. But we all maintain we are not saved without works, that works are a condition (though not the meritorious cause) of final salvation. It is by faith in the righteousness and blood of Christ that we are enabled to do all good works; and it is for the sake of these that all who fear God and work righteousness are accepted of Him. It is far better for our people not to hear Mr. Hawksworth. Calvinism will do them no good. As to the rest, I refer to my enclosure to Mr. M’Donald, with whom I wish you to have some conversation. Be not discouraged: I really believe God will visit poor Waterford in love. Do you go on. Bear up the hands that hang down; by faith and prayer support the tottering knee; reprove, encourage. Have you appointed any days of fasting and prayer Storm the throne of grace, and persevere therein, and mercy will come down.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, March 4, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--I am glad you have been at Greenock, and think it highly expedient that you should follow the blow. Meantime let Brother Broadbent supply Glasgow and Billy Thompson Edinburgh. I think with you that it is no great matter if Dunbar be left for a season. When you have been three or four weeks at Greenock and Port Glasgow, Brother Broadbent should change with you. But I agree with you the harvest cannot be large till we can preach abroad. Before I settled my plan that thought occurred, ’It would be better to go a little later into Scotland.’ Accordingly I have contrived not to be at Glasgow till Friday, the 6th of May, coming by way of Edinburgh. Probably it may then be practicable to take the field. I incline to think it will be of use for you to spend another year in that circuit.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Stedman BRISTOL, March 10, 1774. DEAR SIR,--I thank you for your welcome present. It pleases God to carry on His work in every part of the nation, although at some places in a more especial manner, particularly in Yorkshire. The Works will be comprised in thirty volumes, two shillings and sixpence each. The twenty-eighth is now in the press. The Preface concludes thus: ’It may be needful to mention one thing more, because it is a little out of the common way. In the Extract from Milton’s Paradise Lost and in that from Dr. Young’s Night Thoughts I placed a mark before those passages which I judged were most worthy of the reader’s notice. The same thing I have taken the liberty to do throughout the ensuing volumes.’ Commending you to Him whose you are, and whom you serve, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To the Revd. Mr. Stedman, At Cheverel, Near the Devizes, Wilts. To Isaac Twycross WORCESTER, March 17, 1774. DEAR ISSAC,--Because you desire it, I write again. You do well to follow after peace. Nothing is more desirable: one would give up anything for it but a good conscience. And the only way whereby you can secure it is to walk closely with God. So long as your ways please Him He will make even your enemies to be at peace with you. Be serious! Be earnest! Be little in your own eyes, and God will order all things well!--I am Your affectionate brother. At Trevecca, Near the Hay, Brecon. To Hannah Ball LIVERPOOL, April 12, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--When it pleases God to take any of His children to Himself, especially those that have been eminent in His service, He usually sends a gracious rain upon the survivors. And He has not done yet. You are to expect more and more instances of His love and of His power to save unto the uttermost. I hope you will have many opportunities of conversing with Joseph Bradford, and that you will speak to him with all freedom. He is plain and downright. Warn him gently not to speak too fast or too loud, and tell him if he does not preach strongly and explicitly concerning perfection. Go on in the Lord and in the power of His might. Warn every one, as you have opportunity, and exhort every one, that you may present every one perfect in Christ Jesus.--I am, my dear sister Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bennis LEEDS, May 2, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--Until Mr. Hill and his associates puzzled the cause, it was as plain as plain could be. The Methodists always held, and have declared a thousand times, the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our salvation --that is, of pardon, holiness, and glory; loving, obedient faith is the condition of glory. This Mr. Fletcher has so illustrated and confirmed, as I think scarcely any one has done before since the Apostles. When Mr. Wrigley wrote me a vehement letter concerning the abuse he had received from the young men in Limerick, and his determination to put them all out of the Society if they did not acknowledge their fault, I much wondered what could be the matter, and only wrote him word, ’I never put any out of our Society for anything they say of me.’ You are come in good time to make peace. Go on, and prosper. Your ever affectionate. To John Atlay WHITEHAVEN, May 6, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Send no books till you have the accounts. I have desired T. Lewis to send you fifty pounds for Mr. Hawes to pay Mr. Nind the papermaker fifty, and (when he has his general accounts) two hundred pounds to Mr. Pine; so I hope you will soon be able to answer your other demands and to keep your head above water. I am not sorry that Robert Yates cannot come. It seems it might be well either to take in that little room or some other spot you agree upon. For the present you must not go out of town or be from the Foundery on Tuesday or Thursday evenings. But what think you Could you be my clerk for a twelvemonth (as much longer as you please). Instead of the f22 a year which you have for Sister Atlay and you, I would willingly give you fifty.--I am, with love to Sister Atlay, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Atlay, At the Foundery) London. To his Brother Charles WHITEHAVEN, May 6, 1774. DEAR BROTHER,--With or without Mr. Southcote, he need not print nonsense, which he has done in an hundred places. I will give nothing and spend nothing out of it--not a shilling; and what is paid can but be repaid. Nothing is hereby embezzled. Duty is all I consider. Trouble and reproach I value not. And I am by no means clear that I can with a good conscience throw away what I think the providence of God has put into my hands. Were it not for the Chancery suit, I should not hesitate a moment. My complaint increases by slow degrees, much the same as before. It seems I am likely to need a surgeon every nine or ten weeks. Mr. Hey, of Leeds, vehemently advises me never to attempt what they call a radical cure. You did tell me Mr. D[avies] had accepted of your mare. But surely there are more mares in the kingdom! I never said a word of ’publishing it after my death.’ I judged it my duty to publish it now; and I have as good a fight to believe one way as any man has to believe another. I was glad of an opportunity of declaring myself on the head. I beg Hugh Bold to let me think as well as himself, and to believe my judgement will go as far as his. I have no doubt of the substance both of Glanvill’s and Cotton Mather’s narratives. Therefore in this point you that are otherwise-minded bear with me. Veniam petimusque damusque vicissim. Remember, I am, upon full consideration and seventy years’ experience, just as obstinate in my opinion as you in yours. Don’t you think the disturbances in my father’s house were a Cock Lane story Peace be with you and yours! To Mrs. Savage WHITEHAVEN, May 6, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--You send me an agreeable account of the work of God in Worcester. I expected that He would give a blessing to the zeal and activity of your present preachers, and of Mr. Collins in particular, who is everywhere of use to those that are simple of heart. But much also depends upon the spirit and behavior of those who are united together. If their love does not grow cold; if they continue walking in the Spirit, using the grace they have already received, adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour, and going on to perfection, their light, shining before men, will incite many to glorify our Father which is in heaven. I am glad to hear that Billy Savage and you are still pressing toward the mark. Indeed, God will permit all the grace you have to be tried. He prepares occasions of fighting, that you may conquer; yea, in all these things you shall be more than conquerors through Him that loveth you. To His tender care I commit you; and am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton WHITEHAVEN, May 8, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--Have you quite forgotten me It would not be strange if you had, but rather if you had not, considering the many things you have to think of, your much business, and your many correspondents. But it would be strange if I were to forget you. I could as soon forget myself. I know not how it is that you have for some time past seemed nearer to me than ever. I think ever since I saw you last I have indulged a pleasing expectation that there will be a more free and open intercourse between us than there has been yet. Is your heart as my heart Do you desire there should Or are you indifferent about it Nay, I think you are not, and I think I may judge of you by what I feel in myself. And if so, Who shall our souls disjoin Souls that Himself vouchsafed to unite In fellowship divine. I want to hear how you go in your new way of life. Is it likely to answer your brother’s expectations with regard to temporal affairs In so short a time you cannot know much, but you may form some little conjecture. Do you give attention enough and not too much to the various businesses that lie upon you I know you will be diligent therein. But are you too diligent, so as to engage too much of your time and thoughts to entrench upon things of an higher nature To deprive yourself of sufficient time for exercises of a nobler kind If you should intermit these on account of any business whatever, I doubt you would suffer loss. There would be a danger that the tenor of your spirit should cool by imperceptible degrees, and that your mind should be too much engaged in the things of this world. For many years my mother was employed in abundance of temporal business while my father, who meddled with no temporals, had his living in his own hands. Yet she never suffered anything to break in upon her stated hours of retirement, which she sacredly observed from the age of seventeen or eighteen to seventy-two. Let my friend tread in the steps of my mother. Follow her as she followed Christ. Do not delay to write and tell me just how you are and what you do. Everything that concerns you very nearly concerns me, my dear Nancy, Your friend and brother. Any time this month direct to me at Edinburgh. To Elizabeth Ritchie WHITEHAVEN, May 8, 1774. MY DEAR BETSY,--It is not common for me to write to any one first; I only answer those that write to me. But I willingly make an exception with regard to you; for it is not a common concern that I feel for you. You are just rising into life; and I would fain have you not almost but altogether a Christian. I would have you just such an one as Miranda. And you cannot be content with less: you cannot be satisfied with right notions; neither with harmlessness; no, nor yet with barely external religion, how exact so ever it be. Nay, you will not be content with a taste of inward religion. This it has pleased God to give you already. You know in whom you have believed; you have tasted of the powers of the word to come; but A taste of love cannot suffice; Your soul for all His fullness cries! Cry on, and never cease! Mind not those who rebuke you that you should hold your peace. Cry so much the more, ’Jesus of Nazareth, take away all my sins! Leave none remaining! Speak the word only, and I shall be healed!’ Write freely to Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton GLASGOW, May 13, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--You give me a pleasing account of the work of God which seems to be dawning about Tavistock. It is probable you was sent thither for this. Redeem the time; buy up every opportunity; and never be discouraged, although many fair blossoms should fall off and never ripen into fruit. How gladly should I pay you a visit there! But I know not how I can do it this summer, unless I was to miss Stroud and come directly from Cheltenham. But I will say no more of it yet. I hope to hear from you again and again before that time. Take care you do not forget poor Witney! Be mindful of your eldest care! I am not content that you should be pinned down to any one place. That is not your calling. Methinks I want you to be (like me) here and there and everywhere. Oh what a deal of work has our Lord to do on the earth! And may we be workers together with Him! What mighty wonders love performs That puts such dignity on worms. Don’t forget me. I think few love you better than, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. [On leaf after the letter:] Now you write like a woman of business. They commonly leave out the I, and say, ’Shall come. Shall do so,’ not I shall. To Miss Bolton, In Witney. To Christopher Hopper GLASGOW, May 14, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Ought such a man as John Horner to starve God forbid that we should suffer it. I beg of you to do these two things: (I) Procure a friend to call his creditors together and state his case. His integrity will easily be shown; and surely, when he has given up his all, they will be willing to clear him. (2) When he is clear, then set on foot a subscription for him. We must needs set him above want. Here are many people in North Britain that ask, Will Mr. Hopper never come to see us again In several places the work of God both widens and deepens. Oh for zealous and active laborers!--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Walter Churchey GLASGOW, May 15, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot but agree with you entirely in respect of John Prickard. Unless he has a clearer call than I apprehend, he ought not to go to America. The reason is plain: there is a greater call for him in Wales than in the Province of New York or Pennsylvania. And there is no call at all in the Northern or Southern Provinces. To go thither is stark, staring madness. But if John has a mind, he may come to the Conference at Bristol and talk with me about it. T. Judson, at No. 11, in Carey Court, Gray’s Inn, is a Christian attorney. I ordered the third epistle to be sent to your sister, and I suppose it was. Your friend Joseph Benson sits at my elbow and is much at your service.--I am, with love to Sister Churchey, Your affectionate brother. PS.--I have seen an exceeding well-wrote book, an Introduction to the Study of the Law, published eleven or twelve years ago, I think, by one Simpson. It is a thin octavo. You should have it if you have it not already. The Conference begins the second week in August. Immediately after it I hope to see you in Brecon. To Mr. Walter Churchey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To his Wife EDINBURGH, May 18, 1774. MY DEAR LOVE,--I am just now come hither from Glasgow, and take this opportunity of writing two or three lines. I desire you would let Mr. Pine have an hundred pounds of that money which is in your hands, provided he gives you his full account first: which I must beg of you to send to London to John Atlay, together with fifty pounds for Mr. Nind, the paper-maker, and fifty pounds for Robert Hawes. There is no use in letting the money lie dead. If I do not administer, I can but pay this again. I am just going to preach, and am in great haste.--My dear Molly, Your affectionate Husband. To Mrs. Mary Wesley, In Bristol. To Mrs. Crosby EDINBURGH, June 3, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I have received an excellent letter from Betsy Ritchie. Her experience seems to be exceeding clear. But her youth will expose her to many temptations within, and her circumstances to many from without. So that you have need tenderly and carefully to watch over her, lest she be moved from her steadfastness. I am persuaded our dear Sister Clapham will not rest until she is conformed in all things to our Head. I have been considering (as our friends so much desire it) whether I could not spend another night at Leeds. And I think I can consider it by taking a night from York. I purpose, God willing, to leave York on Wednesday, July 13; to dine at Leeds that day, and preach there at half-hour past six in the evening. So my horses may stay there till I come. If Wakefield be in the way to Doncaster, I could preach there at nine in the morning, on Thursday, July 14. Wherever the preachers simply and strongly insist upon full salvation, a blessing will attend their word. I was glad to observe a freer intercourse between Miss Bosanquet and you than formerly. If possible, Satan would keep you asunder. Be not ignorant of his devices. Pray speak freely to Duncan Wright. I am afraid he has suffered loss. Peace be with all your spirits!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss J. C. March NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 3, 1774. You are living witness of two great truths: the one, that there cannot be a lasting, steady enjoyment of pure love without the direct testimony of the Spirit concerning it, without God’s Spirit shining on His own work; the other, that setting perfection too high is the ready way to drive it out of the world. A third thing you may learn from your own experience is that the heart of man contains things that one would think incompatible. Such are the tempers and sensations of those especially that are renewed in love. Some of them seem to be quite inconsistent with others; so that, if we give way to reasoning on this head, if we will not believe what God has wrought till we can account for all the circumstances attending it, till we know how these things can be, we shall bewilder ourselves more and more, and Find no end, in wandering mazes lost. I believe one thing which has hurt you is that kind of silence. One use of your present journey may be this: Learn to speak for God without either fear or shame. You have need to be more simple. Look straight forward; eye one thing! Do not consider that you are a woman or a gentlewoman. Do not you bear an higher character What! know you not that your very body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you Therefore glorify God with your body and with your spirit. Give Him the praise that is due unto His name. I am glad you are going to Stroud. It is probable you will see that good young woman, A. Esther. If you do, I hope you will be enabled to encourage her, that she may hold fast the good gift of God. Her experience was exceeding clear when I talked with her last. If possible, guard her against evil reasoning, that she may never let go her simplicity. Peace be with all your spirits! To Elizabeth Ritchie EDINBURGH, June 3, 1774. MY DEAR BETSY,--I shall much want to hear that you stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. It is absolutely certain that you never need lose anything of what God has wrought. He is able and He is willing to give you always what He has once given. He will do it, provided you watch unto prayer and stir up the gift of God which is in you. There is one invariable rule which God observes in all His dealings with the children of men: ’ Unto him that hath,’ uses what he hath, ’ shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly.’ When we are justified, He gives us one talent; to those that use this He gives more. When we are sanctified, He gives, as it were, five talents. And if you use the whole power which is then given, He will not only continue that power but increase it day by day. Meantime be not ignorant of Satan’s devices: he will assault you on every side; he will cast temptations upon you Thick as autumnal leaves that strew the ground. But with every temptation there shall be a way to escape; and you shall be more than conqueror through Him that loves you. You can do, you can suffer His whole will. Go on in His name and in the power of His might; and fulfil the joy of Yours affectionately. To his Wife NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 10, 1774. MY DEAR LOVE,--Last night Billy Smith gave me your letter. I had some time since had an account from John Pawson of what occurred in Bristol between him and you. Your behavior as to the money was admirable. You did yourself much honor thereby. You behaved like a woman of honor, sense, and conscience. O why shoed not you behave so in everything If it were possible for you to observe but one thing, ’Commit your cause unto the Lord, and speak nothing against me behind my back,’ the people in general will love you. Till then they cannot.--I am, my dear Love, Your affectionate Husband. It is believed John Fenwick cannot last twelve hours To Mrs. Wesley, At the Foundery, London. To Miss Lewin WEARDALE, June 12, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--The word of our Lord to you just now is, ’ Open thy mouth wide, and I will fit it.’ Whereunto you have attained hold fast, and the residue of the promises is at hand. Mr. Saunderson is necessarily detained at Edinburgh, being to answer for himself on the 24th instant before the Lord’s Justiciaries. I had the honor myself of being sent to the Tollbooth, and am only out upon bail. Billy Thompson, who travels with me in his stead, will speak to a few more of our friends. I think Miss Rhodes should try, together with constant riding, decoction of nettles every night and morning. In any wise the horses should be broke to go in a chaise. I wish you would send them to Leeds the day that I come. Peace be with your spirits! I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop SUNDERLAND, June 17, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is something strange that I should never hear of your illness till I hear of your recovery. Both the one and other were designed for blessings, and I doubt not have proved so to you. Since I saw you first I have not observed much reason for reproving. But we have all need of advice and exhortation, else we should soon be weary and faint in our minds. It is to be expected that above one half of those who not only profess great things, but actually enjoy the great salvation, deliverance from inbred sin, will nevertheless sooner or later be moved from their steadfastness. Some of them, indeed, will recover what they had lost; others will die in their sins. The observing this should incite us to double watchfulness lest we should fall after their example. The English tongue is derived from the German: in both, the imperfect tense in the indicative mood is generally the same or nearly the same with the participle, and to be distinguished from it by the preceding and following words.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss March SUNDERLAND, June 17, 1774. I am glad you think of me when you do not see me; I was almost afraid it was otherwise. Air and exercise you must have; and if you use constant exercise with an exact regimen, it is not improbable that you will have vigorous health if you live to four- or five-and-thirty. About that time the constitution both of men and women frequently takes an entire turn. At present you are certainly in your place, and you need take no thought for the morrow. The praying much for those we love much is doubtless the fruit of affection, but such an affection as is well pleasing to God and is wrought in us by His own Spirit. Therefore it is certain the intercession that flows from that affection is according to the will of God. That is an exceedingly nice question. ’How far may we desire the approbation of good men’ I think it cannot be proved that such a desire is anywhere forbidden in Scripture. But it requires a very strong influence of the Holy Spirit to prevent its running into excess. Friendship is one species of love; and is, in its proper sense, a disinterested reciprocal love between two persons Wicked persons are, it seems, incapable of friendship. For ’he who fears no God can love no friend.’ Nor, indeed, is every one that fears God capable of friendship. It requires a peculiar turn of mind, without which it can have no being. The properties of Christian friendship are the same as the properties of love; with those which St. Paul so beautifully describes in the 13th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. And it produces as occasions offer, every good word and work. Many have laid down the rules whereby it should be regulated; but they are not to be comprised in a few lines. One is, ’Give up everything to your friend except a good conscience toward God.’ There have undoubtedly been instances of real friendship among Jews, yea and among heathens, who were susceptible of it: but they were by no means wicked men; they were men fearing God and working righteousness according to the dispensation they were under. I apprehend wicked men, under whatever dispensation, to be absolutely incapable of true friendship. By wicked men I mean either men openly profane or men void of justice, mercy, and truth. There may be a shadow of friendship between those, whether of the same or of different sexes. But surely the substance is wanting; in all my experience I have found no exception to this rule. After an acquaintance of four-and-thirty years, I myself cannot have freedom with Miss Johnson. Yet I know not but you may. In most respects she judges truly, although her natural understanding is not strong. Miss Newman’s is: the more you know her the more you will taste her spirit. The others you mention want a little more age and experience; then they might make companions for you. To Hannah Ball SUNDERLAND, June 19, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is next to impossible to retain salvation from sin without having a dear witness of it, especially in time of temptation; they who then lose the witness commonly lose the blessing itself. When you can spare a day or two to visit any of the neighboring Societies, it will be a labor well bestowed. You will always find it a blessing to your own soul, as it is a means of quickening and strengthening others Sometimes I have been a little afraid for my dear Ann Bolton. If she is more engaged than she used to be in temporal things and less in spiritual, she must be something more than human or she will suffer loss, her soul will be flattened thereby. I am afraid lest she should sink into that delicate species of spiritual sloth which some call ’ceasing from our own works.’ I wish she would write more frequently either to me or to you. It might be profitable to her. She has been as a mother in Israel; pity she should ever be less useful. I left Mr. Saunderson behind me in Scotland, but expect to see him at the Conference.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Jonathan Pritchard NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 22, 1774. DEAR JONATHAN,--It appears to me that Mr. Oliver should in a mild and loving manner talk with T. Bennett, and tell him, ’Mr. W. will take it exceeding ill if he does not pay the money according to his promise.’ If he urges any or all the complaints you mention, Mr. O. may readily make the same answers that you do. I can hardly think that T. Bennett has any design to wrong me; but he is stout, and stands upon his honor. Be not weary of well doing. Be glad if you can do a little for God. And do what you can till you can do what you would.--I am, dear Jonathan, Your affectionate brother. Mr. Jon. Pritchard, At Boughton, Near Chester. To Elizabeth Ritchie NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 23, 1774. MY DEAR BETSY,--It gives me pleasure to find that you still stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free, and that in spite of various temptations. And these, indeed, you are still to expect; for Satan neither slumbers nor sleeps, and he will strive to torment if he cannot destroy. Nay, God Himself, as one observes, ’prepareth for thee occasions of fighting, that thou mayest conquer.’ So that you are still called to fight the good fight of faith, and thus to lay hold on eternal life. One admirable help toward conquering all is for believers to keep close together, to walk hand in hand, and provoke one another to love and to good works. And one means of retaining the pure love of God is the exhorting others to press earnestly after it. When you meet on a Sunday morning, I doubt not but this will be the chief matter both of your prayers and conversation. You may then expect to be more and more abundantly endued with power from on high, witnessing that He is faithful and just both to forgive us our tins and also to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.--I remain Yours affectionately. To Joseph Benson NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 28, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--You fell upon Hugh Saunderson without rhyme or reason for contriving to supplant you at Edinburgh; whereas his staying there was not his choice but his cross: he must be there from the 24th instant to the 5th of July. During that time you may make an excursion either north, west, or south. Afterwards you will be fight welcome at Edinburgh. And seeing the people desire it, I cheerfully consent to your staying in that circuit another year. The following year, if you and I live, you may spend in London. Your congregations in Edinburgh are large: Hugh Saunderson’s are larger still. Your preaching, and perhaps mine, has stirred up a sleepy people: his preaching has stirred them up still more. Our conversation has often quickened them: his has quickened them much more. ’But why does God work more by him that has far less sense than we’ To stain the pride of our wisdom. And hence not ’five or six girls’ but ’the generality of the congregation’ prefer his preaching to either yours or mine. They feel therein more of the power of God, though it has less of the wisdom of man. Now, I see more than any single preacher can see, which of the preachers do most good, who have most fruit; and according to this, I form my estimate of them. Pray tell Sister Gow I have her letter, and that both Mr. Thompson and I wholly acquit her. She has neither done nor said anything amiss. Mr. Broadbent blamed her without cause.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Henry Brooke HULL, July 8, 1774. DEAR HARRY,--When I read over in Ireland The Fool of Quality, I could not but observe the deign of it, to promote the religion of the heart, and that it was well calculated to answer that design; the same thing I observed a week or two ago concerning Juliet Grenville. Yet there seemed to me to be a few passages both in the one and the other which might be altered to the better; I do not mean so much with regard to the sentiments, which are generally very just, as with regard to the structure of the story, which seemed here and there to be not quite clear. I had at first a thought of writing to Mr. Brooke himself, but I did not know whether I might take the liberty. Few authors will thank you for imagining you are able to correct their works. But if he could bear it and thinks it would be of any use, I would give another reading to both these works, and send him my thoughts without reserve just as they occur. I admired Miss Brooke for her silence; her look spake, though not her tongue. If we should live to meet again, I should be glad to hear as well as see her--I am Yours. To Francis Wolfe YORK, July 10, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I had set you down for Bristol the next year. But last night I received a letter from John Murlin, and another from Tommy Lewis, desiring he might be there. Pray tell T. Lewis they will have him and two other new preachers, and that I am seeking for an housekeeper. Explicitly press the believers to go on to perfection!--I am, with love to Sister Wolfe, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Wolfe, At the New Room, Bristol. To Ann Bolton [18] LEEDS, July 13, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--At all hazards get an electric machine. It is your bounden duty. You are no more at liberty to throw away your health than to throw away your life. If you disperse the small tracts among the poor people round Finstock, it will continue and deepen their awakening. Your removal from Witney was sufficient to cause slackness among the people. I hope Brother Taylor will recover, if he be plainly and yet tenderly dealt with. You try me when you delay to write; it makes me almost fear your love is grown cold. It is on Monday, August 1, I have appointed to be at Worcester, on Tuesday at Broadmarston, on Thursday at Cheltenham, on Friday at Stroud, on Saturday at Bristol; and I know not how I can see you, unless at one of these places. My love to Neddy.--I am, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Philothea Briggs [YORK], July 13, 1774. I trust all your sorrows are now turned into joy, and you are enabled in everything to give thanks. Go on, trampling upon sin and Satan, and praising Him who hath put all things under your feet. To his Wife YORK, July 15, 1774. MY DEAR,--1. I think it needful to write one letter more in order to state the case between you and me from the beginning. I can’t, indeed, do this so exactly as I would, because I have not either those letters or those parts of my Journal which give a particular account of all circumstances just as they occurred. I have therefore only my memory to depend on; and that is not very retentive of evil. So that it is probable I shall omit abundance of things which might have thrown still more fight on the subject. However, I will do as well as I can, simply relating the fact to the best of my memory and judgement. 2. Before we married I saw you was a well-bred woman of great address and a middling understanding; at the same time I believed you to be of a mild, sweet, even temper. By conversing with you twenty days after we were married I was confirmed in the belief. Full of this, I wrote to you soon after our first parting in the openness and simplicity of my heart. And in this belief I continued after my return till we went down to Kingswood. 3. Here, as I came one morning into your room, I saw a sight which I little expected. You was all thunder and lightning: I stared and listened; said little, and retired. You quickly followed me into the other room, fell upon your knees, and asked my pardon. I desired you to think of it no more, saying, It is with me as if it had never been. In two or three weeks you relapsed again and again, and as often owned your fault, only with less and less concern. You first found we were both in fault, and then all the fault was on my side. 4. We returned to London, and your natural temper appeared more and more. In order to soften it as I could, I tried every method I could devise. Sometimes I reasoned with you at large, sometimes in few words. At other times I declined argument, and tried what persuasion would do. And many times I heard all you said, and answered only by silence. But argument and persuasion, many words and few, speaking and silence, were all one. They made no impression at all. One might as well attempt to convince or persuade the north wind. 5. Finding there was no prevailing upon you by speaking, I tried what writing would do. And I wrote with all plainness; yet in as mild a manner as I could, and with all the softness and tenderness I was master of. But what effect did it produce Just none at all; you construed it all into ill-nature, and was not easily prevailed upon to forgive so high an affront. 6. I think your quarrel with my brother was near this time, which continued about seven years; during two or three of which it was more or less a constant bone of contention between us, till I told you plainly, ’I dare not sit and hear my brother spoken against. Therefore, whenever you begin to talk of him, I must rise and leave the room.’ 7. In the midst of this you drew new matter of offence from my acquaintance with Mrs. Lefevre, a dove-like woman, full of faith and humble love and harmless as a little child. I should have rejoiced to converse with her frequently and largely; but for your sake I abstained. I did not often talk with her at all, and visited her but twice or thrice in two years. Notwithstanding which, though you sometimes said you thought her a good woman, yet at other times you did not scruple to say you ’questioned if I did not lie with her.’ And afterward you seemed to make no question of it. 8. Some time after you took offence at my being so much with Mrs. Blackwell, and was ’sure she did me no good.’ But this blew over, and you was often in a good humor for a week together, till October 1757. Sarah Ryan, the housekeeper at Bristol, then put a period to the quarrel between my brother and you. Meantime she asked me once and again, ’Sir, should I sit and hear Mrs. Wesley talk against you by the hour together’ I said, ’Hear her, if you can thereby do her any good.’ A while after, she came to me and said, ’Indeed, sir, I can bear it no longer. It would wound my own soul.’ Immediately you was violently jealous of her, and required me not to speak or write to her. At the same time you insisted on the ’liberty of opening and reading all letters directed to me.’ This you had often done before: but I still insisted on my own liberty of speaking and writing to whom I judged proper; and of seeing my own letters first, and letting you read only those I saw fit. 9. Sunday, February 25, 1758, you went into my study, opened my bureau, and took many of my letters and papers. But on your restoring most of them two days after, I said, ’Now, my dear, let all that is past be forgotten; and if either of us find any fresh ground of complaint, let us tell it to Mr. Blackwell, or Jo. Jones, or Tho. Walsh, but to no other person whatever.’ You agreed; and on Monday, March 6, when I took my leave of you to set out for Ireland, I thought we had as tender a parting as we had had for several years. 10. To confirm this good understanding, I wrote to you a few days after all that was in my heart. But from your answer I learned it had a quite contrary effect: you resented it deeply; so that for ten or twelve weeks together, though I wrote letter after letter, I received not one line. Meantime you told Mrs. Vigor and twenty more, ’Mr. Wesley never writes to me. You must inquire concerning him of Sarah Ryan; he writes to her every week.’ So far from it, that I did not write to her at all for above twelve weeks before I left Ireland. Yet I really thought you would not tell a willful lie--at least, not in cool blood; till poor, dying T. Walsh asked me at Limerick, ’How did you part with Mrs. W. the last time’ On my saying ’Very affectionately,’ he replied, ’Why, what a woman is this! She told me your parting words were, "I hope to see your wicked face no more." I now saw you was resolved to blacken me at all events, and would stick at no means to accomplish it. Nevertheless I labored for peace; and at my return to Bristol, to avoid grieving you, did not converse with Sarah Ryan (though we were in the same house) twenty minutes in ten days’ time. I returned to London. Soon after, you grew jealous of Sarah Crosby, and led me a weary life, unless I told you every place to which I went and every person I saw there. 11. Perceiving you still rose in your demands, I resolved to break through at once, and to show you I would be my own master, and go where I pleased, without asking any one’s leave. Accordingly on Monday, December 18, I set out for Norwich; the first journey I had taken since we were married without telling you where I was going. [I cannot but add a few words: not by way of reproach, but of advice. God has used many means to curb your stubborn will and break the impetuosity of your temper. He has given you a dutiful but sickly daughter; He has taken away one of your sons. Another has been a grievous cross; as the third probably will be. He has suffered you to be defrauded of much money; He has chastened you with strong pain. And still He may say, ’How long liftest thou up thyself against Me ’Are you more humble, more gentle, more patient, more placable than you was I fear quite the reverse; I fear your natural tempers are rather increased than diminished. O beware lest God give you up to your own heart’s lusts, and let you follow your own imaginations! [Under all these conflicts it might be an unspeakable blessing that you have an husband who knows your temper and can bear with it; who, after you have tried him numberless ways, laid to his charge things that he knew not, robbed him, betrayed his confidence, revealed his secrets, given him a thousand treacherous wounds, purposely aspersed and murdered his character, and made it your business so to do, under the poor pretence of vindicating your own character (whereas of what importance is your character to mankind, if you was buried just now Or if you had never lived, what loss would it be to the cause of God) ;--who, I say, after all these provocations, is still willing to forgive you all; to overlook what is past, as if it had not been, and to receive you with open arms; only not while you have a sword in your hand, with which you are continually striking at me, though you cannot hurt me. If, notwithstanding, you continue striking at me still, what can I, what can all reasonable men think, but that either you are utterly out of your senses or your eye is not single; that you married me only for my money; that, being disappointed, you was almost always out of humor; that this laid you open to a thousand suspicions, which, once awakened, could sleep no more My dear Molly, let the time past suffice. If you have not (to prevent my giving it to bad women) robbed me of my substance too; if you do not blacken me, on purpose that when this breaks out, no one may believe it, stop, and consider what you do. As yet the breach may be repaired; you have wronged me much, but not beyond forgiveness. I love you still, and am as clear from all other women as the day I was born. At length know me, and know yourself. Your enemy I cannot be; but let me be your friend. Suspect me no more; asperse me no more; provoke me no more. Do not any longer contend for mastery, for power, money, or praise. Be content to be a private, insignificant person, known and loved by God and me. Attempt no more to abridge me of the liberty which I claim by the laws of God and man. Leave me to be governed by God and my own conscience. Then shall I govern you with gentle sway, and show that I do indeed love you, even as Christ the Church. To Thomas Rankin [20] EPWORTH, July 21, 1774. DEAR TOMMY,--In yours of May the 30th you give me an agreeable account of your little Conference in Philadelphia. I think G. Shadford and you desire no novelties, but love good old Methodist discipline and doctrine. I have been lately thinking a good deal on one point, wherein perhaps we have all been wanting. We have not made it a rule, as soon as ever persons were justified, to remind them of going on to perfection. Whereas this is the very time preferable to all others. They have then the simplicity of little children, and they are fervent in spirit, ready to cut off the right hand or to pluck out the right eye. But if we once suffer this fervor to subside, we shall find it hard enough to bring them again to this point.--I am, &c. To Christopher Hopper ROTHERHAM, July 25, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--It was not two or three or a few inconsiderable people who desired that Billy Hunter might stay another year at York, but the stewards and the leaders and the most considerable persons both in respect of grace and understanding. I was agreeably surprised by the account they gave of him, as I had conceived him to be not the best, though not the worst, of our preachers. See that Brother Hudson bring all the accounts. Don’t you remember last Conference, on my scrupling his staying another year at Bristol, Jo. Pawson flatly refused to travel at all So I suppose he would do now, were he not to be at Leeds. ’And what should I lose by that’ Nothing. But he might lose more than ever he would regain.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Hopper, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Joseph Benson [22] SHEFFIELD, July 26, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--Certainly an account of the Societies in the Edinburgh Circuit will be expected from you at the Conference. I will then propose the case of Greenock. I am glad you have sent Brother Ferguson the Appeals. I believe Billy Eels might come to you directly, if you wrote to him and to Joseph Cownley. At length I hope good may be done in Scotland, and I incline to prefer your scheme to Dr. Hamilton’s. Three preachers may do better than two, provided they change regularly, according to the plan you lay down. I know not but you must make a private subscription and wire over the cupola. ’Be zealous and humble; but never be still!’--Dear Joseph, adieu! To Elizabeth Ritchie [23] MADELEY, July 31, 1774. MY DEAR BETSY,--It gives me much pleasure to find that you stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. Trials you will have; but they will only be means of uniting you to Him more closely. While your eye is singly fixed on Him your whole body will be full of light. You will be enabled To trace His example, The world to disdain, And constantly trample On pleasure and pain. While you are doing this you will not find many doubts of the way wherein you should go. The unction of the Holy One will shine in your heart and shine upon your path; especially if you frequently consider the Directions for preserving Fervency of Spirit and the Father Thoughts upon Christian Perfection. If you should at any time be in doubt concerning any point either of doctrine or practice, use me as a friend; and speak freely to Yours affectionately. To Joseph Benson [24] BRISTOL, August 8, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--I just snatch time to write two or three lines. Consider the thing thoroughly, and then send me word of the exact circuit wherein three preachers may follow one another. If this be steadily done, I am not without hope that before the next Conference there will be such a flame kindled as has not been seen for some years in poor Scotland. I was sorry to find that Mr. P---was almost discouraged from proceeding in his little labor of love. I commend you for dealing tenderly with him. Certainly he is an honest man, and undoubtedly he is useful in his little way. Pray what becomes of Mrs. L--- Is she gaining or losing ground O Joseph, fight through and conquer all!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Hannah Ball BRISTOL, August 12, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your letters are always pleating to me, as is the writer of them. I hope Mr. Harmer’s preaching in the church will have many good effects. He will prepare the way for Brother Wolfe and his two fellow laborers; all alive to God, simple of heart and of one heart and mind, without any jarring string. And I suppose, by the addition of a third preacher, you will have a traveling preacher every other Sunday. You will love Sister Wolfe: she is an amiable creature, and has done good to the children here. We have made a little beginning for poor Brother W[estrup], which I hope will be some encouragement for others. Walk in the narrowest path of the narrow way, and the Spirit of glory and of Christ shall rest upon you.--I am, my very dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Penelope Newman BRISTOL, August 12, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad to hear that any of our dear friends are refreshed and strengthened. Surely He who loves us will withhold from us no manner of thing that is good! We have not any Minutes of the Conference here; but I have ordered some to be sent down from London. Now be active! Be Patient in bearing ill and doing well. You may improve by everything that occurs, especially by what is grievous to flesh and blood.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss Newman, At Cheltenham. To Mrs. Woodhouse BRISTOL, August 12, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER--It was the particular desire of William Thom that he might labor a little longer with Mr. Robertshaw. He judged it might be of great advantage to his soul; and I believe he was not mistaken. Therefore I have appointed him to be with Mr. Robertshaw in the east of Lincolnshire. I know not whether I had ever so much satisfaction with you before as in my last journey. Indeed, we have not before had such opportunities of conversing together. I was well pleased with your seriousness and your openness. Indeed, why should we hide anything from each other I doubt you have but few near you with whom you can converse to any real advantage. You have need, therefore, to make the best of those, and whenever you meet to provoke one another to love and to good works. The time is short! There is but one step between us and death.--I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Thomas Stedman BRISTOL, August 13, 1774. DEAR SIR,--When I returned to Bristol a few days since, I found your letter of March 26 with those useful discourses of Mr. Orton to the aged, for which I sincerely thank you. I have myself a large collection of letters, chiefly written within these fifty years: but some of them were written much more early, by my father and mother; and one, in the year 1619, I suppose, by my grandmother’s father to her mother not long before their marriage. My mother was Dr. Annesley’s youngest daughter. For near fifty years I have been called to go through evil report and good report; and, indeed, the latter without the former would be ’a test for human frailty too severe.’ But when one balances the other all is well. The north wind prevents the ill effect of the sunshine, and the providence of God has in this respect been highly remarkable. Reproach came first from men of no character, either for learning or religion; next from men who had no pretence to religion, though they had sense and learning; and afterwards from men that were eminent for religion and learning too. But then we were old weather-beaten soldiers, so that a storm of that kind did not affright us; neither did it surprise us at all, as we had long weighed that word, which we know must be fulfilled--’If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household.’ The Journals will conclude the Works. But some have pressed me vehemently to leave out all that relates to the Moravians and all the accounts of demoniacs and apparitions. I cannot yet see it proper to leave out the latter, for the reason given in the last Journal, prefatory to that remarkable account of the young woman at Sunderland. And as to the former, as I never wrote one fine in haste, neither in anger or prejudice, but from my cool and deliberate judgement that it was absolutely necessary to guard the simple from a most specious delusion, I know not but the same cautions may be of use to others when I am no more seen.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To John Bredin BRISTOL, August 28, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have deeply considered the state of Scotland, and have stationed the preachers thus: Edinburgh--Jos. Benson, Wm. Eels, John Bredin. Dundee--Thos. Rutherford, Jo. Wittam, P. Milne. Aberdeen--Robert Wilkinson, Jam. Watson. If the preachers sit still this year, as they have done hitherto, I will send no more of them into Scotland. I cannot do it with a clear conscience. It is destroying both their soul and body. I hope it will not be long before all the preachers stationed in Scotland reach their appointed places. The staying too long before they get into their circuits has been attended with many inconveniences. It is well that Jamey Watson is come to Aberdeen. Pray tell him, if we live till another Conference, we will repay what he is now obliged to borrow for necessaries. And I trust Brother Wilkinson and he will regularly attend the northern Societies. Then they will increase (perhaps more than any others) both in number and strength.--I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. John Bredin, At Mr. W. Smith’s, Writer, in Aberdeen. To Mr. -------- BRISTOL, August, 28, 1774. DEAR BILLY,--I beg of you to go without delay to the Isle of Purbeck for a week or two. You are to go to Mr. William Ingram’s at Corfe; where, if you go soon, you will meet Brother Saunderson. He writes me word that a door is opened all over the island, although there are many adversaries, but the bridle is in their mouth. Perhaps it would be best for you to go by Salisbury, and to tell John Undrell I desire he would follow you. Take particular care of the little, weak infant Societies. And see what books they want--I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride TAUNTON, August 29, 1774. Alas! Alas! You have now confirmed beyond all contradiction what many of our preachers, as many as have had any intercourse with you, alleged concerning you. I am persuaded, had I read your last letter (that of the 17th instant) at the Conference, condemning, with such exquisite bitterness and self-sufficiency, men so many degrees better than yourself, the whole Conference as one man would have disclaimed all connection with you. I know not what to do. You know not what spirit you are of. Therefore there is small hope of cure. I have no heart to send you anywhere. You have neither lowliness nor love. What can I say or do more To Mr. ------- TAUNTON, August 29, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Very probably Mr. Bentley is gone abroad. If so, we shall hear of him among our Societies in America. His sister should take good care of his effects till she hears of him again. To Mrs. Pim you should speak strong words of consolation. Don’t try to reason with her; but tell her flatly, ’The devil is a liar. God loves you. Christ loves you. He will help you. Look up, and He will help you now.’ Then wrestle with Him in prayer for her. Faith will prevail. [There] is the same remedy and no other for the [person] you speak of. But this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. It is best for you to spend some time with me, Eternal Providence, exceeding thought, When none appears can make itself a way. Sometimes that drowsiness is not natural but diabolical; in that case it is commonly taken away in a moment. When it is natural, cold bathing is of use.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Ritchie PENZANCE, September 1, 1774. MY DEAR BETSY,--It is an admirable Providence which keeps you thus weak in body till your soul has received more strength. It is good that you should feel how very helpless you are, that you may hang upon Him continually. Are you always sensible of His presence In what sense do you pray without ceasing Can you in everything give thanks And have you a witness in yourself that all you say and do is well-pleasing to Him Could you but use constant exercise in the open air, I think you would need no other medicine. But it is certain, be your body well or ill, all is best as long as your soul is stayed on Him. And why should not this be without any intermission till your spirit returns to God--nay, with a continual increase For this is your calling to sink deeper and deeper into Him, out of His fullness to receive more and more, till you know all that love of God that passeth knowledge. I hope you do not pass any day without spending some time in private exercises. What do you read at those seasons Do you read, as it were, by chance Or have you a method in reading I want you to make the best use that is possible of every means of improvement. Now is the time! Now you have the fervor of youth on your side. Now animal nature is in perfection. Now your faculties are in their vigor. And happy are you, who have been enabled to begin your race betimes! I hope you are just now minding this one thing --looking unto Jesus, and pressing on to the mark, to the prize of our high calling! O run, and never fire! So shall your love and zeal always be a comfort to Yours affectionately. To Mary Bishop BRISTOL, September 13, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--The difference between heaviness and darkness of soul (the wilderness state) should never be forgotten. Darkness (unless in the case of bodily disorder) seldom comes upon us but by our own fault. It is not so with respect to heaviness, which may be occasioned by a thousand circumstances, such as frequently neither our wisdom can foresee nor our power prevent. It seems your trial was of the latter kind; perhaps, too, it was partly owing to the body. But of whatsoever kind it was, you may profit thereby: it need not leave you as it found you. Remember the wise saying of Mr. Dodd, ’It is a great loss to lose an affliction.’ If you are no better for it, you lose it. But you may gain thereby both humility, seriousness, and resignation. I think the seldom you hear the Moravians the better. I should have heard them two or three times in a year; and perhaps I might have done it without any hurt. But others would have been emboldened by my example to hear them. And if any of these had been destroyed thereby their blood would have been upon my head. Some have lately advised me to omit what relates to them in the present edition of my Journals. So I would if the evil were removed. But I have no reason to believe it is. I never found them acknowledge any one fault. And without this there can be no amendment. On Wednesday the 21st instant I hope to see you at Bath on my way to Bradford. I purpose preaching about noon, and dining at one with the person who lives opposite to Brother Hemmings.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To Captain Richard Williams [27] BRISTOL, September 13, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad to hear of the present prosperity of the work of God among you. Now let every one of you stir himself up before the Lord! And press his neighbor (friend or stranger) to rush on and grasp the prize! Fifty yards square (allowing five to a yard, which is the lowest computation) will contain twelve thousand five hundred persons But here they stood far beyond the edge of the pit on all sides. Future things belong unto the Lord. I know He will do all things well; and therein I rest. As to the things which I do not understand, I let them alone. Time will show.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Miss March BRISTOL, September 16, 1774. I believe my displeasure at you is not likely to rise to any great height. It will hardly have time; for I should tell you very soon of anything which I did not like. You want more simplicity. I will give you the first instance that occurs of that simplicity which I mean. Some years since, a woman sitting by me fell into strong convulsions, and presently began to speak as in the name of God. Both her look, motions, and tone of voice were peculiarly shocking. Yet I found my mind as ready to receive what she said, as if she had spoken with the look, motion, and accent of Cicero. ’Unprofitable; far from edifying.’ Nay; but this does not go to the bottom of the matter. Why is that unprofitable to me which is edifying to others Remember that remark in the Thoughts on Christian Perfection: If one grain of prejudice be in my mind, I can receive no profit from the preacher. Neither in this case can I form a fight judgement of anything a person says or does. And yet it is possible this prejudice may be innocent, as springing from the unavoidable weakness of human understanding. I doubt not Mr. Murlin will be of use to many. He has much sense and much grace, together with uncommon activity and patience; and wherever he goes the work of God prospers in his hand. Bishop Browne thought Arianism and Socinianism were the flood which the dragon is in this age pouring out of his mouth to swallow up the woman. Perhaps it may; especially with Dr. Taylor’s emendation. But still the main flood in England seems to be Antinomianism. This has been a greater hindrance to the work of God than any or all others put together. But God has already lifted up His standard, and He will maintain His own cause. In the present dispensation He is undoubtedly aiming at that point, to spread holiness over the land. It is our wisdom to have this always in view, inward and outward holiness. A thousand things will be presented by men and devils to divert us from our point. These we are to watch against continually, as they will be continually changing their shape. But let your eye be single; aim still at one thing --holy, loving faith, giving God the whole heart. And incite all to this: one love, one present and eternal heaven. To Joseph Benson BRISTOL, September 18, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--Your last proposal is incomparably the best: I approve of it entirely. Without consulting any at Dunbar (which would only puzzle the cause), immediately begin to put it in execution. Let the preacher go to Ormiston on Wednesday, Dunbar on the Thursday, and return to Edinburgh by Linton on Friday, every week. At present we sate them with preaching. It will be best to keep an horse; then both your health and your soul will prosper. If William Eels crawls in at last, send him directly to Aberdeen. And you should be preparing to change with John Bredin. I wish Dr. Hamilton would send me the receipt for extracting the opiate from sow-thistles, and give me some account of its effects.--I am, dear Joseph, Your ever affectionate friend and brother. PS.--I left ninety members in the Society; I hope there are not fewer now. To Mrs. Crosby BRISTOL, September 26, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you have been with James Oddie and Sister Merryweather I hope their souls will revive. It is of great importance that you should be upon as good terms as may be with the preachers in every place. And everywhere [tell them] to preach in the morning; else they will do little good either to themselves or others. A fortnight longer I stay here, and then move toward London. My disorder is no hindrance to me, only that my friends will not let me ride on horseback. Now and then I break through a little, where the roads are not convenient for wheels. You are called to do all you can, be it more or less. And the more we do the more we feel how little it is. While I was in Wales my best friend (as my brother terms her) went to London, and has hired part of an house in Hoxton, professing she would never more set foot in Bristol house or in the Foundery. Good is the will of the Lord! ’I cannot choose. He cannot err.’ Your advice is good. I desire to follow it; and am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, October 1, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I hope to be at Wallingford on Monday the 17th instant; Tuesday, the 18th at noon, in Oxford; at five or six in the evening at Finstock; and on Wednesday evening at Witney. There is no exercise more profitable to the soul than that of the presence of God. It is likewise of great use constantly and invariably to attend to His inward voice. And yet there is a danger even in this --nay, there is a twofold danger: it is very possible, on the one hand, that you may insensibly slide into Quietism, may become less zealous of good works; on the other hand, that you may slide into Stoicism, may suffer loss as to the love of your neighbor, particularly as to that tender affection towards your friends, which does not weaken but strengthen the soul. Shall I speak freely I must when I speak to you: it is quite natural. I am afraid lest you have already suffered some loss with regard to this amiable temper. Otherwise whence arises this general complaint of your not answering their letters Oh who can be sufficiently upon their guard against Satan coming with his angel face! I want you to be exactly right in all things. You have often been a great comfort to me; but you have scarce given any pain (unless by your own pain) to, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Martha Chapman BRISTOL, October 6, 1774. My DEAR SISTER,--On Monday se’nnight, the 17th of this month, I hope to be at Wallingford; and at High Wycombe, as usual, on the Thursday following. When you have time, you would do well to write down the particular circumstances of your conversion to God. The more closely we are united to Him, the more nearly we shall be united to each other. I cannot doubt but He will make Mr. Wolfe an instrument of good to many of His children. He is simple of heart, and much devoted to God; and, indeed, so is his wife also. Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Barton BRISTOL, October 8, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is exceeding certain that God did give you the second blessing, properly so called. He delivered you from the root of bitterness, from inbred as well as actual sin. And at that time you were enabled to give Him all your heart, to rejoice evermore, and to pray without ceasing. Afterwards He permitted His work to be tried, and sometimes as by fire. For a while you were not moved, but could say in all things, ’ Good is the will of the Lord.’ But it seems you gave way by little and little till you were in some measure shorn of your strength. What have Brother Barton and you to do but to arise at once and shake yourselves from the dust Stir up the gift of God that is in you! Look unto Him that is mighty to save! Is He not able in every sense to turn your captivity He has not forgotten to be gracious; neither will He shut up His loving-kindness in displeasure. He is a God nigh at hand. Only believe; and help, while yet you ask, is given! Trust in Him and conquer all.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, October 16, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--I have written to Dr. Hamilton that Brother Eels must go to Aberdeen, and Edinburgh and Dunbar must be supplied by one preacher. They should have thought of preaching in the churchyard before. While I live itinerant preachers shall be itinerants; I mean, if they choose to remain in connection with us. The Society in Greenock are entirely at their own disposal: they may either have a preacher between them and Glasgow or none at all. But more than one between them they cannot have. I have too much regard both for the bodies and souls of our preachers to let them be confined to one place any more. I hope John Bredin will punctually observe your direction, spending either three days or a week at each place alternately. I have weighed the matter and will serve the Scots as we do the English or leave them. I wish you would write a letter to John Campbell and another to R. Mackie, and argue the case with them. If John Bredin does not go to Greenock, let him (or his successor) spend half his time at Dunbar; then a preacher may be constantly at Edinburgh. But give me only six days in a fortnight there, and I will visit all the Society from house to house.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Gair LONDON, November 5, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--With regard to you, the great danger is that you should forsake the sacred channels of His grace. Only abide in the way. Read, meditate, pray as you can, though not as you would. Then God will return and abundantly lift up the light of His countenance upon you. With regard to Brother Gair, it is not unlikely that the impression he feels is really from God. I think he might make a trial as a local preacher; and probably God would confirm the word of His messenger.--I am, dear Becky, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball SHOREHAM, November 28, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--It gives me great pleasure whenever it is in my power to assist you in anything. I love you for your openness and simplicity and for your desire to do the whole will of God. I think there need be no reserve between Brother Wolfe and you. He is of a truly childlike spirit. And the more you labor the more blessing you will find. Go on; run, and never tire. I hear the good account of two young maidens who have lately joined the Society. I do not doubt but you will watch over them that they turn not again to folly. See that you warn every one and exhort every one that you may present every one perfect in Christ Jesus.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss Ball, At Mr. Thomas Ball’s, In High Wycombe. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ [LONDON November 28, 1774.] SIR,--Some years since, a gentleman published ’An exact translation of the Koran of Mahomet,’ with a deign to contrast it with the Bible, and show how far preferable it was; consequently how greatly Mahometanism was preferable to Christianity. As this had not all the desired effect, another gentleman has lately published an exact translation of the Koran of Indostan, of the Shastah of Bramah, undoubtedly with the charitable deign to contrast this with the Bible, and to show how great is the pre-eminence of Indian Paganism over Christianity. Letting alone a thousand wonderful assertions scattered up and down his work, I would only at present (1) give an extract from this curious book in the words of this writer; (2) examine what he says concerning the antiquity of it and of the nations that hold it sacred; (3) observe some instances of this author’s esteem for the Bible; adding some cursory remarks. And, first, I am to give an extract from this curious book. ’The rebellious angels groaned in hell for four hundred and twenty-six millions of years. After this, God relented. He then retired into Himself and became invisible to all the angels for five thousand years. Then He appeared again, and said, "Let the fifteen regions of punishment and purification appear for the residence of the rebellious angels, and let them be brought from hell to the lowest of these regions." And it was so. And He prepared bodies for their closer confinement, and said, "Herein they shall undergo eighty-seven transmigration’s for their punishment and purgation. Then they shall animate the form of a cow, and afterward the form of man. This is their eighty-ninth transmigration. If they now have any good works, they shall pass from earth into the second region of punishment and purgation, and so successively through the eight, and then through the ninth, which is the first region of purification."’ Accordingly, ’The souls that animate every mortal form, whether of man, beast, bird, fish, or insect, are fallen angels in a state of punishment.’ ’When God began to create the world, He fought with two giants for five thousand years. Then He commanded His first-born creature, Birmah, to create the fifteen regions of punishment and purgation. And Birmah straightway formed a leaf of Betel, and thereon floated on the abyss. Then Bistnow, His second-made creature, transformed himself into a mighty boar, and, descending into the abyss, brought up the earth on his back. Then issued from him a mighty tortoise and a mighty snake, and he put the snake erect on the back of the tortoise, and put the earth on the snakes head.’ ’The world is to continue six millions of years in all, of which 359,126 are to come.’ Such is the substance of the Shastah; far more wonderful than the Tales of the Fairies. This Mr. H--- gravely styles the Word of God, and seems to believe every word of it. As to the origin of it, we are told, ’Four thousand eight hundred and seventy-four years ago an angel received the laws of God, written in the language of angels, came down to Indostan, and, assuming an human form, translated them into the language of the country, calling them Chartah Bhade Shastah of Bramah--that is, the four Scriptures of divine words of the Mighty Spirit, which he promulged as the only means of salvation.’ I am, secondly, to examine what is said on the antiquity of this and of the nations that hold it sacred. ’For a thousand years the Shastah remained pure; but then it was corrupted by a bad paraphrase; and still more about five hundred years after, which was 3,374 years ago.’ But what proof have we of this Why, ’This account we have had from some of the Bramins and from the most learned of the Laity. And in the earliest ages the Bramins were famed for their wisdom by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity.’ Pray cite a few testimonies from authors that wrote four or five thousand years ago. We know of none such. If we except the Bible, we know of no book that is three thousand years old. And we see no reason to think that letters have been in use so much as four thousand years. If ’Zoroaster and Pythagoras did visit them about the time of Romulus’ (which I do not allow), what then Romulus did not live three thousand years ago; and Zoroaster a late author has sufficiently proved to be no other than Moses himself. The antiquity, therefore, of the Shastah is utterly uncertain, being unsupported by any clear authority. Equally doubtful is the antiquity of that empire. Nay, ’ Indostan, by their own account, was peopled as early as most other parts of the known word.’ But who can rely on their own accounts This authority is just none at all. But ’the first invaders of it found the inhabitants a potent, civilized, wise, and learned people: Alexander the Great found it so.’ No. Arrian and Q. Curtius (the only writers who give us the particulars of that expedition) say quite the contrary. But ’the Gentoo records affirm it, which mention the invasion of a great and mighty robber.’ I answer (1) How is it proved this was Alexander the Great There have been more great and mighty robbers than him. But if it was, (2) Of what antiquity was he who died little above two thousand years since (3) Of what authority are the Gentoo records As much as the visions of Mirza. But ’these doctrines were universally professed by the Gentoos, some thousand years before Christ; and the Metempsychosis was held in the most early ages by at least four-fifths of the earth; and the Gentoos were eminently distinguished in the most early times.’ Roundly asserted: but that is not enough; a little proof would do well. Here it is at last. ’The Gentoos admit no proselytes to their faith or worship. This proves their great antiquity.’ I know not how: the consequence halts sadly. But see another argument. ’This is also proved by the perpetuity of their doctrine through a succession of so many ages.’ Right, when that succession is proved. A third proof! ’ Pythagoras took his doctrines from them, which the Egyptians took from him.’ I am an infidel as to both these facts till I see some proof of them. His true doctrines I believe Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians, and they from the Israelites. I come, in the third place, to observe some instances of this writer’s esteem for the Bible. ’We profess ourselves’ says he, ’an unworthy though zealous subscriber to the pure, original Scriptures.’ But for fear you should believe him, he immediately adds, ’and propagate no system but what coincides with every religious creed that has been or is now professed throughout the known world.’ Why, are there not an hundred religious creeds now in the word that are taffy contradictory to each other How, then, can your system coincide with them all Certainly you do not understand the word. But if it coincides both with Paganism and Mahometanism, it does not with Christianity. For you everywhere strike at the root of those Scriptures on which alone it is built. This I shall briefly show both with regard to Moses, the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament. As to the first, ’Moses’ detail of the Creation and Fall of Man is clogged with too many incomprehensible difficulties to gain our belief.’ (Add, for decency’s sake, ’that it can be understood literally.’) Hence his anger at Milton’s diabolical conceits’; because he has shown that detail in all its parts to be not only simple, plain, and comprehensible, but consistent with the highest reason, and altogether worthy of God. Again: ’To suppose the Indians less the care of God than the Israelites,’--that is, to suppose He ever had a peculiar people, or that He regarded the seed of Jacob more than that of Esau,--‘this would arraign His justice.’ Then what is Moses, who perpetually supposes this throughout the whole Pentateuch As to the Law: ‘Nothing but the devil himself’ (insert, for decency, ’the Bramins say’) ’could have invented bloody sacrifices, so manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorrent to’ (it should be abhorred by) ’God.’ This is an home thrust at the Mosaic Law, wherein without shedding of blood there was no remission. Therefore with him it is ’manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorred by God.’ As to the Prophets: ’Gods prescience’ (so he affirms) ’of the actions of free agents is utterly repugnant and contradictory to the very nature and essence of free agency.’ If so, the inference is plain: the Prophets were all a pack of impostors; for it is certain they all pretended to foretell the actions of free agents. And this strikes at the New Testament also, wherein there are numerous Prophecies. But here, indeed, the mask quite falls off. He laughs at ’the reveries of Paul’ (well he might! how unlike those of his apostle, Bramah!); and tells us in plain terms ’that only the words of Christ Himself are the pure, original Scriptures.’ Nay, herein he allows too much; for some of His words foretell the actions of free agents. And lest we should urge the death of the Martyrs in favor of Christianity, we are told (which he that can believe may), ’The contempt of death is the character of the Gentoo nation. Every Gentoo meets death with a steady, noble, and philosophical resignation.’ And yet ’the Gentoos in general are as degenerate, crafty, and wicked a people as any in the known world.’ To complete the contrast between the doctrines of our Bible and his Bible, the Shastah he adds: ’The fundamental points of Religion were impressed on the heart of man at his creation; and he never has and never will be able to efface them. These primitive truths are: (1) the being of a God, the Creator and Preserver of all things; (2) the existence of three prime created beings; (3) the creation of angels; (4) the rebellion of part of them; (5) their fall from heaven; (6) the immortally of the soul; (7) future rewards and punishments; (8) that one angel tempted the other angel, and now tempts men; (9) the necessity of one, or more Mediators, for the expiation of sin; (10) an intermediate state of punishment and purification after death; (11) the existence of a golden age, wherein men used no animal food; and (12) the ministration of angels. These were the primitive truths revealed by God to man, and the only ones necessary to man’s salvation!’ Is not this inimitable Hither, ye Eastern Bramins, come! Hither, ye Western Locusts, Monks of Rome! Behold the frontless, all-imposing man, And match him with your Priestcraft if ye can. Are these twelve articles of his creed the fundamental points of religion in particular, that men and brutes are devils incarnate and are to be in purgatory after death And are they all so ’impressed on the heart of every man as never to be effaced’ Why, they never were impressed on my heart yet; several of them I no more believe than I do the Koran. I never have met with an American Indian who believed one half of them; nor with an uninstructed African who believed one of them unless, perhaps, the being of a God. And is the belief of all these (fundamental point, indeed!) ’necessary to man’s salvation’ I cannot but repeat the observation, wherein experience confirms me more and more, that they who disbelieve the Bible will believe anything. They may believe Voltaire! They may believe the Shastah! They may believe a man can put himself into a quart bottle! To John Simpson LONDON, November 28, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Read over, with earnest, humble prayer, Mr. Fletcher’s three Checks, and I think you will see things clearly. Or read the Farther Appeal, in the beginning of which those points are clearly stated. You ask: (1) Are any persons mentioned in the New Testament as seeking faith who have not found it Certainly there are. ’Seek, and ye shall find.’ They had not found it yet. And every man must seek for the good pearl before he can find it. But the word ’seeker’ you do not use. (2) Is anything proposed to a convinced sinner in Scripture, but to believers only Yes. How readest thou ’Cease from evil, learn to do well’; or God will not give you faith. ’Bring forth fruits meet for repentance’; otherwise you are never likely to believe. (3) Ought every unbeliever to pray or communicate Yes. ’Ask, and it (faith) shall be given you.’ And if you believe Christ died for guilty, helpless sinners, then eat that Bread and drink of that Cup. The Philistines are upon thee, Samson! Beware the Lord do not depart from thee! I am afraid, in confidence of your own strength, you have been disputing with some subtle Antinomian, and he has confounded your intellects. Talk with him no more, at the peril of your soul, and beware of their pernicious books. You have been warned by me; now, escape for your life!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Sarah James [29] SHOREHAM, November 29, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not love you because you are without faults, but because you are desirous of being delivered from them. And I trust you will now find a great deliverance in a little time. For you are now taken into God’s school, into the school of affliction. The continued weakness and distress of Mrs. James (nay, and I fear Mr. James is not much better) is designed to humble and meeken your soul, to keep you dead to all below, and to teach you that grand lesson to say in all things, ’Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ Only carry this point, and then I am not solicitous whether you have joy or not. See, the Lord thy Keeper stand Omnipotently near! Lo! He holds thee by thy hand, And banishes thy fear. Thou, poor sinner stay not to be any better, but take Him just as you are. Trust Him, praise Him now! The Lord take you with His sweet force! and then you will not forget, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Miss Sally James, In St. James Barton, Bristol. To Elizabeth Ritchie SHORRHAM, November 29, 1774. MY DEAR BETSY,--It gives me pleasure to hear that you have recovered your health. If you find any fresh illness, you should let me know; we must not neglect the body, although the main thing is an healthful mind. There are many excellent things in Madame Guyon’s works, and there are many that are exceedingly dangerous. The more so because the good things make way for the mischievous ones. And it is not easy unless for those of much experience, to distinguish the one from the other. Perhaps, therefore, it might be safest for you chiefly to confine yourself to what we have published. You will then neither be perplexed with various sentiments nor with various language; and you will find enough on every head of religion, speculative or practical. I know not whether any method of reading would be more profitable than to read a chapter of the Old Testament with the Notes every morning; and every evening a chapter, or at least a section, in the New Testament. At other times of the day I advise you to read our works regularly from the beginning; marking any tract or part of a tract which you find most useful, that you may make it matter of meditation. Some of the most useful to believers are Mr. Law’s tracts, the Lives of Mr. Brainerd, De Renty, and Thomas Walsh, the tracts translated from the French, and those upon Christian Perfection. I am glad you have been with our dear sister Crosby. Converse as much as you can with those of her spirit; they are the excellent ones of the earth. You must not give place--no, not for a day--to inactivity. Nothing is more apt to grow upon the soul; the less you speak or act for God the less you may. If elder persons do not speak, you are called, like Elihu, to supply this lack of service. Whether you are young or old is not material: speak, and spare not! Redeem the time! Be fervent in spirit! Buy up every opportunity; and be always a comfort to Yours affectionately. To the Authors of the ’Monthly Review’ REIGATE, November 30, 1774. GENTLEMEN,--I can easily believe what your correspondent affirms (Review, October 1774), that there are some slave-holders who have a little humanity left, and that the Georgian laws sell the blood of one slave only to each master, and prescribe the instruments wherewith he is to torture the rest. What is still the general spirit of American slave-holders is observed in a letter from Philadelphia now before me. As a farther influence of the inhumanity with which the poor Negroes are treated, I will add two advertisements published in the public papers, one of Virginia, the other of North Carolina:-- From the Williamsburg Gazette ’Run away on the 10th instant, a lusty Negro, named Bob---.The said fellow is outlawed, and I will give ten pounds reward for his head severed from his body, and forty shillings if brought alive.’ From one of the North Carolina newspapers. ’Ran away last November, from the subscriber, a Negro fellow, named Yeb; aged thirty-six. As he is outlawed, I will pay twenty pounds currency to any person who shall produce his head severed from his body, and five pounds if brought home alive. John Mosely.’ --I am, gentlemen, Your very humble servant. To Mary Bishop [31] REIGATE, November 30, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--We so become all things to all, as not to hurt our own souls, when we first secure a single eye, a steady design, to please all for their good to edification, and then take care that our discourse be always good to the use of edifying and such as may minister grace to the hearers. But in order to this we have need of power from on high and of the wisdom that sitteth by the throne. This alone can give us to order our conversation aright, so as to profit both others and our own souls. Before this can effectually be done, you must conquer your natural reserve, and exercise it only to those of whom you know nothing at all or of whom you know nothing good. Perhaps there is one occasion more on which it will be highly expedient, if not necessary--namely, when good persons (at least in some measure so) sink beneath their character, trifle away time, or indulge themselves in a conversation which has no tendency to improve either the speaker or the hearer. I think it will not be best for you to go out less than you ever did. Suppose you have more faith and more love (as I would fain think you have), you certainly ought to go out more. Otherwise your faith will insensibly die away. It is by works only that it can be made perfect. And the more the love of solitude is indulged the more it will increase. This is a temptation common to men. In every age and country Satan has whispered to those who began to taste the powers of the world to come (as well as to Gregory Lopez), ’Au desert!’ Au desert! Most of our little flock at Oxford were tried with this, my brother and I in particular. Nay, but I say, ’To the Bible! To the Bible!’ And there you will learn, ’as you have time, to do good unto all men’: to warn every man, to exhort every man as you have opportunity; although the greatest part of your care and labor should be laid out on those that are of the household of faith. Certainly you may continually do good to others without any ways endangering the salvation of your own soul. What at present you much want is simplicity, in the Archbishop of Cambray’s sense of the word: that grace ’whereby the soul casts off all unnecessary reflections upon itself.’ I wish I could say of you, as I did of a young person many years ago, when I sent her his little book,-- In art, in nature, can we find Colors to picture thee Speak, Cambray’s pen, for Sally’s mind; She is simplicity. --I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To Philothea Briggs REIGATE, November 30, 1774. It is certain God hath given you a talent; and I still think it ought to be used. I grant, indeed, to be hid and to be still is more agreeable to flesh and blood; but is it more agreeable to Him who left us an example that we might tread in His steps You have just now particular reason to remember His kingdom ruleth over all. Thou on the Lord rely, so safe shalt thou go on; Fix on His work thy steadfast eye, so shall thy work be done. No profit canst thou gain by self-consuming care; To Him commend thy cause, His ear attends the softest prayer. To Miss March REIGATE, November 30, 1774. You are in the safer extreme. When I formerly removed from one college to another, I fixed my resolution not to be hastily acquainted with any one; indeed, not to return any visit unless I had a reasonable hope of receiving or doing good therein. This my new neighbors generally imputed to pride; and I was willing to suffer the imputation. I ’sum up the experience’ of persons, too, in order to form their general character. But in doing this we take a different way of making our estimate. It may be you chiefly regard (as my brother does) the length of their experience. Now, this I make little account of; I measure the depth and breadth of it. Does it sink deep in humble, gentle love Does it extend wide in all inward and outward holiness If so, I do not care whether they are of five or five-and-thirty years’ standing. Nay, when I look at Miss Betsy Briggs or Miss Philly Briggs, I am ready to hide my face: I am ashamed of having set out before they were born. Undoubtedly Miss Johnson is deep in grace, and lives like an angel here below. Yet some things in her character I do not admire; I impute them to human frailty. Many years ago I might have said, but I do not now, Give me a woman made of stone, A widow of Pygmalion. And just such a Christian one of the Fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus describes; but I do not admire that description now as I did formerly. I now see a Stoic and a Christian are different characters; and at some times I have been a good deal disgusted at Miss Johnson’s apathy. When God restores our friends to us, we ought to rejoice; it is a defect if we do not. In that and several other instances I take knowledge of Sarah Ryan’s littleness of understanding: and this, as well as our temper, we ought to improve to the utmost of our power; which can no otherwise be done than by reading authors of various kinds as well as by thinking and conversation. If we read nothing but the Bible, we should hear nothing but the Bible; and then what becomes of preaching Many people have clear conceptions of a few things, concerning which they judge and reason. But they have no clear ideas of other things. So, if they reason about them, they stumble at every step. None can have general good sense unless they have clear and determinate ideas of all things. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, December 3, 1774. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The case of Liverpool house has puzzled us all. But I know you have a little common sense. Therefore I give you a carte blanche. Settle it how you please, and I will subscribe to it. I know no married preacher that [was] sent from Liverpool into the North of Ireland. I suppose Brother Sweeny is in the South; but on that express condition that neither his wife nor children shall be any expense to us at all. But still there will be growing families, unless we forbid to marry. Five-and-twenty years ago ten pounds a year was more than twelve now. We are really a company of poor gentlemen. But we have food and raiment and content.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson SEVENOAKS, December 12, 1774. DEAR JOSEPH,--You know Dr. Hamilton imagined great good would be done by the preaching in the churchyard at Dunbar. If it does not answer ought not the Dunbar preacher to serve all the country places, that the Edinburgh preacher may have the more time to spend there, which is of far greater importance It is the Scots only whom, when they like a preacher, would choose to have him continue with them Not so; but the English and Irish also—yea, all the inhabitants of the earth. But we know our calling. The Methodists are not to continue in any one place under heaven. We are all called to be itinerants. Those who receive us must receive us as such. And if the Scots will not, others will. Brother Watkinson is welcome to those books, and any other which he thinks would be useful to him.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, December 19, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I do not see any valid objection against inoculation either from prudence or religion. But I wonder to hear you talk of preparation. It is now quite out of use. Experience has shown in ten thousand instances that all preparation is needless, if not hurtful. Only the preparation of the heart, prayer, and self-devotion, this is now peculiarity needful. I commend you and your dear nieces (whom I love for your sake and for their own) to Him that is able to save both their souls and bodies; and am, my dear sister. Your very affectionate brother. To Miss Ball, At Mr. Thos. Ball’s, In High Wycombe. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, December 24, 1774. DEAR TOMMY,--I think you acted exactly right with regard to Peter Mill. If we live till another Conference, I purpose transplanting him into England. I judge he will be an useful preacher. My new coachman is dead; so Joseph Bradford cannot persuade himself to leave me. And your Scots are such terrible critics that few of our preachers care to venture among them. I do not despair of Mrs. Greig yet. She is not incurable. I am glad you are gone to Aberdeen. Take care of the country Societies.--I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. To Miss March LONDON, December 27, 1774. A few minutes I spent with Miss M---- when she was in town two or three years ago. She seemed to be of a soft, flexible temper, and a good deal awakened. From her letters I should judge that she had still many convictions and strong desires to be a real Christian. At the same time it is plain she is surrounded with hindrances and is sometimes persuaded to act contrary to her conscience. It is extremely difficult to advise a person in such circumstances what to do. Methinks the first thing I would advise her to, at all events, is, ’Do nothing against your conscience. 2. At a proper opportunity, after praying for courage, tell your lady you scruple such and such things. And I doubt not but she will take effectual care that no one shall press you on those heads.’ Leaving her place is the last step to be taken if she finds she cannot save her soul therein. You know it is very natural for me to estimate wisdom and goodness by years, and to suppose the longest experience must be the best. But, although there is much advantage in long experience and we may trust an old soldier more than a novice, yet God is tied down to no rules; He frequently works a great work in a little time. He makes young men and women wiser than the aged; and gives to many in a very shorn time a closer and deeper communion with Himself than others attain in a long course of years. Betsy and Philly Briggs are witnesses. They have borne huge contradiction; and Philly has stood such shocks as might have overset some of the most established souls we have in London. There is a great calmness and meekness in Betty Johnson; but I want more softness and tenderness; I want more of human mingled with the divine. Nay, sometimes I want it in Miss March too. But I do not call that warmth anger--at least, not sinful anger; perhaps it would be culpable to be without it. I desire no apathy in religion; a Christian is very far from a Stoic. In every case, the last appeal must be made to our own conscience. Yet our conscience is far from being an infallible guide, as every wrong temper tends to bribe and blind the judge. To Elizabeth Briggs LONDON, December 28, 1774. MY DEAR BETSY,--You have done what you could in this matter and ’angels can do no more.’ I am glad you tried; by-and-by she may see more clearly. I am always glad to hear from you, whether you have time to write accurately or not. And I love that you should tell me both what you feel and what you do; for I take part in all. I doubted not but you would find a blessing at this solemn season: see that you strengthen each other’s hands in God. I should be glad to see both or either of you when it is convenient.--I am, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To Charles Perronet LONDON, December 28, 1774. DEAR CHARLES,--Certainly there is nothing amiss in the desire to do something for a good Master; only still adding (in this, as in all things else), ’Yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ If we could once bring all our preachers, itinerant and local, uniformly and steadily to insist on those two points, ’Christ dying for us’ and ’ Christ reigning in us,’ we should shake the trembling gates of hell. I think most of them are now exceeding clear herein, and the rest come nearer and nearer, especially since they have read Mr. Fletcher’s Checks, which have removed many difficulties out of the way. I expect more good from Mrs. Brigg’s medicine than from an heap of others. Remember Hezekiah’s figs.--I am, dear Charles, Ever yours. To Mr. Charles Perronet, In Canterbury. To Mrs. Pywell LONDON, December 29, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad you parted from our honest friend C--ne upon so good terms. All the trials you suffered while you were there ate now passed away like a dream. So are all the afflictions we endured yesterday; but they are noted in God’s Book, and the happy fruit of them may remain when heaven and earth are passed away. Trials you are likewise to expect where you are now; for you are still in the body, and wrestle, if not with flesh and blood, yet with ’principalities, and powers, with the rulers of the darkness of this world, with wicked spirits in high places’; and it is good for you that every grain of your faith should be tried; afterwards you shall come forth as gold. See that you never be weary or faint in your mind; account all these things for your profit, that you may be a full partaker of His holiness, and ’brighter in all His image shine.’--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, December 30, 1774. MY DEAR SISTER,--One observes well that, in order to judge of the grace which God has given us, we must likewise consider what our temptations are, because a little grace will balance little temptations, but to conquer great temptations much grace is requisite. Formerly you had comparatively little temptation, and through His grace you could rejoice with joy unspeakable. At present you do not find that joy. No; for you have the temptations which you had not then. You have little children, you have worldly care, and frequently a weak body. Therefore you may have far more grace than you had before, though you have not so much joy; nay, though you should for a time have no joy at all, but sorrow and heaviness; yea, though you should say with your Master, ’My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.’ Oh what a gainer are you by this! when you are enabled to say in the midst of all, ’The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it ’See how He loveth whom He chasteneth! And what is at the end An eternal weight of glory! It is laid up for you both. Taste of it now!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Barton, To be left at Mr. Snowden’s, In Hull Editor’s Introductory Notes: 1774 [1] Benson’s son says in the manuscript Life, i. 347: ’Whenever Mr. Benson removed, the propensity here alluded to followed him; and it is made by him a reason for regret, as being a hindrance to him in his public employment.’ He used to spend the summer and autumn in Edinburgh, and to divide the winter and part of spring between Glasgow and Greenock, visiting also Dunbar. See letter of March 4. [2] Wesley went on to Exeter on August 12, 1773, with’ Ralph Mather, then an humble, scriptural Christian.’ On January 29, 1774, and during the following week, he ’ had much conversation with Ralph Mather, a devoted young man, but almost driven out of his senses by Mystic Divinity.’ He became a Quaker and a Mystic. See Journal, v. 523, vi. 10. For Davis see letter of February 22, 1774. This letter is endorsed by Charles Wesley: ’ B[rother]. Jan. 13, 1774; 20. R. Mather, Gregory Lopez!’ [3] An Extract from the Journal of Elizabeth Harper was published in 1769. Wesley says she was the daughter of William Tuck, of Penzance, and married Andrew Harper, a cooper, at Redruth, in 1755. They opened their house to Wesley and his preachers. She left four daughters, one of whom (June) married William Michel, of Penponds, Circuit Steward at Redruth. Wesley issued the Extract from her Journal to show that loving God with all our heart was ’well consistent with a thousand infirmities which belong to every soul while in the body.’ See letter of March 1. [4] Miss Bolton was considering an offer of marriage of which Wesley did not approve. See letters of December 12, 1773, and February I7, 1774. [5] Wesley had left his chaise and ridden forward. When the carriage passed, the mob fell on it, cut it with stones in several places, and wellnigh covered it with dirt and mortar. George III showed special interest in the Wesleys, and proved a kind friend to Charles Wesley, jun., the organist. See Journal, v. 507-8; Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 265-6. [6] On May 18, 1774, Churchey says in a letter to Benson {manuscript Life, p. 490): ’ Thomas Rock’s brother, James, died lately at Hay, “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” I had the happiness of triumphing with him the evening before; not in the ideal notions of corrupted Christianity, but in the solemn. vale of holy peace and heavenly love.’ [7] Fletcher’s Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism was printed at Shrewsbury by J. Eddowes in 1774. It contained essays on the Danger of Parting Faith and Works, on the Rewardableness of Works, and on Truth. Fletcher met Wesley at Wolverhampton on March 21. See Journal, vi. 12. [8] Mrs. Bennis wrote on February 10, 1774: ’As usual your letter brought a blessing with it; from the time I received it my mind has been more at rest and my soul more happy. I have Elizabeth Harper’s Journal, and sincerely wish I had her simplicity; I know I suffer from want of it. When I can come simply to the Lord, I always find it does best with me.’ In her reply on April 12 she said: ’Mr. Perfect is a good man, and in whose conversation I should have much satisfaction.’ She had left Wesley’s letter for him. She told him that Mr. Hawksworth, a Calvinist preacher under Lady Huntingdon, had come to Waterford and preaches regularly in Methodist hours. ’Our people, though forbid by the preachers, go almost constantly to hear him.’ She had spoken to several in the same sense with little effect, and had had an hour’s conversation with him at his lodgings. ’ I charged him with unfriendly and un-Christlike conduct in taking advantage of the disordered state of your Society, and trying at such a particular time to widen the breach and glean all to himself, which he indirectly acknowledged was his motive for coming.’ [9] Mrs. Bennis wrote on April 12 that she had often thought in times past that ’the necessity of good works was not enough enforced upon the people; but since Mr. Fletcher’s writings on the subject had appeared, I think, with some the error seems to be on the other side.’ She asked his judgement ’whether we are to expect justification or acquittance at the day of judgement merely for our works, and whether the merit and righteousness of Christ shall then avail us anything.’ She added: ’Matters here’ (in Limerick) ’ wear a gloomy aspect, both as to spirituals and temporals and the present situation much depends on the person who may succeed Mr. Wrigley. Had your plan been followed, there would be none of all this, nor do I ever see good proceed from the opposing your commands.’ Francis Wrigley, of Cork, had exchanged with Jonathan Hem, the Assistant at Limerick. ’He was abrupt and imperious in his manner, a strict disciplinarian, rather inclined to stand on his official dignity, and of unbending integrity, yet withal having a kind heart.’ See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 285. No letter from Wesley to Mrs. Bennis has been preserved between May 2, 1774, and December 21, 1776. She wrote on July 21, 1774, that George Snowden, Wrigley’s successor, ’came at a very critical time, and his entire deportment since has been such as to gain the love and esteem of all the people.’ On December 24, 1774, she said she had delayed her answer to Wesley’s last letter till she could inform him of her son’s arrival at Kingswood School. ’The work of God goes on blessedly here under Mr. Snowden and Mr. M’Donnel.’ [10] John Atlay was stationed in London in 1773-5. In 1776 the notice appears: ’Joseph Bradford travels with Mr. Wesley; John Atlay keeps his accounts; Thomas Olivers corrects the press.’ Wesley, who had asked John Valton to take charge of his books, says Atlay is ’cautious to an extreme.’ He was offended that his name was omitted from the Deed of Declaration in 1784, and writes in 1785: ’I have begun to do a little business for myself as coal merchant; and have reason to think it will do well for me. I have not left the Book-Room; nor do I intend it at present.’ He left Wesley in 1788 to take charge of the chapel at Dewsbury, the trustees of which refused to have it settled as Wesley wished. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 552, 555; and letters of September 20, 1773, and June 19, 1779 (to Samuel Bardsley). [11] Wesley in his Journal refers to the blessing on the work of William Collins in Bandon the previous year, where ’the Society was near doubled within a twelvemonth.’ He put his name in the Deed of Declaration, and left ’whatever money remains in my bureau and pockets at my decease to be equally divided’ between him and three other preachers. See Journal, v. 504, viii. 342. [12] This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship, which enriched Wesley’s life. John Ritchie was a native of Edinburgh, and had served many years as a naval surgeon. He lived at Otley. When Wesley visited them on June 30, 1772, Miss Ritchie, who was then nineteen, accompanied him and Mrs. Wesley in their chaise to Parkgate. In May 1774 she went with him to Birstall, and he stayed a night at their house in Otley. She says on May 13, ’ I have been favored this day with a letter from Mr. Wesley; it has been much blessed to me.’ See Bulmer’s Memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Mortimer, pp. 15, 30-8. [13] John Prickard was born in Pembrokeshire in 1744. He went to live with his uncle at Brecon in 1761, where he became a local preacher and class-leader. In 1773 he offered himself for work in Africa; but Wesley disapproved. He did not go to Bristol, as Wesley suggested, but received a letter from him soon after the Conference to say that he had been appointed to the Glamorgan Circuit. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 336-42. [14] Miss Ritchie had written on May 23 to tell him how she had been blessed: ’ All I feared was the losing what I had received, which made me backward in speaking of it’ (Memoirs, p. 40). [15] Thomas Bennett was born in 1732 at Christleton, three miles from Chester, and went to Dublin, where he joined the Methodist Society. He set up in business as an ironmonger in Chester at the advice of Pritchard. He was the principal means of erecting the Octagon Chapel there in 1765. The preachers stayed at their house, which was known as Pilgrims’ Inn. See Bretherton’s Early Methodism in and around Chester, pp. 60, 65-6; and letter of January 16, 1753. [16] ’Mr. Benson,’ says the manuscript Life, i. 377, ’had sufficient discernment of the impropriety of an appointment made by Mr. Wesley, who had been too ready to believe well of several individuals who were afterwards causes of trouble.’ Hugh Saunderson was not appointed to Edinburgh, but was detained there by the charges brought against him and Wesley. See letter of June 12. [17] From Memoirs of the Life of Mr. Henry Brooke, by Isaac D’Olier, LL.D., his son-in-law, we learn that Brooke was born in County Cavan in November 1738. His father’s name was Robert, and his uncle was the Counselor Henry Brooke, author of The Fool of Quality. The younger Henry was trained as an artist in Dublin, and went to London to improve himself and push his fortunes. In April 1765 he wrote to Wesley from Dublin, telling him that he had joined the Methodists, and giving an account of his conversion in London. He had thoughts of entering the ministry, but finally settled in Dublin as a painter and drawing-master. Wesley was once his guest for three weeks. The artist was wondering how he could bear the expense if Wesley came, as his earnings only met his expenses; but a gentleman came in and offered a guinea for an hour’s teaching every day. The lessons lasted till the day Wesley returned to England. He died on October 6, 1806. He was a special friend of John Fletcher, and his poetic gifts are shown by various pieces in his Memoirs. Brooke told his uncle Henry of Wesley’s suggestion, and wrote on August 6: ’He is deeply sensible of your very kind offer, and most cordially embraces it. He has desired me to express the warmth of his gratitude in the strongest terms, and says he most cheerfully yields the volumes you mention to your superior judgement, to prune, erase, and alter as you please.’ Wesley published his revised edition, The History of Henry, Earl of Moreland, in two volumes in 1781. Juliet Grenville had been published in 1774; but Wesley did not abridge this novel. See Arminian Magazine, 1787, pp. 160-1; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 172-4; Green’s Bibliography, No. 351; and letter of March 1, 1762. [18] His Journal shows what personal benefit Wesley received from electric treatment, and how he provided an electrical apparatus in London by which ’hundreds, perhaps thousands, have received unspeakable good.’ See Journal, iv. 49, 190-1. [19] This letter shows not only what Mrs. Wesley was but how long and patiently her husband bore with her. The piece in brackets is missing from the Hall manuscript, but is given in Moore’s Wesley, ii. 173-4. See letters of June 10, 1774, and September 1, 1777. [20] The Conference in Philadelphia began on March 25 and ended on the 27th. ’We proceeded in all things on the same plan as in England.’ More than a thousand members had been added to the Societies since Rankin and Shadford reached America ten months earlier. There were now seventeen preachers and upwards of two thousand members. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 180. [21] William Hunter died, ‘full of divine peace, love and joy,’ at Newhead, Alston Moor, on August 14, 1797, at the age of seventy-four. He was a powerful gospel preacher and truly devoted to God. Pawson spent the year as a supernumerary at Bristol. He had married on July 23, 1773, Miss Grace Davis, who lived there, and Pawson wanted to be among her friends. She was very ill from June to October 1774, and could not leave for Leeds till October 10, ‘such was her extreme weakness.’ See Methodist Magazine, 1798, pp. 26-9; Wesley’s Veterans, iv. 52. [22] William Eels, a native of North Shields joined John Atlay, and died at Dewsbury in 1793. He was now in the Newcastle Circuit, where Joseph Cownley (whose health had broken down) also lived. Eels became Benson’s colleague after the Conference. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 116-17. [23] Miss Ritchie had been staying with Miss Bosanquet at Cross Hall, and told Wesley on July 19: ’Since I came home, I have at times been in the fire; but this cannot harm while God is near. It cannot hurt the soul that cleaves to Jesus.’ [24] Benson had been in Edinburgh as second preacher. At the Conference, which began the next day, he was appointed to be Assistant there. See letter of March 4. [25] An important survey of Wesley’s personal and family history, with references to his Journal. [26] The Conference met in Bristol on August 9, 10, and 11. Friday the 12th was observed as a day of fasting and prayer for the success of the gospel. Miss Ritchie and her friends seem to have kept it thus at Otley. She had told Wesley that her health was in a delicate and precarious state. She replied to his letter on October 18, informing him that her mother had been very ill for some time. She says ’I am in some measure always sensible of His presence,’ and in a sense ’I pray without ceasing.’ See Memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Mortimer, pp. 46-50. [27] Wesley says on Sunday, September 4, 1774: ’ The glorious congregation assembled at five in the amphitheater at Gwennap. They were judged to cover fourscore yards, and yet those farthest off could hear.’ He reached Bristol on the 10th, and wrote this letter to Captain Richard Williams, in Poldice, near Truro. The letter shows how Wesley stimulated his helpers, and lets us into the secret of his calm confidence in the midst of perplexing problems. See letter of December 30, 1778. [28] In the letter of June 19 to Miss Ball Wesley expressed a fear lest ’my dear Ann Bolton . . . should sink into that delicate species of spiritual sloth which some call "ceasing from our own works.”’ Miss Bolton wrote from Finstock, four miles north of Witney, on August 5: ’I am endeavoring to learn how to walk in a narrower path than in time past by attending more constantly to the divine presence in my soul. In order to this end the mind must be kept in silence and divested of every other pursuit but that of knowing, doing, and suffering His holy will.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1787, P. 159. [29] Miss James was the daughter of Captain John James, of Bristol, Charles Wesley’s intimate friend. See his Journal, ii. 247,263; Church Record, 1896, p. 43; and letters of September 20, 1772, and January 2, 1781. [30] Wesley’s indignation at the horrors of the Slave Trade is well known, and this letter brings it out with emphasis. [31] Miss Bishop wrote on November 24: ’To write to you in my straits and difficulties is not grievous, your answers being generally satisfactorily decisive, and refreshing as the distilling dew.’ She says John Hilton had gently reproved her for her reserve, and tells Wesley: ’Retirement is the soft in which my soul prospers. In company my spirit seems removed from its place of rest; for which reason I go out less than ever. I do not know but love of solitude grows upon me, perhaps more than it ought.’ Hilton had been a great blessing to her. ’I have not been so fed in the outward means since Mr. Pawson left us.’ She asks for ’some directions for a profitable attendance on public worship.’ See Arminian Magazine 1787, p. 219. [32] The financial burdens resting on Wesley through the growth of Methodism and the increase of the families of the preachers may be slightly understood from this letter. [33] Mill was Rutherford’s colleague in Dundee. He was stationed at Londonderry in 1776. Ill-health compelled him to retire in 1795, and after a brig illness he died on April 20, 1806, aged fifty-five. See letter of October 22, 1776, to Mrs. Johnston. [34] Charles Perronet wrote next day from Canterbury: ’I cannot make you any suitable return for your repeated offers of making the Foundery my place of abode at a time I can only be a burthen to you and my friends. Since you were here [on December 5] I have had such pains of body that I could not sit up by day nor scarce lie in bed at night.’ Wesley saw him at Canterbury on December 14, 1775. ’What a mystery of Providence! Why is such a saint as this buried alive by continual sickness’ He died on August 12, 1776. See Journal, vi. 89; Arminian Magazine, 1787, pp. 280-1. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 70: 68. 1775 ======================================================================== 1775 To Martha Chapman LUTON, January 11, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I hope with God’s help to be at Newbury on, Thursday, March 2; and to have the pleasure of seeing you there, unless something unforeseen should hinder. You have lately had a wintry season at Watlington: now expect the return of spring. Beware you are not weary or faint in your mind! Even bodily weakness may you to this; especially when there appears to be no increase, but rather a decay, of the work of God. Yet I do you apprehend you are yet at liberty to remove from Watlington. Cannot Hannah Ball step over for two or three days and kindle a flame among you If she does not come, look for One greater than her. How soon It may be before you see another day.--I am, dear Patty, Yours affectionately. To Miss Patty Chapman, At Watlington, Near Tetsworth, Oxfordshire. To Francis Wolfe LUTON, January 11, 1775 MY DEAR BROTHER,--Be zealous and active for a good Master, and you will see the fruit of your labor. But watch over Joseph Moore. If he falls in love, there is an end of his usefulness. Ever since that madman took away her office in Witney from Nancy Bolton, Witney Society has drooped; such as Wycombe Society would do if you took away Hannah Ball from them. She has all Hannah’s grace, with more sense. See that she be fully employed. You have not such another flower in all your gardens. Even Patty Chapman does not equal her. --I am, with love to Sister Wolfe, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Elizabeth Ritchie LONDON, January 17, 1775. MY DEAR BETSY,--I beg, if you love me, you will send me a minute account how you are both in body and mind. Some of the Mystic writers do not choose to speak plainly; some of them know not how. But, blessed be God, we do; and we know there is nothing deeper, there is nothing better in heaven or earth than love! There cannot be, unless there were something higher than the God of love! So that we see distinctly what we have to aim at. We see the prize and the way to it! Here is the height, here is the depth, of Christian experience! ‘God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.’ Mr. Fletcher has given us a wonderful view of the different dispensations which we are under. I believe that difficult subject was never placed in so clear a light before. It seems God has raised him up for this very thing-- To vindicate eternal Providence And justify the ways of God to man. By confining yourself to those who write dearly your understanding will be opened and strengthened far more than by reading a multiplicity of authors; at the same time your heart will be enlarged, and, I trust, more and more united to Yours affectionately. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, February 1, 1775. DEAR SAMMY, There is something exceedingly remarkable in that sudden breaking out of the work at A----. This is undeniably the Lord’s doing, and leaves no room for man to glory. Wherever you are vehemently exhort the believers to ‘go on to perfection.’ Read yourself with much prayer, and recommend to them, the Plain Account of Christian Perfection, and those two sermons The Repentance of Believers and The Scripture Way of Salvation.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Sam. Bardsley, At Mr. James Walker’s, In Sheffield. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, February 1, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad to hear so good an account with regard to the preaching-houses at Liverpool and Warrington. Indeed, it may be doubted whether we should contribute toward those houses which are not settled according to our plan. It pleases God to continue my strength hitherto, and my disorder gives me little uneasiness. I expect to be at Stroud (from Bristol), Monday, March 13; Tuesday, 14, at Worcester; Thursday, 16, Birmingham; Friday, 17, Newcastle; Saturday, 18, Macclesfield; Monday, 20, Manchester; Tuesday, 21, Northwich. Whether it will be more advisable then to steer by Chester or Liverpool I do not see clearly. Let us work while the day is.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. Surely it cannot be that you should find in the house at Newcastle an account which John Fenwick sent me, and that you should send it back to him! To Ann Bolton LONDON, February 8, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I doubt whether we have not been wanting in one thing. When persons were in their [first] love, we have generally suffered that love to grow cold before we spoke to them of perfection. Would it not have been better to speak to them just then And how often might the first love have been changed into pure love! Your ever affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop LONDON, February 11, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--To be enabled to relieve those that are in want is one excellent fruit of this self-denial. But you must not imagine this will be the only one. No: you have a message from God to some of those to whom no one dare speak the plain truth; and He will confirm the word of His messenger, especially to those that are in weakness or pain or under any kind of affliction. At such a time greatness stands aloof, and they are as accessible as common persons. In religion as well as in all things else it is ’use that brings perfectness.’ I have long labored under the same infirmity with you; and I find but one way to conquer. Take up your cross; when the occasion offers, break through: speak, though it is pain and grief unto you. And it will be easier and easier, till you resemble an eminent surgeon, who once told my brother, ’ Mr. Wesley, you know I would not hurt a fly, I would not give pain to any living thing. But if it was necessary I could scrape all the flesh off of a man’s bones and never turn my head aside.’ A clear conviction of the superior advantages of a single life certainly implies a call from God to abide therein, supposing a person has received that gift from God. But we know all cannot receive this saying; and I think none ought to make any vows concerning it, because, although we know what we are and what we can do nova, yet we do not know what we shall be. The spiritual advantages of that state are set down in the little tract on that subject, together with the means which are proper to be used by those who desire to retain those advantages. If at any time Providence should seem to call any person to relinquish these advantages, I would earnestly advise her not to lean to her own understanding (less in this case than any other), but to consult one or more spiritual friends, and resolutely stand to their award. There is much good in Miss Bosanquet; and you may do her good, for she loves and will bear plain dealing.--I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To Miss March February 11, 1775. There seems to be in our excellent friend something too near akin to apathy. ’A clergyman,’ said one (but I do not agree with him in this), ’ought to be all intellect, no passion.’ She appears to be (I will not affirm she is) at no great distance from this. It is true by this means we might avoid much pain, but we should also lose much happiness. Therefore this is a state which I cannot desire. Rather give me the pleasure and pain too; rather let Plain life, with heightening passions rise, The boast or burthen of an hour. But who has attained this Who treads the middle path, equally remote from both extremes I will tell you one that did (although the remembrance of her still brings tears into my eyes), that lovely saint Jane Cooper! There was the due mixture of intellect and passion! I remember one of the last times I saw her, before her last illness, her look, her attitude, her words! My dear friend, be you a follower of her, as she was of Christ. To Peter Bohler LONDON, February 18, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--When I say, ’I hope I shall never be constrained to speak otherwise of them’ (the Moravians), I do not mean that I have any expectation this will ever happen. Probably it never will. I never did speak but when I believed it was my duty so to do. And if they would calmly consider what I have spoken from March 10, 1736, and were open to conviction, they might be such Christians as are hardly in the world besides. I have not lost sight of you yet. Indeed, I cannot if you are ’a city set upon a hill.’ Perhaps no one living is a greater lover of peace or has labored more for it than I, particularly among the children of God. I set out near fifty years ago with this principle, ’ Whosoever doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother.’ But there is no one living that has been more abused for his pains even to this day. But it is all well. By the grace of God I shall go on, following peace with all men, and loving your Brethren beyond any body of men upon earth except the Methodists. Wishing you every gospel blessing, I remain Your very affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride LONDON, February 24, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--Beware of your own spirit! You bite like a bull-dog; when you seize, you never let go. I advise you to think of William Hunter no more; go on your way as if he was under the earth. At a Quarterly Meeting, if the collection is only six pounds and two preachers are present, they commonly share it between them. In this case I do not say they defraud a third preacher who is expected; but I say they act unkindly. But you should tell me without fear or favor who has neglected the round. Part of the books which I borrowed of Mr. Hammond I left at Waterford with one who has promised to send them back directly. The other part one promised to send from Dublin. I am ashamed of their vile negligence. I hope to be in Dublin next month; and am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, March 1, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--I think the March packet will do as well as the April packet; so I answer you without delay. As soon as possible you must come to a full and clear explanation both with Brother Asbury (if he is recovered) and with Jemmy Dempster. But I advise Brother Asbury to return to England the first opportunity. There is now a probability that God will hear the prayer and turn the counsels of Ahithophel into foolishness. It is not unlikely that peace will be re-established between England and the Colonies. But certainly the present doubtful situation of affairs may be improved to the benefit of many. They may be strongly incited now ‘to break off their sins by repentance, if it may be a lengthening of their tranquillity.’--I am, my dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. PS.--To-morrow I intend to set out for Ireland. I add a line to all the preachers:--- LONDON, March 1, 1775. MY DEAR BRETHREN,--You were never in your lives in so critical a situation as you are at this time. It is your part to be peace-makers, to be loving and tender to all, but to addict yourselves to no party. In spite of all solicitations, of rough or smooth words, say not one word against one or the other side. Keep yourselves pure, do all you can to help and soften all; but beware how you adopt another’s jar. See that you act in full union with each other: this is of the utmost consequence. Not only let there be no bitterness or anger but no shyness or coldness between you. Mark all those that would set one of you against the other. Some such will never be wanting. But give them no countenance; rather ferret them out and drag them into open day. The conduct of T. Rankin has been suitable to the Methodist plan: I hope all of you tread in his steps. Let your eye be single. Be in peace with each other, and the God of peace will be with you.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. [Charles Wesley also wrote to Rankin.] March 1, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--To spare you the expense, I delayed answering your letter; but I bear you always on my heart, and rejoice when the Lord blesses you with success. He giveth grace, more grace, to the humble; therefore wrestle with Him for deep humility. As to the public affairs, I wish you to be like-minded with me. I am of neither side, and yet of both; on the side of New England and of Old. Private Christians are excused, exempted, privileged, to take no part in civil troubles. We love all and pray for all with a sincere and impartial love. Faults there may be on both sides; but such as neither you nor I can remedy: therefore let us and all our children give ourselves unto prayer, and so stand still and see the salvation of God. My love to Captain Webb when you see him, and to Mr. Bowden, to whom I owe letters, and much love. Show yours for me by praying more for me and mine. Yours in the old love. To Joseph Benson BRISTOL, March 12, 1775. DEAR JOSEPH,--I can no more trust John Bredin in the North than in the South of Scotland. I see no way for him but to Ireland. He must return to his loom. I have had complaints from all quarters. He must no longer bring a reproach upon the gospel. You must make as good a shift as you can with Brother Watkinson till more help comes. You know what dreadful inconveniences have ensued from regarding private interest more than the public, from showing pet to particular persons at the expense of the general good. If this be done in the present instance, it will be at your door, not mine; for I do hereby give you full authority to send John Bredin back to his own home. I think the sooner this is done the better, For until he is thoroughly humbled he will only be an hinderer of the work of God and a stumbling-block to the people.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. I hope to be in Manchester on the 20th instant, and soon after in Dublin. To Ann Bolton WORCESTER, March 15, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--If I could have seen you, though it had been only for an hour, it would have given me a very sensible satisfaction. I cannot easily express that union of spirit which I feel whenever I think of you. There is I know not what in your whole spirit and behavior which has always given me unspeakable pleasure; and when I look upon you (you know to whom the glory is due!), I am often ready to cry out, ’Thou perfect pattern of true womanhood!’ But I know good is the will of the Lord; therefore I am content. If it is best, I shall see my dear friend again before I take my long journey; and if I do not see you till we meet in a better world, Surely our disembodied souls shall join, Surely my friendly shade shall mix with thine. To die is not to be lost; but our union will be more complete in the world of spirits than it can be while we dwell in tenements of clay. Certainly till persons experience something of the second awakening, till they are feelingly convinced of inbred sin so as earnestly to groan for deliverance from it, we need not speak to them of present sanctification. We should first labor to work that conviction in them. When they feel it and hunger and thirst after full salvation, then is the time to show them it is nigh at hand, it may be received just now by simple faith. I can now hardly expect (if I should live to return to England) to see you before next autumn. Let me, however, have the pleasure of hearing from you; and give a place in your memory and your prayers to, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. Direct to me at Dublin. To Miss Bolton, At Witney, Oxfordshire. To Martha Chapman WORCESTER, March 15, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--You only tell me in general that your health is declining; but you do not say in what manner or from what cause. When did you begin to feel any decay of health In what manner was you affected What did you imagine it was owing to How have you been since from time to time What means of recovery have you used, and with what effect Write to me as particularly as you can on these heads, directing to me in Dublin. It is our duty to take care of our bodily health; but what is this to an healthful mind Let your mind be All praise, all meekness, and all love. And for the rest ’tis equal all.--I am, dear Patty, Yours affectionately. To John Fletcher NORTHWICH, March 22, 1775. DEAR SIR,--I have read over your papers, and hope they will be of use. But you have a little disappointed me. I expected a fictitious and a genuine Creed for Perfectionists, suitable to your Arminian Creeds. I know not whether your last tract was not as convincing as anything you have written. That method of untwisting the truth and falsehood which had been so artfully woven together has enabled many to distinguish one from the other more dearly than ever they did before. What a good Providence it is that different persons have different ways of writing! Many are convinced or affected by your way of writing who receive no benefit from mine. They are not to be reached by a few words: you must say a great deal, or you lose your labor. Heavy foot cannot overtake them; but when your light horse falls upon them on every side, they are utterly overthrown. I think the address to the Perfectionists and Imperfectionists will be well bestowed. And it is well you have bestowed a little time on Mr. Toplady. He might have been angry if you had taken no notice of him. It seems our views of Christian Perfection are a little different, though not opposite. It is certain every babe in Christ has received the Holy Ghost, and the Spirit witnesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. But he has not obtained Christian perfection. Perhaps you have not considered St. John’s threefold distinction of Christian believers: little children, young men, and fathers. All of these had received the Holy Ghost; but only the fathers were perfected in love. But one thing seems to have escaped you still. What are the charms of Calvinism unde faces ardent How is it so many fall in love with her To-morrow I hope to be at Chester, and to embark on board the first vessel that offers. Commending myself to your prayers, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Ritchie NORTHWICH, March 23, 1775. MY DEAR BETSY,--I am glad you have had an opportunity of spending a little time at Leeds and with Miss Bosanquet. This, I doubt not, has been a blessed means of increasing your spiritual strength. And I trust you will find more and more opportunity of using whatever strength you have, even at Otley. Wherever the work of God revives, we are more particularly called to work together with Him. Now be instant in season and out of season! Redeem the time! Buy up every opportunity. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening slack not thy hand; and God will give the increase! In a day or two I expect to embark. Possibly in autumn we may meet again; and in the meantime I am persuaded you will not forget Yours affectionately. To Martha Chapman DUBLIN, April 5, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--The apothecary seems to have understood your case; but you have done right in leaving off the taking of medicines. But withal you should use all the exercise you can, particularly in the open air. And use what little strength you have to the glory of Him that gave it. Warn every one and exhort every one, if by any means you may save some.--I am, my dear Patty, Yours affectionately. To Miss Chapman, At Watlington, Near Nettlebed, Oxon. To Thomas Rankin PORTARLINGTON, April 2I, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--I am glad there is so good an understanding between Jemmy Dempster and you. He is an upright man, and, unless I am much mistaken, a friend both to the Methodist doctrine and discipline. I am sorry for poor T--- R---. It is certain God did lift up his head, and I hoped that his besetting sin would no more gain dominion over him. However, you must in no wise give him up. And he has much more need of comfort than of reproof. His great danger is despair. Brother Asbury has sent me a few lines, and I thank him for them. But I do not advise him to go to Antigua. Let him come home without delay. If one or two stout, healthy young men would willingly offer themselves to that service, I should have no objection; but none should go unless he was fully persuaded in his own mind. You are a bold man, Tommy, to commence author in these critical times. I wish the success may answer your expectation; there is a call for every help. I am afraid you will soon find a day of trial; the clouds are black both over England and America. It is well if this summer passes over without some showers of blood. And if the storm once begins in America, it will soon spread to Great Britain. I have a friendly letter from ---, who writes warmly against the ---. Pray remember my love to him and his wife. I am glad to find he is still walking in the good old way. He sends me word that one or two men of fortune are gone out to preach the gospel. If they are, I expect little from them. God hath chosen the weak to confound the strong. Go on, doing and suffering the will of our Lord!--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Morgan WATERFORD, April 28, 1775. DEAR SIR,--I am now going to give you one of the greatest yet most thankless instances of friendship. Prudence (so called) would restrain me from it. But love is stronger than prudence. Great was the concern which I felt when I conversed with Miss Morgan, a child so spoiled to all intents and purposes I have not seen in the course of fifty years either in Europe or America. I know not what she is fit for. Does she regard the reproof of either father or mother Have not you humored her out of all her sense, all her good nature, and even good breeding What behavior was that which I saw with my own eyes What words which I heard with my own ears No weakness, no pain could excuse these. Pain should soften, not roughen our temper. And what a wife must a woman of such a temper make! what a torment must she be to any man of feeling! Happy would it be both [for] her and you if God would speedily take her to Himself! I could not but be concerned for you likewise. You have often desires to be a Christian: an inward Christian, a Bible Christian, a man happy in God. What hinders Scraping up more money Cui bono Have you not already more than does you good ’ What, would you have me be idle ’ No. Am I idle But I labor for eternity, for treasure in heaven, for satisfying riches. Go thou and do likewise! If you receive this in love, you may profit thereby. If you show it to your wife and daughter, you will not hurt me, but you will thereby renounce all future intercourse with Your truly affectionate servant. To Richard Morgan, Esq., No. 35 Stephen’s Green, Dublin. To James Dempster BALLINROBE, May 19, 1775. DEAR JEMMY,--That one point I earnestly recommend, both to Brother Rankin and you and all our preachers--by prayer, by exhortation, and by every possible means, to oppose a party spirit. This has always, so far as it prevailed, been the bane of all true religion, more especially when a country was in such a situation as America is now. None but the God of almighty love can extricate the poor people out of the snare. O what need have you to besiege His throne with all the power of prayer!--I am, dear Jemmy, Yours affectionately. To Thomas Rankin, in America BALLINROBE, May 19, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--That letters travel very slow from us to America is a great inconvenience. But it is a still greater that they travel so uncertainly; sometimes reaching you too late, sometimes not at all. I doubt not but Brother Asbury and you will part friends: I shall hope to see him at the Conference. He is quite an upright man. I apprehend he will go through his work more cheerfully when he is within a little distance from me. We must speak the plain truth wherever we are, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. And among our Societies we must enforce our Rules with all mildness and steadiness. At first this must appear strange to those who are as bullocks unaccustomed to the yoke. But after a time all that desire to be real Christians see the advantage of it. I am afraid Mr. B--- is a weak brother, a little enlightened in his understanding, and having a kind of faith. But I would rather (of the two) be in the case of poor T--- R--- than of him. I think there is more probability of his being a real Christian than of the other’s. Never was there a time when it was more necessary for all that fear God, both in England and in America, to stir up the gift of God that is in them and wrestle with God in mighty prayer. In all the other judgments of God the inhabitants of the earth learn righteousness. When a land is visited with famine or plague or earthquake, the people commonly see and acknowledge the hand of God. But wherever war breaks out, God is forgotten, if He be not set at open defiance. What a glorious work of God was at Cambuslang and Kilsyth from 1740 to 1744! But the war that followed tore it all up by the roots and left scarce any trace of it behind; insomuch that when I diligently inquired a few years after, I could not find one that retained the life of God!--I am, my dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Bosanquet CLONES, May 29, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I was particularly glad to hear from you at this time, as I wanted to know how you was going on and whether you was the person concerning whom one of our preachers warily asked my advice. Whether you should part with your house and things pertaining to it is a very important question. The answering of this depends upon many circumstances which I am not yet acquainted with. But necessity has no law. It must be done, if your income will not otherwise answer the expenses. The last day of June I hope to be in Dublin, and the end of July in England. If I have a ready passage, probably I may have an opportunity of hiding myself a day or two with you ’; but I do not desire any of the preachers to come to me till I send for them. If they do, I shall run away. I will not be in a crowd. Probably you know whether Mr. Saunderson is at Knares-borough. If he is, pray take up a cross for me. Write to him in my name, and tell him I desire him without delay or excuse to return to Bristol; otherwise he will disoblige me for ever.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDONDERRY, June 2, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--I thought it strange that poor S. F. should leave me nine hundred pounds in debt. But it is stranger still that John Atlay should have paid sixteen hundred out of nine, and that I am an hundred and sixty pounds in debt notwithstanding! Mr. Wathen’s method of radical cure I shall hardly try I am very easy, and that is enough. I am persuaded Billy Baynes’s eye is single; therefore he will be useful. Our other friend should have known his own mind. We parted only for four pounds a year. I am exceeding glad that T. Rankin does not print till his papers have passed through our correction. I was afraid he would not have been so patient. Just what I thought at first, I think still of American affairs. If a blow is struck, I give America for lost, and perhaps England too. Our part is to continue instant in prayer. Sammy will not only be better but quite well if you do not kill him with kindness. Has my friend taken an house at Bristol Is Noah with her What are they doing Mr. Madan has behaved well. Res ipsa reduxit in gratiam. Preach as much as you can and no more than you can. You never will be much stronger till you add change of air to exercise, riding two or three hundred miles point blank forward. Now you have an opportunity. Meet me at Leeds with honest John Murlin. When you are tired, you may change places with him. You would return a stout, healthy man. I purpose writing to Mr. Fletcher shortly. I do not remember that he has touched the corner-stone of their hypothesis—‘the covenant of redemption.’ One would not wish to be easy without it. Just here we must stop reasoning or turn Calvinists. This is the very strength of their cause. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To Miss March CHARLEMONT, June 9, 1775. Very possibly, if I should live seven years longer, we should be acquainted with each other. I verily think your reserve wears off, though only by an hair’s breadth at a time. Quicken your pace. What you do, do quickly. ’Scarce anything important enough to write upon’! Why, could you not say something about yourself And is there anything relating to your welfare which is not important to me Am not I concerned in everything which concerns you which either lessens or increases your happiness I want you to be as happy and (in order thereto) as holy as an angel, that you may do the will of God on earth as angels do in heaven. I am less careful about your increase in knowledge any farther than it tends to love. There is a danger of your laying more stress on this than sound reason requires. Otherwise you would reap much profit from sermons, which do not improve your knowledge--which do not apply to the understanding so directly as to the heart. I feel more want of heat than light. I value light; but it is nothing compared to love. Aim at this, my dear friend, in all public exercises, and then you will seldom be disappointed. Then you will not stop on the threshold of perfection (I trust you do not now), but will press on to the mark, to the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, till you experimentally know all that love of God which passeth all (speculative) knowledge. The lengthening of your life and the restoring your health are invaluable blessings. But do you ask how you shall improve them to the glory of the Giver And are you willing to know Then I will tell you how. Go and see the poor and sick in their own poor little hovels. Take up your cross, woman! Remember the faith! Jesus went before you, and will go with you. Put off the gentlewoman; you bear an higher character. You are an heir of God and joint-heir with Christ ! Are you not going to meet Him in the air with ten thousand of His saints O be ready! To William Alwood ARMAGH, June 11, 1775. DEAR BILLY,--I am not easy to have this thing hang any longer. I therefore desire that you will immediately fix a day and summon all the trustees, preachers, stewards, to meet you on that day at Chester, to determine that affair at once and to bring it to a final issue.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin CLONMAIN, NEAR ARMAGH, June 13, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--I am afraid our correspondence for the time to come will be more uncertain than ever, since the sword is drawn; and it is well if they have not on both sides thrown away the scabbard. What will the end of these things be either in Europe or America It seems, huge confusion and distress, such as neither we nor our fathers had known 1 But it is enough if all issues in glory to God and peace and goodwill among men. I am sorry for poor T--- R---. I well hoped God had thoroughly healed his backsliding, and so lifted up his head that he would have fallen no more. But the case is not desperate yet; you must in no wise give him up. I have scarcely ever known an habitual drunkard finally reclaimed before he had relapsed more than once or twice. Your point is, first save him from the occasions of sin, then incite him not to east away hope. Nothing but this, despair of conquering, can totally destroy him. As long as he keeps up the faintest hope he will strive against sin. My brother wrote me word that he had received a copy of the tract that you have written. Something of the kind may be very seasonable. Never had America such a call to repentance. For unless general reformation prevent general destruction, what a scene will soon be opened I Ruin and desolation must soon overspread the land and fair houses be turned into ruinous heaps. But what are those strange phenomena which you speak of Send me an account of just so much as you can depend upon. Should not you appoint in America (as we do in England and Ireland) one or more general days of fasting and prayer--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the Colonies IN THE WAY TO DUBLIN, June 14, 1775. MY LORD,--I would not speak, as it may seem to be concerning myself with things that lie out of my province. But I dare not refrain from it any longer; I think silence in the present case would be a sin against God, against my country, and against my own soul. But what hope can I have of doing good, of making the least impression upon your Lordship where so many have spoken in vain, and those far better qualified to speak on so delicate a subject They were better qualified in some respects; in others they were not. They had not less bias upon their minds; they were not free from worldly hopes and fears. Their passions were engaged; and how easily do these blind the eyes of the understanding! They were not more impartial. Most of them were prejudiced in the highest degree. They neither loved the King nor his Ministers. Rather they hated them with a perfect hatred. And your Lordship knowing this, if you was a man, could not avoid having some prejudice to them; in which case it would be hardly possible to feel the full force of their arguments. They had not better means of information, of knowing the real tempers and sentiments, either of the Americans on the one hand, or of the English, Irish, and Scots on the other. Above all, they trusted in themselves, in their own power of convincing and persuading. I trust only in the living God, who hath the hearts of all men in His hand. And whether my writing do any good or no, it need do no harm. For it rests within your Lordship’s breast whether any eye but your own shall see it. All my prejudices are against the Americans. For I am an High Churchman, the son of an High Churchman, bred up from my childhood in the highest notions of passive obedience and non-resistance. And yet, in spite of all my rooted prejudice, I cannot avoid thinking (if I think at all) that an oppressed people asked for nothing more than their legal rights, and that in the most modest and inoffensive manner which the nature of the thing would allow. But waiving this, waiving all considerations of right and wrong, I ask, Is it common sense to use force toward the Americans A letter now before me says, ’Four hundred of the Regulars and forty of the Militia were killed in the last skirmish.’ What a disproportion! And this is the first essay of raw men against regular troops! You see, my Lord, whatever has been affirmed, these men will not be frightened. And it seems they will not be conquered so easily as was at first imagined. They will probably dispute every inch of ground, and, if they die, die sword in hand. Indeed, some of our valiant officers say, ’Two thousand men will clear America of these rebels.’ No, nor twenty thousand, nor perhaps treble that number, be they rebels or not. They are as strong men as you; they are as valiant as you, if not abundantly more valiant. For they are one and all enthusiasts --enthusiasts for liberty. They are calm, deliberate enthusiasts. And we know how this principle Breathes into softest souls stem love of war, And thirst of vengeance, and contempt of death. We know men animated with this will leap into a fire or rush upon a cannon’s mouth. ’But they have no experience of war.’ And how much more have our troops How few of them ever saw a battle! ’But they have no discipline.’ That is an entire mistake. Already they have near as much as our army. And they will learn more of it every day. So that in a short time they will understand it as well as their assailants. ’But they are divided, among themselves: so you are informed by various letters and memorials.’ So, I doubt not, was poor Rehoboam informed concerning the ten tribes! So (nearer our times) was Philip informed concerning the people of the Netherlands! No, my Lord, they are terribly united; not in the Province of New England only, but down as low as the Jerseys and Pennsylvania the bulk of the people are so united that to speak a word in favor of the present English measures would almost endanger a man’s life. Those who inform me of this (one of whom was with me last week, lately come from Philadelphia) are no sycophants; they say nothing to curry favor; they have nothing to gain or lose by me. But they speak with sorrow of heart what they have seen with their eyes and heard with their own ears. Those men think one and all, be it right or wrong, that they are contending pro aris et focis, for their wives, children, liberty! What advantage have they herein over men that fight only for pay! none of whom care a straw for the cause wherein they are engaged, most of whom strongly disapprove of it. Have they not another considerable advantage Is there occasion to recruit the troops Their supplies are at hand, all round about them: ours are three thousand miles off. Are we then able to conquer the Americans, suppose they are left to themselves Suppose all our neighbors stand stock still and leave us and them to fight it out But are we sure of this Are we sure that all our neighbors will stand stock still I doubt they have not promised it. And if they had, could we rely upon those promises Yet it is not probable they will send ships or men to America. Is there not a shorter way Do they not know where England and Ireland lie And have they not troops as well as ships in readiness All Europe is well apprised of this; only the English know nothing of the matter! What if they find means to land but ten thousand men where are the troops in England or Ireland to oppose them Why, cutting the throats of their brethren in America! Poor England in the meantime! ’But we have our militia, our valiant, disciplined militia; these will effectually oppose them.’ Give me leave, my Lord, to relate a little circumstance of which one then on the spot informed me. In 1776 a large body of militia were marching towards Preston against the rebels. In a wood which they were marching by, a boy happened to discharge his fowling-piece. The soldiers gave all for lost, and by common consent threw down their arms and ran for life. So much dependence is to be placed on our valorous militia! But, my Lord, this is not all. We have thousands of enemies, perhaps more dangerous than French or Spaniards. They are landed already; they fill our cities, our towns, our villages. As I travel four or five thousand miles every year, I have an opportunity of conversing freely with more persons of every denomination than any one else in the three kingdoms. I cannot therefore but know the general disposition of the people, English, Scots, and Irish; and I know an huge majority of them are exasperated almost to madness. Exactly so they were throughout England and Scotland about the year 1640; and in great measure by the same means--by inflammatory papers, which were spread, as they are now, with the utmost diligence in every corner of the land. Hereby the bulk of the people were effectually cured of all love and reverence for the King; so that, first despising, then hating him, they were just ripe for open rebellion. And I assure your Lordship so they are now: they want nothing but a leader. Two circumstances more deserve to be considered: the one that there was at that time a general decay of trade almost throughout the kingdom; the other that there was an uncommon dearness of provisions. The case is the same in both respects at this day. So that even now there are multitudes of people that, having nothing to do and nothing to eat, are ready for the first bidder; and that, without inquiring into the merits of the cause, would flock to any that would give them bread. Upon the whole I am really sometimes afraid that ’this evil is of the Lord.’ When I consider (to say nothing of ten thousand other vices shocking to human nature) the astonishing luxury of the rich and the profaneness of rich and poor, I doubt whether general dissoluteness of manners does not demand a general visitation. Perhaps the decree is already gone forth from the Governor of the world. Perhaps even now, As he that buys surveys a ground, So the destroying angel measures it around. Calm he surveys the perishing nation, Ruin behind him stalks and empty desolation. But we Englishmen are too wise to acknowledge that God has anything to do in the world! Otherwise should we not seek Him by fasting and prayer before He lets the lifted thunder drop O my Lord, if your Lordship can do anything let it not be wanting! For God’s sake, for the sake of the King, of the nation, of your lovely family, remember Rehoboam! Remember Philip the Second! Remember King Charles the First!--I am, with true regard, my Lord, Your Lordship’s obedient servant. To Lord North, First Lord of the Treasury ARMAGH, June 15, 1775. MY LORD,--I would not speak, as it may seem to be concerning myself with things that lie out of my province. But I dare not refrain from it any longer; I think silence in the present case would be a sin against God, against my country, and against my own soul. But what hope can I have of doing good, of making the least impression upon your Lordship, when so many have spoken in vain, and those far better qualified to speak on so delicate a subject They were better qualified in some respects; in others they were not. They had not less bias upon their minds; they were not free from worldly hopes and fears. Their passions were engaged; and how easily do those blind the eyes of their understanding! They were not more impartial; most of them were prejudiced in the highest degree. They neither loved the King nor his Ministers; rather they hated them with a perfect hatred; and your Lordship knows that you could not, if you were a man, avoid having some prejudice to them. In this case it would be hardly possible to feel the full force of their arguments. They had not better means of information, of knowing the real tempers and sentiments, either of the Americans on the one hand, or the English, Irish, or Scots on the other. Above all, they trusted in themselves, in their own power of convincing and persuading: I trust only in the living God, who hath the hearts of all men in His hands. And whether my writing do any good or no, it need do no harm; for it rests within your Lordship’s breast whether any eye but your own shall see it. I do not intend to enter upon the question whether the Americans are in the right or in the wrong. Here all my prejudices are against the Americans; for I am an High Churchman, the son of an High Churchman, bred up from my childhood in the highest notions of passive obedience and non-resistance. And yet, in spite of all my long-rooted prejudices, I cannot avoid thinking, if I think at all, these, an oppressed people, asked for nothing more than their legal rights, and that in the most modest and inoffensive manner that the nature of the thing would allow. But waiving this, waiving all considerations of right and wrong, I ask, Is it common sense to use force toward the Americans A letter now before me, which I received yesterday, says, ’Four hundred of the regulars and forty of the militia were killed in the late skirmish.’ What a disproportion is this! And this is the first essay of raw men against regular troops! You see, my Lord, whatever has been affirmed, these men will not be frightened. And it seems they will not be conquered so easily as was at first imagined. They will probably dispute every inch of ground, and, if they die, die sword in hand. Indeed, some of our valiant officers say, ’ Two thousand men will clear America of these rebels.’ No, nor twenty thousand, be they rebels or not, nor perhaps treble that number. They are as strong men as you; they are as valiant as you, if not abundantly more valiant, for they are one and all enthusiasts--enthusiasts for liberty. They are calm, deliberate enthusiasts. And we know how this principle Breathes into softer souls stem love of war, And thirst of vengeance, and contempt of death. We know men animated with this spirit will leap into a fire or rush into a cannon’s mouth. ’But they have no experience in war.’ And how much more have our troops Very few of them ever saw a battle. ’But they have no discipline.’ That is an entire mistake. Already they have near as much as our army. And they will learn more of it every day; so that in a short time, if the fatal occasion continue, they will understand it as well as their assailants. ’But they are divided amongst themselves.’ So you are informed by various letters and memorials. So, doubt not, was poor Rehoboam informed concerning the ten tribes! So, nearer our own times, was Philip informed concerning the people of the Netherlands. No, my Lord, they are terribly united. Not in the Province of New England only, but down as low as the Jerseys and Pennsylvania. The bulk of the people are so united that to speak a word in favor of the present English measures would almost endanger a man’s life. Those who informed me of this (one of whom was with me last week, lately come from Philadelphia) are no sycophants; they say nothing to curry favor; they have nothing to gain or lose by me. But they speak with sorrow of heart what they have seen with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. These men think, one and all, be it right or wrong, that they are contending pro aris et focis, for their wives, children, and liberty! What an advantage have they herein over many that fight only for pay, none of whom care a straw for the cause wherein they are engaged, most of whom strongly disapprove of it! Have they not another considerable advantage Is there occasion to recruit the troops Their supplies are at hand and all round about them: ours are three thousand miles off! Are we, then, able to conquer the Americans, suppose they are left to themselves, suppose all our neighbors should stand stock still and leave us and them to fight it out But we are not sure of this. Nor are we sure that all our neighbors will stand stock still. I doubt they have not promised it; and if they had, could we rely upon those promises Yet it is not probable they will send ships or men to America. Is there not a shorter way Do they not know where England and Ireland lie And have they not troops as well as ships in readiness All Europe is well apprised of this; only the English know nothing of the matter! What if they find means to land but ten thousand men Where are the troops in England or Ireland to oppose them Why, cutting the throats of their brethren in America! Poor England in the meantime! ’But we have our militia---our valiant, disciplined militia. These will effectually oppose them.’ Give me leave, my Lord, to relate a little circumstance of which I was informed by a clergyman who knew the fact. In 1716 a large body of militia were marching towards Preston against the rebels. In a wood which they were passing by a boy happened to discharge his fowling-piece. The soldiers gave all for lost, and by common consent threw down their arms and ran for life. So much dependence is to be placed on our valorous militia! But, my Lord, this is not all. We have thousands of enemies, perhaps more dangerous than French or Spaniards. As I travel four or five thousand miles every year I have an opportunity of conversing freely with more persons of every denomination than any one else in the three kingdoms. I cannot but know the general disposition of the people--English, Scots, and Irish; and I know a large majority of them are exasperated almost to madness. Exactly so they were throughout England and Scotland about the year 1640; and in a great measure by the same means--by inflammatory papers which were spread, as they are now, with the utmost diligence in every corner of the land. Hereby the bulk of the population were effectually cured of all love and reverence for the King. So that, first despising, then hating him, they were just ripe for open rebellion. And, I assure your Lordship, so they are now. They want nothing but a leader. Two circumstances more are deserving to be considered: the one, that there was at that time a decay of general trade almost throughout the kingdom; the other, there was a common dearness of provisions. The case is the same in both respects at this day. So that even now there are multitudes of people that, having nothing to do and nothing to eat, are ready for the first bidder; and that, without inquiring into the merits of the cause, would flock to any who would give them bread. Upon the whole, I am really sometimes afraid that this evil is from the Lord. When I consider the astonishing luxury of the rich, and the shocking impiety of rich and poor, I doubt whether general dissoluteness of manners does not demand a general visitation. Perhaps the decree is already gone forth from the Governor of the world. Perhaps even now, As he that buys surveys a ground, So the destroying angel measures it around. Calm he surveys the perishing nation; Ruin behind him stalks, and empty desolation. --I am, with true regard, my Lord, Your Lordship’s obedient servant. To Thomas Wride DUBLIN, July 22, 1775. The present question concerns not John Floyd but Thomas Wride. The words which I heard you speak at Limerick were such as no civilized Turk or heathen would have suffered to come out of his mouth. I hoped this would have been the last time; but you now repeat the same in cool blood. Your letter was read at the Conference, and our brethren desired me to inform you are no longer fit for our Connection. Such a foul-mouthed rafter (upon whatever provocation) is quite unfit for a Methodist preacher. Such base language is too bad for the fishwives of Billingsgate. It is such as an archangel would not use to the devil. You must have done with it for ever if you desire to have any farther fellowship with John Wesley. To Ann Bolton BOLTON, July 25, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I wanted much to hear from you, and am glad to find you are not moved from your steadfastness. At present I have but just time to tell you that on Monday, August the 14th, I hope to be at Witney, in my way to Wales, and to see my dear friend there. I can hardly preach before seven o’clock, as I am to come from London that day. Time is short. Remember, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. PS.--I did not receive yours of May 8 till yesterday. To Miss Bolton, At Witney, Oxfordshire. Cross Post. To Hannah Ball LEEDS, July 28, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--Undoubtedly that is our calling, to stand fast in glorious liberty, whatever God is pleased to give or take away. We may feel, and yet resign, like the Marquis De Renty when he apprehended his wife was dying. And this is a proof, not of want of affection, but of such an affection as is well pleasing to God. You will have need now to use double diligence to stir up the gift of God in those who have been hindered from attending His word, lest they should be faint in their mind.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To James Dempster NEAR LEEDS, July 28, 1775. DEAR JEMMY,--Last month I was at the gates of death. But it pleased God just then to rebuke the fever, so that my pulse began to beat again after it had totally ceased. Since that time I have been gradually recovering strength, and am now nearly as well as ever. Let us use the short residue of life to the glory of Him that gave it!--I am Yours affectionately. To John King NEAR LEEDS, July 28, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Always take advice or reproof as a favor; it is the surest mark of love. I advised you once, and you took it as an affront; nevertheless I will do it once more. Scream no more, at the peril of your soul. God now warns you by me, whom He has set over you. Speak as earnestly as you can, but do not scream. Speak with all your heart, but with a moderate voice. It was said of our Lord, ’ He shall not cry’; the word properly means, He shall not scream. Herein be a follower of me, as I am of Christ. I often speak loud, often vehemently; but I never scream, I never strain myself. I dare not; I know it would be a sin against God and my own soul. Perhaps one reason why that good man Thomas Walsh, yea and John Manners too, were in such grievous darkness before they died was because they shortened their own lives. O John, pray for an advisable and teachable temper! By nature you are very far from it; you are stubborn and headstrong. Your last letter was written in a very wrong spirit. If you cannot take advice from others, surely you might take it from Your affectionate brother. To Mary Lewis NEAR LEEDS, July 28, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--By the blessing of God I am at least as well as I was before my late illness; and I have now recovered my strength, which returned by slow degrees from the time I got into the open air. Your being fully employed has been a means of preserving you from a thousand snares. Young persons who have little to do are in the greatest danger of all others. But in all your business you can hold fast that point--’ This one thing I do’: I love God; I serve God; I work out my own salvation. What else upon earth is worth a thought All besides passes away like a dream. As many of our brethren have desired that Mr. Muffin may spend another year at Bristol, Mr. Saunderson cannot be there next year, were it only on this account. Two preachers never stay two years together in one place, unless one of them be a supernumerary. But I doubt his late behavior is another objection; for I am afraid the observations you make concerning it are but too well grounded. Your letters are never too long. I have more letters to write than you; therefore mine are shorter. Keep close to Him that loves you, and He will soon make you partaker of your hope. All things are ready!--I am, my dear Molly, Yours affectionately. To Miss Lewis, At Mr. Flower’s, On the Key, Bristol. To Thomas Rankin NEAR LEEDS, July 28, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--I rejoice to hear that the work of our Lord still prospers in your hands. If the temple is built even in troublous times, it is not by the power of man. I rejoice, too, over honest Francis Asbury, and hope he will no more enter into temptation. Do not despair of poor T---- R---- He is not out of God’s reach yet. I know no reason why we should not print the names of the American preachers. You may print an edition of the Christian Pattern, and apply the profits of it to the payment of the debt. The Societies should pay the passage of the preachers. But you must not imagine that any more of them will come to America till these troubles are at an end. Certainly this is the point which we should insist upon in season and out of season. The universal corruption of all orders and degrees of men loudly calls for the vengeance of God; and inasmuch as all other nations are equally corrupt, it seems God will punish us by one another. What can prevent this but an universal, or at least a general, repentance Otherwise we have great reason to fear God will soon say, ’Sword, go through that land and destroy it.’ Those clergymen should be lovingly advised not to hurt our preachers. I will pay your arrears. We have only to live to-day! God will take care of to-morrow.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse NEAR LEEDS, July 28, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I will talk with Lancelot Harrison at the Conference, and consider what is best to be done. A surgeon in London has lately published a treatise on A New Method of Curing Sore Legs, which I believe has never failed. I think Mr. Woodhouse will not die yet, unless it be by the help of physicians and surgeons. If Mr. Barnard chose to dissolve the partnership, Mr. Hutton could not help it. But he cannot expect to have so much custom at first as an old, well-known shop. Let us be ready to do and suffer all the will of God our Lord: then what can hurt us--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Ann Bolton NEAR LEEDS, July 30, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--God has done great things for us already. But we shall see greater things than these. We have reason to hope that there will be a larger shower of grace than any we have yet known. But we cannot tell whether the general blessing will be preceded by a general visitation. God has long been drawing us to our good and using every gentle means of reforming a sinful nation. But if this will not avail, He will take another way; He will send affliction to cure sin. If Miss Hurrell and you are separated for a season, it may be a means of making you more useful to each other when you are restored to each other. In the meantime you have a Friend who is able to supply all your wants, and from whom you never need be separated in time or in eternity. From the time that the fever burned I have been continually recovering strength, though by slow degrees. At present I am nearly the same as before my illness. And I ever am, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To his Brother Charles LEEDS, July 31, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--I must not delay answering your important question, ’ What can be done with William Pine ’ If he still, after my earnest warning, ’every week publishes barefaced treason,’ I beg you would once more warn him in my name and in your own; and if he slights or forgets this warning, then give him his choice either to leave us quietly or to be publicly disowned. At such a time as this, when our foreign enemies are hovering over us and our own nation is all in a ferment, it is particularly improper to say one word which tends to inflame the minds of the people. My strength is gradually increasing. Except the shaking of my hand, I am now nearly as I was before my illness, but I hope more determined to sell all for the pearl. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To his Brother Charles LEEDS, August 4, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--The Conference (a blessed one) was concluded this morning, and I am as strong as I was when it began. I do not advise you to accept of the invitation: I read a letter to-day which I do not like. Nay, Mr. Saunderson is ’settled in Bristol ’--that is, as a local preacher. Such an Address to the Americans would be highly seasonable. Have you heard anything of the Africans I hope to be in London on Tuesday evening and the Thursday in the following week at Brecon. As matters are now, I let the Orphan House alone, lest the remedy should be worse than the disease. I have likewise a good letter from T. Rankin. He and all our brethren expect sufferings. Hitherto they have behaved extremely well. I must write by post to Sister Castleman and my other Bristol friends. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To Thomas Vasey NEAR LEEDS, August 5, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I trust you will not turn again into folly, but watch and pray that you enter not into temptation. Mr. Wolfe, the assistant in Salisbury circuit, is a mild tender-hearted man. I hope he will be of service to you, and so may Mr. Undrell your other fellow laborer. You are now called more than ever to redeem the time, to walk humbly and closely with God; and to be a man of one business. One that have nothing to do but to save your own soul and those that hear you.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Tho. Vasey, At the Preaching-house, Sarum. To Damaris Perronet NEAR LEEDS, August 6, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I believe my late illness has already answered many wise ends of Providence. It has been a blessing to me and to many others--a fresh proof that God doeth all things well. I doubt not but Brother Wood’ and his fellow laborer will be still zealous and active for God; and if so, his work will surely increase at Sevenoaks and the Wells as well as other places. Nay, I do not despair of poor Canterbury; it is not out of God’s reach. I dreamed last night that the Spaniards were come, and were searching all houses and putting men to the torture. But on a sudden they were vanished out of the land, I could not tell how. My Betsy should not think that I am ever so busy as not to have leisure to read and answer her letters. I think Philothea, too, since I am alive again, should have written to me either in verse or prose.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, August 10, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--I would do everything to oblige those on either side, except speaking evil of the other. My route is this: Monday, August 14, Witney; Tuesday, 15, Gloucester; Wednesday, 16, The Hay; Thursday and Friday, Brecon; Saturday, Carmarthen (Deo vo/.); Monday, 28, Bristol. I sent your order to Sam. Heaton. I believe it will be best to accept of Mr. Castleman’s invitation at Bristol, and to go straight to his house. I come back through Cardiff; if you could get thither, I could bring you home. It is not safe to live or die without love. Peace be with you all! Adieu. I wish Sammy Lewis would meet me on the 28th at the Old Passage. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, August 13, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--I do not give up T---- R---- yet; he is not out of God’s reach. I am not sorry that Brother Asbury stays with you another year. In that time it will be seen what God will do with North America, and you will easily judge whether our preachers are called to remain any longer therein. If they are, God will make their way plain and give you favor even with the men that delight in war. Even in the Civil War of Rome Atticus stood firm in the esteem of both the contending parties. And so did the Archbishop of Cambray during the War in the Netherlands; not only the officers but the common soldiers, when they went by, treating him with love and regard. The clouds do indeed gather more and more, and it seems an heavy storm will follow; certainly it will, unless the prayers of the faithful obtain a longer reprieve. ’The preachers at the bottom of all this outcry’ No, indeed; nor any of the Americans. They are only the tools of men on this side the water, who use them for deadly purposes. The scheme lies deep, and the wise men of the world imagine it cannot fail of success. But I trust One wiser than them will yet turn the counsel of Athithophel into foolishness. A few weeks ago I was at the gates of death in the North of Ireland. But the fever felt His touch and fled. And I am now just as I was before it came. You did well to remove the books into a place of safety, if any such can be found in America. It is no wonder that the spirits of the men that know not God are sharpened into madness, that human creatures become and commence lions and bears; this is the genuine fruit of war! Certainly, if they persecute in one city, you should flee into another. Peace be with your spirits.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton GLOUCESTER, August 15, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I have been thinking of you much to-day, and with a good deal of satisfaction. And yet there was one thought which was not pleasing: I thought you did not care for my company. You seemed almost studiously to avoid it. At other times, indeed, you have been encumbered with much company or hurried with preparing for them; but it was not so now. I therefore rather impute it (for I will not ascribe it to want of love) to your bodily disorder. Perhaps it was painful to you to talk. If so, this was reason good. I had rather not convene with you at all than increase your pain. I was therefore glad (although I felt your pain) that I did not see you this morning. It was fit for you to rise at so un-seasonable an hour. But you must make it up by writing and by telling me how you are in soul and body. I want you to [be] all a flame of holy love! I want you now to do His will as angels do in heaven! to be all life, all fire, all light in the Lord! and yet not quite to forget, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To John Fletcher BRECON, August 18, 1775. DEAR SIR,--We followed your advice, and were more exact than ever in examining the preachers both as to grace and gifts. A solemn awe was spread through the whole assembly, knowing that God was in the midst of us. And the consequence was far beyond what we could expect--namely, a confidence in each other, and a full conviction that the outcry raised by Mr. Hilton and others was totally without foundation. I have now received all your papers, and here and there made some small corrections. I suppose you have read Dean Tucker’s Letters to Dr. Kippis. I read them in my journey from Gloucester hither, and never before saw so clearly the rise and progress of Predestinarianism. Does not he show beyond all contradiction that it was hatched by Augustine in spite to Pelagius (who very probably held no other heresy than you and I do now); that it spread more and more in the Western Church till the eleventh century; that Peter Lombard then formed it into a complete system; that in the twelfth century Thomas Aquinas bestowed much pains in explaining and confirming it; that in the thirteenth Duns Scotus did the same; that Ignatius Loyola and all the first Jesuits held it, as all the Dominican and Augustine Friars (with the Jansenists) do to this day; that Bellarmine was firm in it, as were the bulk of the Romanists, till the Council of Trent, when, in furious opposition to Luther and Calvin, they disclaimed their ancient tenets. When you do not write, you must travel. I think the sooner the better. Sit still till I die, and you may sit still for ever. I do not perceive that you have granted too much, or that there is any difference between us. The Address to the Perfect I approve of most, and think it will have a good effect. But there may be some danger of growing too voluminous, for then the work will come into fewer hands. The doctrine of Justification and Salvation by Faith are grievously abused by many Methodists. We must guard as many as we can.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the Colonies HAVERFORDWEST, August 23, 1775. MY LORD,--A letter which I received from Mr. Lowland yesterday occasions my giving you this trouble. You told him the Administration have been assured from every part of the kingdom that trade was as plentiful and flourishing as ever and the people as well employed and as well satisfied. Sir, I aver from my own personal knowledge, from the testimony of my own eyes and ears, that there cannot be a more notorious falsehood than has been palmed upon them for truth. I aver that in every part of England where I have been (and I have been east, west, north, and south within these two years) trade in general is exceedingly decayed and thousands of people are quite unemployed. Some I know to have perished for want of bread; others I have seen creeping up and down like walking shadows. I except three or four manufacturing towns, which have suffered less than others. I aver (2) that the people in general all over the nation are so far from being well satisfied that they are far more deeply dissatisfied than they appear to have been even a year or two before the Great Rebellion, and far more dangerously dissatisfied. The bulk of the people in every city, town, and village where I have been do not so much aim at the Ministry, as they usually did in the last century, but at the King himself. He is the object of their anger, contempt, and malice. They heartily despise His Majesty and hate him with a perfect hatred. They wish to imbue their hands in his blood; they are full of the spirit of murder and rebellion; and I am persuaded, should any occasion offer, thousands would be ready to act what they now speak. It is as much as ever I can do, and sometimes more than I can do, to keep this plague from infecting my own friends. And nineteen or twenty to whom I speak in defense of the King seem never to have heard a word spoken for him before. I marvel what wretches they are who abuse the credulity of the Ministry by those florid accounts. Even where I was last, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, a tenant of Lord Dartmouth was telling me, ’ Sir, our tradesmen are breaking all round me, so that I know not what the end will be.’ Even in Leeds I had appointed to dine at a merchant’s; but before I came the bailiffs were in possession of the house. Upon my saying, ’I thought Mr.---- had been in good circumstances,’ I was answered, ’He was so; but the American war has ruined him.’ When I began the enclosed, I designed to send it to Mr. Wharton, according to his desire. But upon reflection, I judged it not improbable that he might make a bad use of it; and thought it might be more advisable to send it directly to your Lordship. To Samuel Bradburn [20] LAUNCESTON, August 31, 1775. DEAR SAMMY,--Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Yours affectionately. Bradburn replied: REVERAND AND DEAR SIR,--I have often been struck with the beauty of the passage of Scripture quoted in your letter, but I must confess that I never saw such useful explanatory notes upon it before. --I am, reverend and dear sir, your obedient and grateful servant, S. BRADBURN. To John Crook BRISTOL, September 22, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have wrote to Mr. Harrison, Hume, and Brooks in the Isle, and told them my plan for helping them, which is this. Go you down directly in the White-haven Circuit to labor there as a third preacher. Then let the three preachers visit the Isle in turns, each staying a month at a time. If the Bishop comes, you should immediately send him in my name the First Part of the Earnest Appeal; and you spread among the richer of the Society the Plain Account of the Methodists, and the Advice to the Methodists, with all the single Sermons. Let Mr. Mason go over first, and you next. You see, in your [case] your wife is considered. Your affectionate brother. You may write to Jacob Rowell at Yarm, and tell him I desire the young man he wrote to me of may go into Lincolnshire in your place. The sooner the better. Mr. Mason, at Whitehaven. To be left at the Methodist Preaching-house, Cumberland. To Alexander Hume BRISTOL, September 22, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear that God has made Mr. Crook’s labor of love profitable to some of you, and cannot blame you for desiring to have him with you a little longer.’ I will write to Mr. Mason, the Assistant at Whitehaven, that Mr. Crook is coming to be a third preacher in that circuit. The three preachers may then visit the Isle month by month; so that you will have Mr. Crook one month in three. They will all teach you that religion is holy tempers and holy lives, and that the sum of all is love.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alexander Hume, In Peeltown, Isle of Man. To John Fletcher LONDON, October 6, 1775. DEAR SIR,--I came hither a quarter of an hour ago. Your answer to Mr. Shirley will, I trust, do great good. I cannot but hope it will be of service to himself; for, to say the truth, he does not seem to be sensible that he has done anything amiss. He does not appear to have the least conception of having injured me. I was going to print an edition of your letters here; but I will wait till your Sixth Letter comes, to which I think it will be exceeding proper to annex that you wrote to me. I shall now be here and hereabouts for some months. The Lord give you a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in His holy comfort--I am, dear sir, Yours most affectionately. To his Brother Charles RAMSBURY PARK, October 17, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--It takes time to set people’s heads right; but we must despair of nothing. I have cast my bread upon the waters, and should have been content though there had been no present fruit. Some hours this morning I devote to ’Americanus.’ What is material I shall endeavor to answer. It is well if I can give as good an account of everything else as of my change of judgement. I find a danger now of a new kind--a danger of losing my love for the Americans: I mean for their miserable leaders; for the poor sheep are ’more sinned against than sinning,’ especially since the amazing informations which I have received from James Ireland. Yet it is certain the bulk of the people both in England and America mean no harm; they only follow their leaders, and do as they are bid without knowing why or wherefore. On Friday I hope to be in London and to talk with the committee about building a new Foundery. This is a lovely spot and a lovely family. ’Tis pity but you could call here. It is four miles from Marlborough, and only a mile north of the London road. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To his Brother Charles NEWBURY, October 19, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--Last night I received a curious anecdote from Mr. Merchant, the Independent minister here. He told me, ’Mr. Evans of Bristol (the elder) informed me that he dined with you (J. W.) at a merchant’s house in Bristol; that he asked you how you was affected when you read the answer to your late tract: and you answered, Not at all; for you had never read it, and never would: to which he replied, That was not fair.’ Where lies the mistake The answer to my late tract is dated October 2. But I left Bristol October 1. Consequently no such conversation could exist. I fancy I have caught hold of the thread, and can unravel the whole. Last year a gentleman I did not know (who I suppose was Mr. Evans) dined with me at Mr. Wraxall’s; and probably he might speak to me (though I do not remember it) of some tract which I had then published. If so, there is only an harmless mistake of Mr. Merchant’s, who misunderstood what Mr. Evans said. But this makes it still more probable that his son is the author of the letter to me. ’Tis pity! Some of our friends at Bristol should tell him that he has quite lost himself; that he has forgotten all decency and good manners, and writes like a pert, self-conceited young man. I think a man of sense that could command his temper would make him a little ashamed. Adieu! To Robert Costerdine LONDON, October 20, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am sorry for poor Jer. Cocker. Twice or thrice God has lifted him out of the mire. If he fall again, I doubt he will rise no more. It is the business of Tho. Hanson to remit that money to you. I know it was allowed at the Quarterly Meeting, for I was there myself. I wonder Tommy has not sent it to John Atlay. However, you may draw upon Brother Atlay for it. Visit all the Society from house to house, and you will soon see fruit of it.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin LONDON, October 20, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--The account given in our newspapers of my death was not wholly without foundation; for I was only not dead, my pulse being quite gone and ’the wheel at the cistern without motion.’ But then our Lord stepped in, and The fever owned His touch, and fled. My strength returned by swift degrees; and I am now at least as well as before my illness. In the country places I believe you will have the largest harvest, where they know little and talk little about politics. Their hearts are engaged with something better, and they let the dead bury their dead. I am glad you are going into North Carolina; and why not into South Carolina too I apprehend those provinces would bear much fruit, as most parts of them are fresh, unbroken ground: And as the people are farther removed from the din of war, they may be more susceptible of the gospel of peace. A paper was sent to me lately, occasioned by the troubles in America; but it would not do good. It is abundantly too tart; and nothing of that kind will be of service now. All parties are already too much sharpened against each other; we must pour water, not oil, into the flame. I had written a little tract upon the subject before I knew the American ports were shut up. [A Calm Address to our American Colonies. ’ The ports being just then shut up by the Americans, I could not send it abroad, as I designed. However, it was not lost; within a few months, fifty or perhaps an hundred thousand copies, in newspapers and otherwise, were dispersed throughout Great Britain and Ireland.’ See Green’s Bibliography, No. 305.] I think there is not one sharp word therein; I did not design there should. However, many are excessively angry, and would willingly burn me and it together. Indeed, it is provoking; I suppose above forty thousand of them have been printed in three weeks, and still the demand for them is as great as ever. I was glad to receive yours by Captain Crawford. I am entirely of your mind. I am persuaded love and tender measures will do far more than violence. And if I should have an interview with a great man (which seems to be not unlikely), I will by the grace of God tell him so without any circumlocution. Our time is in God’s hands; let us stand ready for all things!---I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jasper Winscom LONDON, October 20, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--I should have had no objection at all to Brother Skinner’s going into Kent, but that it would interfere with our making a fair trial of the Isle of Wight. I would have this done without delay; and I much approve of the method you propose. We will help you out (as I said) with regard to the expense. I hope you will be able to procure the meetinghouse. Peace be with you and yours.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, October 28, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--I am just returned from Bedford. I have not seen the King these dozen years. I don’t know what you mean by Dr. Smyth’s book. It was best to take no notice of the angry ones. At Ramsbury Park, about a mile to the left of the high road, lives James Nind, local preacher, and general steward for the circuit, on a farm of five hundred pounds a year. His wife, Sally Nind, is one of the most amiable women I know. They mightily desire that you would spend a few nights with them. I am just putting into the press ’a new edition of the Address, corrected’; in which my change is accounted for, and two of the questions fully answered To the third, ’ Why did not the Parliament tax them before’ Mr. Madan answers, ’ Because they were wiser; they knew the mischief that would ensue.’ Dr. Johnson is in France. I have not heard lately from Shoreham. If the worst comes, you must make shift at the Foundery for a week or two. I can put up another bed in that which was Jenny’s room. I do not think you are wise in destroying those papers. Some of them might have been useful to many. When I was in Bristol, I ordered that Hugh Saunderson should preach on Thursday night. None but you should take his place. Joseph Pilmoor may preach on Friday or Monday. Some much like, others much dislike, H. Saunderson; but his audience generally is not small. However, I will refer him to you; but I wish you would fix Thursday. Mr. Fletcher would not be safe without you or me. I should like a conference with Mr. Madan. I have a second friendly letter from him to-day. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! Pray give my love to T. Lewis, and tell him I thank him for his letter. If the persons now taken up are hanged, it may be the saving of the nation. To Joseph Benson LONDON, October 30, 1775. DEAR JOSEPH,--John Fenwick has sent me a minute account of the manner how Miss Hurrell came to speak in the room at Sunderland; and Alexander Paterson has given me a particular narration of what occurred on Sunday the 22nd instant. It seems--thus much is plain at least--that she has no more place at Sunderland; and I doubt whether we may not add, nor at any place in the Newcastle Circuit. I am glad to hear that the word of God prospers in your hands. But you never will see the full fruit of your labors till you take up your cross and visit all the Society, rich and poor, from house to house.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Thomas Taylor LONDON, October 30, 1775. DEAR TOMMY,--At all hazards bring them into discipline; either mend them or end them. I think Mr. Cayley will do more good than harm. He is not now blameable with respect to his wife. She will not live with him. I shall have no objection to your mentioning Colne house if we live to see another Conference. It seems to be really a pressing case. I advise you: (1) Be electrified (if need be) eight or ten times. (2) Keep your body always open, and that by food (as baked, boiled, or roasted apples) rather than by physic. (3) Wash your head every morning with cold water, and rub it well with a coarse hempen towel. (4) I advise you and Sister Taylor to breakfast three or four weeks on nettle tea. Then you will find preaching, especially in the morning, one of the noblest medicines in the world.--I am, with love to Nanny, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Mason LONDON, November 1, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--T. Wride aimed at discipline exceeding well for a raw beginner. But he could not have so much weight as an experienced preacher. You will therefore supply what was wanting in his, and Brother Linnell will more than supply the place of honest, dull David Evans. So that I expect there will be no inconsiderable increase in the Societies this year, particularly at Whitehaven and Carlisle. Everywhere fail not to declare to them the whole counsel of God, and that in the plainest manner you can devise; but, above all, visit from house to house.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles LONDON, November 3, 1775. DEAR BROTHER,--The Proposals and Preface will be sent on Monday. In the Preface to the new edition of the Address (which I will send with the Proposals) there is, I think, a sufficient answer to Mr. Evan’s letter. But Mr. Raikes is right: if it bears no name, it has no title to any answer. No man is a good judge in his own cause. I believe I am tolerably impartial; but you are not (at least, was not some time since) with regard to King Charles I. Come and see what I say. If the worst comes, we can agree to disagree. The History has been some time in the press. The first volume is nearly printed. The paper is good; so is the type; and, what is stranger, the execution too. So much for your first letter. Still I know not whom you mean by Dr. Smyth; unless it be the young clergyman in Ireland, who is a poet, but not of the first magnitude. ’Why were they not taxed for an hundred and fifty years ’ How shockingly ignorant of the law are our lawyers! yea, and the whole body of the Lords and Commons into the bargain! to let Lord Chatham, Mr. Burke, &c. &c., so long triumph in this argumentum palmarium! Why, it is a blunder from top to bottom. They have been taxed over and over since the Restoration, by King Charles, King William, Queen Anne, and George II. I can now point out chapter and verse. I think Mr. Madan grows more and more loving. Res ipsa jam reduxit in gratiam. I shall be right glad to see him. I hear nothing from Cornwall; and no news, you know, is good news. Pray tell Brother Southcote I like his treatise well. I am writing something nearly on the subject. I am desired to preach at Bethnal Green Church on Sunday se’nnight, and purpose to print my sermon. You may guess a little of the tenor of it by the text: ’ Lo, I have sinned and done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done ’ I hope Sally is better. Peace be with you all! Adieu! To James Rouquet LONDON, November 8, 1775. DEAR JEMMY,--I say, I remember nothing of that book, neither of title nor of the argument. But I will send to the bookseller’s to-morrow for the book; and if I have read, I cannot but remember when I see it again. Afterwards you will hear more particularly from Your affectionate brother. But remember the merits of the cause do not turn upon this. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, November 11, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--There was something very awful in that storm which I suppose reached all over England and Ireland; although it seems not to have been altogether so violent in London as in most other places. I am sorry for Captain Davis and his widow. The judgements of God are abroad. The prayer-meetings may be of great use not only to individuals but to the whole nation. I see nothing besides prayer that can avail. For the one question is, ’ Have we a right to tax or no ’ If we have, they are rebels, and accountable to God and man for all the blood that is shed. If we have not, they are innocent, and the blood lies at our door. Will they allow this right or can we give it up--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To James Rouquet LONDON, November 12, 1775. DEAR JAMES,--I will now simply tell you the thing as it is. As I was returning from the Leeds Conference, one gave me the tract which you refer to, part of which I read on my journey. The spirit of it I observed to be admirably good; and I then thought the arguments conclusive. In consequence of which, I suppose (though I do not remember it), I recommended it both to you and others; but I had so entirely forgotten it, that even when it was brought to me the other day I could not recollect that I had ever seen it.--I am Your affectionate brother. To William Pine LONDON, November 14, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Take care you be not carried away with the torrent. You stand on slippery ground. I have wrote more largely to Mr. Rouquet, and refer you to his letter for particulars. Let no warm man persuade you to take any step which you may repent as long as you live.--I am, with love to Sister Pine, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bosanquet WESTMINSTER, November 15, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I cannot immediately give an answer to your question, because we have not yet received an answer from the Committee for letting the City lands. If they grant our petition and allow us a piece of ground to build on (as it is most probable they will), there will be no time for any one to come to London in hope of procuring money for other buildings. Our friends will certainly give all that they can spare toward erecting a new Foundery, and all will be little enough. One great difference between the outward and inward work of God is, inward holiness is mostly instantaneous, given in a large degree at the moment when we are justified, or when we are sanctified or saved from inbred sin; but outward holiness is mostly gradual--wrought by little and little while we deny ourselves and take up our cross and work together with Him. I think you would do well to have a thorough consultation with two or three of our friends that understand the world. Certainly these might be found in or near Leeds. And whatever was then judged best should be speedily and rigorously put in execution.--I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To John Valton DEPTFORD, November 20, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--We had hardly any frost last winter; perhaps you will have little more the ensuing. I am commonly more pinched by the November cold than by that which comes after Christmas. But, be that as it may, our wisdom is to take no thought for the morrow. And with every temptation that comes to-day there is a way to escape. You are just in your place, doing and suffering the will of your Lord in the way to which He has called you. Go on in His name and in the power of His might. Exhort all men to believe in Him now, and all believers now to grasp the prize, to look for Christ in a pure and sinless heart--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. John Valton, At Mr. Hans’, In High Wycombe. To Ann Bolton LONDON, November 26, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I was asked the other day ’whether you was as lively and as useful as in times past.’ I could truly say, ’ I believed you was.’ And have I not good ground so to believe I have narrowly observed you for’ several years; I have read you over with a lover’s eye, with all the friendly jealousy I could; I have marked all your tempers and all your words and actions that fall under my notice; I have carefully weighed you in the balance; and, blessed be God, I have not found you wanting. Once and again I had found you (what is so rarely found) capable of taking advice in the most delicate instance. And if I have sometimes thought your affection to me was a little cooler than formerly, I could not blame you for this; I knew something of myself, and therefore laid the blame where it was due. And I do not desire you to love me any farther than it is a scale Whereby to heavenly love thou may’st ascend. But are you gaining ground with regard to inward life Is your heart more and more acquainted with God and devoted to Him and are you laboring to be more and more useful How go on the little flock at Witney How often do you visit them How is your health Everything that relates to you, nearly concerns, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. Write soon, and write freely. To Samuel Bardsley NORWICH, November 27, 1775. DEAR SAMMY,--Whenever you want anything, you should tell me without delay. If Tommy Colbeck will give you two guineas, it may be deducted out of the book money. I am glad you go again to Skipton, and hope to see it myself if I live till summer. At present I am better than I was before my fever; only it has stripped me of my hair. The more pains you take, the more blessing you will find, especially in preaching full salvation receivable now by faith.--I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Bardsley, At Mr. Garforth’s, At Skipton-in-Craven, Yorkshire. North Post. To Mrs. Crosby NORWICH, November 29, 1775. MY DEAR SISTER,--I believe many of our friends had a real impression from above that this sickness should not be unto death. So we have a new one, added to a thousand proofs, that God hears the prayers of them that fear Him. That observation does really hold in London--those who are the avowed enemies of Christian Perfection are in general the warmest enemies of King George and of all that are in authority under him; yet the counsel of the Lord shall stand, and He will turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness. Betsy Hurrell will do no harm if she comes to Leeds again. I suppose it was for her sake chiefly that awful event was permitted. And it has had the effect which was designed. She was greatly humbled on the occasion. I believe Mr. Fletcher would take a letter well.--I am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Crosby, At Miss Bosanquet’s, Near Leeds. North Post. To the Editor of ’Lloyd’s Evening Post’ NORWICHCH, November 29, 1775. SIR,--I have been seriously asked, From what motive did you publish your Calm Address to the American Colonies I seriously answer, Not to get money. Had that been my motive, I should have swelled it into a shilling pamphlet and have entered it at Stationers’ Hall. Not to get preferment for myself or my brother’s children. I am a little too old to gape after it for myself; and if my brother or I sought it for them, we have only to show them to the world. Not to please any man living, high or low. I know mankind too well. I know they that love you for political service love you less than their dinner, and they that hate you hate you worse than the devil. Least of all did I write with a view to inflame any; just the contrary. I contributed my mite toward putting out the flame which rages all over the land. This I have more opportunity of observing than any other man in England. I see with pain to what an height this already rises in every part of the nation. And I see many pouring oil into the flame by crying out, ’ How unjustly, how cruelly the King is using the poor Americans, who are only contending for their liberty and for their legal privileges! ’ Now, there is no possible way to put out this flame or hinder its rising higher and higher but to show that the Americans are not used either cruelly or unjustly; that they are not injured at all, seeing they are not contending for liberty (this they had even in its full extent, both civil and religious); neither for any legal privileges, for they enjoy all that their Charters grant. But what they contend for is the illegal privilege of being exempt from parliamentary taxation;--a privilege this which no charter ever gave to any American colony yet; which no charter can give, unless it be confirmed both by King, Lords, and Commons; which, in fact, our Colonies never had, which they never claimed till the present reign, and probably they would not have claimed it now had they not been incited thereto by letters from England. One of these was read, according to the desire of the writer, not only at the Continental Congress, but likewise in many congregations throughout the Combined Provinces. It advised them to seize upon all the King’s officers; and exhorted them, ’Stand valiantly only for six months, and in that time there will be such commotions in England that you may have your own terms.’ This being the real state of the question without any coloring or aggravation, what impartial man can either blame the King or commend the Americans With this view, to quench the fire, by laying the blame where it was due, the Calm Address was written--Sir, I am Your humble servant. As to reviewers, newswriters, London Magazines, and all that kind of gentlemen, they behave just as I expected they would. And let them lick up Mr. Toplady’s spittle still, a champion worthy of their cause. To Elizabeth Ritchie NORWICH, November 29, 1775. MY DEAR BETSY,--’ Temptations,’ says one, ’ and distinct deliverances from temptations avail much.’ I do not doubt but you have found it so with regard to your late trials; although there are none which it is harder to withstand at your time of life. I am glad you were enabled to withstand that plausible temptation which few young women have power to resist, particularly when you had to encounter the persuasions of those you esteemed and loved. Mr. Cayley, I think, will do some good; and I am persuaded he will do no hurt. I am glad Mr. Tennant has given you a little more employment; and a glorious employment it is! to be’ a fellow worker with God!’ Oh may you be found faithful! Be zealous for God! Be diligent! Be patient! And never forget Yours affectionately. To Caleb Evans LONDON, December 9, 1775. REVEREND SIR,--You affirm (1) that I once ’doubted whether the measures taken with respect to America could be defended either on the foot of law, equity, or prudence.’ I did doubt of these five years, nay indeed five months ago. You affirm (2) that I ’declared’ (last year) ’the Americans were an oppressed, injured people.’ I do not remember that I did; but very possibly I might. You affirm (3) that I then’ strongly recommended An Argument for the Exclusive Right of the Colonies to Tax Themselves.’ I believe I did; but I am now of another mind. You affirm (4) ’You say in the Preface, I never saw that book.’ I did say so. The plain case was, I had so entirely forgotten it that even when I saw it again I recollected nothing of it till I had read several pages. If I had, I might have observed that you borrowed more from Mr. Parker than I did from Dr. Johnson. Though I know not whether I should have observed it, as it does not affect the merits of the cause. You affirm (5) ’ You say, But I really believe he was told so’; and add, ’ Supposing what I asserted was false, it is not easy to conceive what reason you could have for believing I was told so.’ My reason was, I believed you feared God, and therefore would not tell a willful untruth; so I made the best excuse for you which I thought the nature of the thing would admit of. Had you not some reasons to believe this of me, and therefore to say (at least), ’ I hope he forgot it’ ’But at this time I was perfectly unknown to you.’ No, at this time I knew you wrote that tract; but, had I not, charity would have induced me to hope this even of an entire stranger. You now have my ’feeble reply’; and if you please to advance any new argument (personal reflections I let go), you may perhaps receive a farther reply from Your humble servant. To Walter Churchey LONDON, December 21, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--A few days ago my brother gave me a letter of yours dated November 24. I am surprised that one who has passed a winter in Scotland should complain of cold in Wales. It is not a good sign. I advise no one above twenty to think of learning Greek or Latin; he may employ his time abundantly better. But if John Broadbent has a turn for learning languages, by all means let him learn Welsh. This will turn to good account. And now is his time; you can direct and assist him herein. Meantime persuade him to refrain from screaming, and he will do well. I may speak in confidence to you; take care it do not transpire. Put no confidence either in T---- or his wife. I stand in doubt of them both. The printer is hastening on with the History; yet still I think him slow.--I am, with love to Sister Churchey, Your affectionate brother. To the Society Pro Fide et Christianismo LONDON, December 23, 1775. GENTLEMEN,--I was out of town when your favor of January last came to London; and its being through some mistake mislaid occasioned my not seeing it for a considerable time after my return. Otherwise I should have set all other business aside in order to acknowledge the favor. It gave me a particular satisfaction to observe the zeal with which you still prosecute the glorious mark you have undertaken. May the Author and Finisher of our Faith and of every good work give you to see abundant fruit of your labor. The large Dissertation upon Divine Providence will, I trust, be of great service, in particular to those who fear God and desire to acknowledge Him in all their ways. This is a subject the more needful to be explained and defended, because the wise men of this world explode everything of the kind, asserting that the race is always to the swift and the battle to the strong and success to men of understanding. Although it is rather to be desired than expected that the general plan of modern education may be amended, yet a treatise on that subject, which was printed in England some years since, has not been without success. A few have dared to go out of the common road and to educate their children in a Christian manner; and some tutors of the University have trained up them under their care in a manner not unworthy of the primitive Christians. We have hardly heard in our country of any such thing as a Mission into Lapland. If the common accounts of the Laplanders are true, they are some of the lowest of the human species, raised not many degrees either in understanding or manners above the beasts of the field. Whoever, therefore, they are that undertake to form these into men and into Christians, they will have need of more than common measure both of understanding, faith, and patience. But, still, there is nothing too hard for God; and nothing impossible to him that believe. One thing, gentlemen, I am particularly surprised at in the account of the Society with which you favor me--that in Sweden men of rank, of quality, of eminence are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; are not ashamed openly to espouse His cause and to give a public testimony that they believe the Bible. May the God whom you serve prosper all your endeavors for His glory and the public good. This is the sincere wish of, gentlemen, Your obliged and obedient servant. To the Earl of Dartmouth, Lord Privy Seal LONDON, December 24, 1775. MY LORD,--The corrections made in Mr. Fletcher’s papers which your Lordship was so kind as to make, as well as those made by the gentlemen who perused them, will prevent several objections. Having this occasion, I take the liberty to mention to your Lordship a thing of another nature. The nation is already involved in many troubles. And we know not how many more may follow. Are we able to extricate ourselves out of them all If we have so much wisdom and strength that we need no help from man, are we quite sure that we need no help from God I know your Lordship is not of that opinion. But if we need it, why are we ashamed to ask for it to ask for it in the manner our forefathers did, in solemn public fasting and prayer What if others fast for strife and contention! Is that any reason that we should not do it from a better motive Why may not the people of England as well as the people of Nineveh seek His help who hath all power in heaven and in earth My Lord, my heart is full. Suffer me to speak; and if I speak as a feel, yet as a feel bear with me. Has your Lordship been ashamed (if every one else was) to mention this to His Majesty Who besides your Lordship is likely to do it Did prudence hinder you from doing it Was that Christian or worldly prudence Is it possible for your Lordship quite to avoid this, standing in such a place and with such company Is the God whom you serve able to deliver you from drinking at all into their spirit yea, from sinking a little into their ways doing evil that good may come Now your Lordship has need of the whole armor of God; but, above all, of the shield of faith, that you may not decline, no not for an hour, the exact line marked out for you by the Great King; that you may keep yourself pure, whatever others do; and may answer the design of Him who hath raised you up for this very thing, and placed you so near His Majesty that he might have one counselor at least who dares not flatter but will speak the truth from his heart. And how much depends upon your faithfully using it No less, perhaps, than the temporal prosperity of an whole nation (may not one say of more than one nation) which is just now brought to an awful crisis. May the God of wisdom direct you in all your counsels and arm you with invincible courage and firmness and patience to do and suffer whatever may be for His glory and for the public good. So prays, my Lord, Your Lordship’s obedient servant. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, December 26, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I see no possibility of accommodation. The one point is, Has the Supreme Power a right to tax or not If they have, they cannot, they ought not to give it up. But I say, as Dean Tucker, ’Let them drop.’ Cut off all other connection with them than we have with Holland or Germany. Four-and-thirty millions they have cost us to support them since Queen Anne died. Let them cost us no more. Let them have their desire and support themselves. You sent Harry Brooke one book; but I left two, the larger of which was not sent. If it is lost, I must buy another. The disorder is universal throughout Great Britain and Ireland; but hitherto scarce any die of it in London; so God lightly afflicts us at first. It is well if the people will now hear the rod and Him that hath appointed it.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Francis Wolfe LONDON, December 26, 1775. MY DEAR BROTHER,--So the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away! He hath done all things well. What a word was that of Mr. De Renty on a like occasion!--’ I cannot say but my soul is greatly moved at the sense of so great a loss. Nevertheless I am so well satisfied that the will of the Lord rather than that of a vile sinner is done, that, were it not for offending others, I could shout and sing.’ Now give yourself up more entirely and unreservedly to God. You have nothing else to care for but the things of the Lord, how you may please the Lord.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Francis Wolfe, In South Wilts. To the Printer of the ’Gazetteer’ LONDON, December 28, 1775. Between twenty and thirty editions of the Primitive Pysick, or, A Rational and easy Method of Curing most Diseases, have been published either in England or Ireland. In one or more of these editions stand these words: ’ Give one or more drachms of verdigris.’ I thank the gentleman who takes notice of this, though he might have done it in a more obliging manner. Could he possibly have been ignorant (had he not been willingly so) that this is a mere blunder of the printer that I wrote grains, not drachms However, it is highly proper to advertise the public of this; and I beg every one that has the book would take the trouble of altering that word with his pen. Yours, &c. Editor’s Introductory Notes: 1775 [1] Wesley wrote to Bohler on February 5, after many years of silence. The letter seems to be lost, but in his reply from Nevill’s Court, on February 13, 1775, Bohler says: ’You write, "As to what is to come, I have no design or desire to speak of them" (the Brethren) "at all." This I very much approve; and I heartily wish also it may neither happen without a previous design. You add," Unless in their favor." For my part, I could heartily dispense even with this. You conclude, "I hope I shall never be constrained to do otherwise." This is properly the sentence which startles me. For I cannot imagine what could constrain you to pass strictures on us or to speak against us. For, dear brother, you have really lost sight of us for these thirty years past…Yet perhaps there may be some things in your mind which do not occur to me; and if they should be of such a nature as to be removable on our part, I beg you to mention them to me, and I will do all in my power to prevent them.’ Bohler adds: ’Ever since my last coming to England, this consideration (of the breaches in Zion) has been a heart-breaking subject to me.’ Bohler spent March and April at Fulneck, and died on April 27, 1775, at the age of sixty-three. He is buried in the Moravian graveyard in Chelsea. See Benham’s Hutton, pp. 497-8; Lockwood’s Life of Bohler. [2] Wride was Assistant at Athlone, with John Floyd and Jonathan Hem. Wesley reached Dublin on April 2. He had probably borrowed the books on April 8, 1773, left part of them at Waterford on the 23rd, and the rest at Dublin at the beginning of July. Compare letter of December 26 to Christopher Hopper. [3] Chatham’s Bill for appeasing the strife with America had been contemptuously rejected by the House of Lords, and also a similar measure of Burke’s in the House of Commons. Wesley was greatly distressed by the outlook. The Battle of Lexington was fought in the month after this letter was written and Bunker’s Hill on June 17. [4] Bredin was appointed to Lisburn in 1775. Wesley congratulates Bradburn in 1780 on having such ’an honorable and sensible fellow laborer’ as Bredin. He was the means of making Adam Clarke a Methodist preacher. See letter of January 3, 1791. [5] Wesley had been at Newbury on March 2. He left Bristol for Ireland on the 13th (two days before this letter was written), and ’landed at Dunleary ’ on April 2. Miss Bolton must have been proud of such a tribute as this from her old friend. See letter of January 11 to Francis Wolfe. [6] Fletcher had published The Fictitious and the Genuine Creed in 1775, containing ’A Creed for those who believe that Christ tasted death for every man.’ The Last Check to Antinomianism was issued in the same year. Its fourteenth section answered Toplady’s Caveat against Unsound Doctrine. The work closes with four addresses: To Perfect Christian Pharisees, To Prejudiced Imperfectionists, To Imperfect Perfectionists, To Perfect Christians. [7] Morgan’s only child, Sophia, died in 1775. Delicate health no doubt led to the temper that Wesley deplored. For her father, see note at end of the letter of March 15, 1734. With this letter was one from John Godley, Esq., to Dawson Turner, on April 9, 1827, enclosing Wesley’s letter and confirming the identity of Richard Morgan. Godley’s letter was dated from ’Killigan House, Killeshandra.’ [8] James Dempster was educated at Edinburgh University, became a preacher in 1764, labored in America in 1774-5, and is said to have ceased to travel in 1776. See letter of April 21. [9] William Alwood had been an itinerant from 1756 to 1764; and Samuel Bardsley writes on May 16, 1775: ’ Do you think you can ever take the field again Is not your way more dear than it was Well, come when you will, and I will give you my vote.’ Mr. Bretherton thinks that the question to be settled was his preaching in other circuits; perhaps it was his return to the itinerancy. See his Early Methodism in and around Chester, p. 280. [10] William Legge (1731-180l), second Earl of Dartmouth, was Secretary of State for the Colonies 1772, and Lord Privy Seal 1775-82. This letter was written to him on June 14, while Wesley was ’in the way to Dublin.’ It was sent the following day from Armagh to Lord North, the Prime Minister, with a few alterations and without the final paragraph of a personal nature. The Battle of Bunker’s Hill was fought on June 17. The letter was published in Macmillan’s Magazine for December 1870, from the original in the archives of the Dartmouth family. It is given in the Journal, viii. 325-8, where a comparison of the two copies has been made. For other particulars and the illness from which Wesley was suffering at the time, see Journal, vi. 66-70; see also next letter. [11] Frederick North (1732-92), eighth Lord North, who succeeded his father as second Earl of Guilford in 1790, became First Lord of the Treasury in 1770 and resigned in 1782. See previous letter. This letter appeared in the Wesley Banner, 1849, i. 177, and in Smith’s History of Wesleyan Methodism, 1859, i. 700. For Wesley’s reference to ’ an interview with a great man,’ who was probably Lord North, see letter of October 20 to Thomas Rankin. [12] Wride had heard Floyd (his colleague) preach at Limerick, and ’was surprised, not at his ability, but at his self-conceitedness.’ ‘How Mr. Wesley is so influenced by him, or why he will not give me liberty to drag him into open daylight, I at present leave; but I cannot think it will be for the success of the gospel or Mr. Wesley’s personal happiness, usefulness, or credit. I confess I cannot think I’m used well. If I had the liberty of a common highwayman, the matter would be short.’ Floyd had accused him of never giving tickets to any Society in the Athlone Circuit. Wride told Wesley: ’John Floyd has threatened how he will oppose me. I know not what he intends to say: but if you give me the liberty of a common highwayman, I will not fear his wrath or court his favor; for in my esteem they are of equal worth. I think he hath said enough, if true, to prove me a knave and a fool; but if it be false, then it is enough to prove him what would appear bitter in me to pronounce. How he ought to be dealt with is plain (Deut. xix. 16, &c.).’ Wride asserts that he have tickets twice to every Society in the Athlone Circuit. Floyd said Wride had stated that he had been apprenticed to a counselor and a physician; but Sister Moore declared, in the presence of Wesley, Wride, and Floyd, that she had never heard him say this; and so did Miss Glass, in the presence of Brother Snowden. Floyd told Wesley at Tyrell’s Pass that ’by his preaching Mr. Wride appears to have no notion at all of the Methodist discipline.’ This Wride says is ’quite a new objection; unheard of (at least) by me until this year. My most malicious foes never (to my knowledge) dreamt of this objection.’ Floyd, according to his own account, had spent a good fortune in physic. Wride says, ’Our contest is physical (as well as moral),’ and gives a satirical instance of ’his profound skill.’ Floyd also boasted that he could dispute in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In 1775 Wride was appointed second preacher at Sligo. Wesley was at Limerick on May 10. See Journal, vi. 62; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 298; and letter of February 24. [13] Miss Bolton wrote on July 7 that she had the previous week been informed of his dangerous illness, and afterwards of his death. ’ Since which, Sister A----- has sent me the good news of your being yet in the land of the living and in good health.’ For herself she says, ’ I am enabled to hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life.’ [14] Wesley had been seriously ill in Ireland, ’ more dead than alive,’ at the middle of June, and on July 26 his hand shook so that he could hardly write his name; ’but after I had been well electrified by driving four or five hours over very rugged, broken pavement, my complaint was removed, and my hand was as steady as when I was ten years old.’ See Journal, vi. 66-71; and letter of July 30. [15] John King labored with great success in Philadelphia and Baltimore. He became a regular preacher, and did faithful service till he ’located’ in 1803. He had a stentorian voice, which he used to its utmost capacity, and when he preached in St. Paul’s, Baltimore, ’ made the dust fly from the old velvet cushion.’ See Steven’s American Methodism, pp. 46-7; and letter of March 27, 1771. [16] Wesley was staying with Miss Bosanquet when he wrote this letter. John Murlin and Hugh Saunderson were stationed in Bristol, where Murlin was reappointed in 1775. Saunderson had no appointment that year; but in 1776 he is again sent to Bristol, and the next year ’ desisted from travelling.’ See letters of May 29 and August 4. [17] Pine had been Wesley’s chief printer and publisher since 1761, and had just brought out the revised edition of his Works. He became a vehement supporter of the American Colonists, and the connection ceased. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 211; and letter of November 14. [18] The appointment is Wilts, South, Francis Wolfe, T. V., John Undrell. T.V. initials appear in 1776 at Gloucestershire. In 1776 and 1777 at Cornwall, West. In 1778 his name appears in full at Colne, and in 1779 at Whitehaven. [19] ’The following is a copy of a letter written by Mr. Wesley to a missionary in America during the severe struggle for independence’ (Manuscript Life of Benson, i. 323). [20] Samuel Bradburn, ’the Demosthenes of Methodism,’ was the son of a soldier. He was an extraordinary preacher, who was President in 1799, and died on July 26, 1816. He was now Assistant in Pembrokeshire; ’and had I not met with Mr. Wesley at Brecon,’ he says in his Memoirs, p. 49, ’ I should have been quite at a loss, being brought to the last shilling.’ Wesley sent this letter to him, with these ’expository notes’: ’The sum of the matter is, you “want money," and money you shall have, if I can beg, borrow, or--anything but steal. I say, therefore, "dwell in the land, and be doing good, and verily thou shalt be fed." ’A similar letter was sent to Jonathan Crowther, but without the notes. See Stevens’s History of Methodism; and letter of September 25, 1787. [21] This is an arrangement to meet the needs of the Isle of Man. The letter was written to John Crook, one of the preachers in Lincolnshire West. who was to go to Whitehaven, where John Mason was Assistant. The three preachers in Whitehaven were to visit the island in succession. Jacob Rowell, the Assistant at Yarm, was to send a supply to Lincolnshire. See next letter. Crook was the son of a Lancashire physician who had squandered his fortune and died at sea. He enlisted as a soldier, and was converted at Limerick in 1770. He bought his discharge, and returned to Liverpool, where he was a class-leader and local preacher. At the beginning of 1775 he went to the Isle of Man, where the Lieutenant-Governor and the chief people of Castletown came to hear him. He was received on trial in August and appointed to Lincolnshire; but this was altered to meet the wishes of the Manx Methodists. Crook became the Apostle of the Isle of Man. See letter of August 10, 1776, to him. [22] Caleb Evans, Baptist minister at Broadmead, Bristol, had written against Wesley’s Calm Address to our American Colonies under the name of ’ Americanus.’ Thomas Olivers, in his Full Defense of the Rev. John Wesley, p.19, writes that Joseph Bradford, Wesley’s travelling companion, told him Wesley stayed with a Dissenting minister, who asked if he had not said so and so to another Dissenting minister who had dined with him. Wesley replied that to the best of his knowledge he had never dined with him or seen him. Next day, when this minister returned, Wesley said he was glad to see him, and recollected that he had dined with Mr. Evans, and very probably ’the words you mentioned had passed between us.’ See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 187-9; Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 482; and for the Calm Address, Works, xi. 80-90. [23] Costerdine was superintendent of the Sheffield Circuit. He had probably some claim upon the Preachers’ Fund, of which Thomas Hanson, now in Cornwall, was one of the committee. [24] Winscom had retired from business as a haberdasher in Winchester, and was living at Witchurch. Wesley thought highly of him, and so did Asbury. He introduced Methodism into Winchester in 1765; and was admitted on trial as a preacher in 1788. See letter of May 28, 1788, to him. [25] A sermon by Dr. Smith, of Philadelphia, is referred to at the end of Wesley’s Calm Address (Works, xi. 88-90). For answers to the Address, see Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, Nos. 475-85; and for Fletcher’s defense of it, Nos. 482-3. [26] Benson had left Edinburgh the previous Conference, and was now stationed in Newcastle. He replied to Wesley, regretting that his colleague, Robert Empringham, had complied with John Fenwick’s wish and had carried round a petition for signature on behalf of Miss Hurrell. ’ It was directly calculated to make you believe that some of us had opposed her, which we have not done, both violently and publicly.’ Benson (manuscript Life, i. 376) assured Wesley that he had never spoken a word against her in public; ’and if I have mentioned my objections to her proceedings in private, it has been to very few individuals, and that with great calmness and moderation; and the same I may affirm of Mr. Smith, Cownley, Lowes, and others with us.’ See letter of November 29 to Mrs. Crosby. Elizabeth Hurrell preached with Wesley’s approval and sanction. She was awakened under the ministry of John Berridge, of Everton. Many were led to Christ under her preaching, among them William Warrener, the first Methodist missionary to the West Indies, and Henry Foster, who became one of Wesley’s preachers. She was very useful in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Derbyshire. She lost a good deal of her property at Whitby, and gave up preaching for some reason. Before her death this troubled her much. She said, ’ Oh that I but had my time to live again, I would not bury my talent as I have done.’ She was rather frail; but was ’ a woman of great simplicity and integrity of mind,’ and warmly attached to Methodism. ’ She possessed a wonderful ability of conveying her ideas and feelings with scriptural accuracy, and often manifested such strength of thought and felicity of expression as were irresistibly impressive.’ Wesley visited her in London in 1788 and 1790, probably in Queen Square, from which one of her letters is dated. She lived in Upper Gower Street, and was buried at City Road on March 13, 1798, aged fifty-eight. See Journal, vii. 446d, viii. 109d; Taft’s Holy Women, pp. 175-81. [27] Taylor’s autobiography is in volume vii. of Wesley’s Veterans, with James Montgomery’s memorial verses. He was born at Rothwell, near Leeds, in 1758, became a preacher in 1761, and died in 1816. His obituary says he was a lover of Christian discipline and was zealous and firm in its enforcement. ’A fine large chapel’ was built at Colne; but when Wesley came to open it on June 11, 1777, one of the galleries fell, and many were injured. See Journal, vi. 154-5; Laycock’s Great Haworth Round, p. 310; Wesley’s Veterans, ii. I08-9, vii. 59-60. [28] Wesley had said in the Preface to a new edition of the Calm Address that he had never seen the book which Caleb Evans stated he had strongly recommended--An Argument in Defense of the Exclusive Right claimed by the Colonies to Tax Themselves. Rouquet reminded him that at his house he had urged Charles Wesley to read it. This letter is quoted in Evans’s Reply to Fletcher’s Vindication of the Calm Address. See letters of October 19 and November 12. [29] Pine had written to say that in September 1774 Wesley gave him the pamphlet on the right claimed by the Colonies to tax themselves, and advised him to put it into his newspaper as the best thing that had been written on the subject. This letter appeared in Evans’s Reply to Fletcher’s Vindication of the Calm Address. See letters of July 31 and November 8. [30] Valton was admitted on trial in August, and was now in the Oxford-shire Circuit. He had a Government pension of not less than f40 a year, and took no allowance from the circuit save his food. He gave the rest of his money to the poor. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 75. [31] ’About this time,’ Wesley writes in the Journal, vi. 84, ’ I published the following letter in Lloyd’s Evening Post.’ Toplady’s An Old Fox Tarred and leathered, ’a really disgraceful performance,’ was issued in October 1775. See Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications, No. 479; and letter of October 19. [32] Thomas Tennant was the third preacher in the Leeds Circuit, and this month had appointed Miss Ritchie to be a class-leader, which she describes as ’a weighty office.’ Tennant died in 1793, after twenty-two years of acceptable service. [33] Wesley says in his Journal, vi. 88: ’In answer to a very angry letter, lately published in the Gazetteer, I published the following.’ The account of his change of opinion as to the case of America is given in the Preface to a new edition of A Calm, Address. See letter of October 19, when Wesley had reached the conclusion that ’Americanus’ was Caleb Evans. [34] Broadbent, the second preacher at Brecon, was a native of Leeds who became an itinerant in 1772. He had a strong and clear understanding, and had considerable gifts for the work of the ministry. He died at Frome in 1794, aged forty-three. He was only twenty-four at this time, and had been in Edinburgh in 1773 and Newcastle the following year. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 68; and letter of March 5, 1778. [35] This letter, in the Royal Library at Stockholm, shows Wesley’s influence in Sweden and the interest he took in the Society’s work. See letter of January 31, 1772. [36] John Fletcher published ’two or three small political pieces in reference to our contest with the Americans,’ one of which the Earl of Dartmouth showed to the Lord Chancellor, who handed it to the King. ’One was immediately commissioned to ask Mr. Fletcher whether any preferment in the Church would be acceptable; or whether he (the Chancellor) could do him any service. He answered, "I want nothing but more grace."’ Caleb Evans says in his Reply to Fletcher’s Vindication of Wesley’s Calm Address that it was reported ’that they had passed under the review of Lord Dartmouth, and received many corrections and additions from the pen of this celebrated nobleman.’ The Earl was one of the chief evangelical laymen of the time, whom Cowper describes as ’ one who wears a coronet and prays.’ Wesley spent an hour with’ that real patriot ’ on February 2, 1778, and says, ’ What an unheard-of thing it is that even in a Court he should retain all his sincerity! . . . Perhaps no prince in Europe besides King George is served by two of the honestest and two of the most sensible men in his kingdom!’ The reference is to Lord North and the Earl of Dartmouth. See Journal, vi. 179-80. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 71: 69. 1776 ======================================================================== 1776 To Richard Boardman NEAR LONDON, January 12, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear so good an account of the work of God and of my dear friends Mr. and Mrs. ’Smith. I believe I shall send you a man after your own heart, a stanch, sensible, solid man, and one that I trust is a living witness of the grand Christian doctrine. Our little books you should spread wherever you go. Reading Christians will be knowing Christians. My health (blessed be God) is perfectly restored.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To George Gidley LONDON, January 18, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad to hear that you are ordered to Exeter: there seems to be a particular providence in this. We have a small Society there, which is but lately formed, and stands in need of every help; so that I doubt not your settling among them will be an advantage to them. See that you be not ashamed of a good Master nor of the least of His servants. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Gidley, Officer of Excise, In Port Isaac, Near Camelford, Cornwall. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 25, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--The ignorance of Christians (so called) is indeed greater than can well be conceived. English Christians in general know no more of Christian salvation than Mahometans or heathens. Let us impart to them all the light we can. It will not all be lost labor. You have already seen some fruit; you will see more. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand. Mr. Valton is indeed a faithful laborer, willing to spend and be spent for his Master. In the house I know you have exercise enough. But I am afraid You are not enough in the open air. It is true you cannot be much abroad in this severe weather; but you must catch all the opportunities you can. I long for you to have more opportunities of exercising yourself in the noblest way! But good is the will of the Lord! To Him I tenderly commend you. --I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate. To the Printer of the ’Gazetteer’ LONDON, January [25], 1776. In one respect I am much obliged to the gentlemen (or gentleman) who spend so much time upon the Primitive Physick; and would humbly entreat them to say something about it (no matter what) in half a dozen more of your papers. If nothing was said about it, most people might be ignorant that there was any such tract in the world. But their mentioning it makes many inquire concerning it, and so disperses it more and move. The gentleman signing himself XXX in your last week’s paper (Probably Mr. Antidote) seems now to have shot his last bolt, anti that feebly indeed. But he begins magnanimously: ’Mr. Wesley is too proud, too self-sufficient, and too much wrapped up in his self-importance, to vouchsafe either Mr. Caleb Evans or any other correspondent anything in the shape of an answer.’ How grievously does this man stumble at the threshold! with what glaring, palpable falsehood does he set out! Have I not given a direct answer, both to Mr. Evans and Antidote, and S. E. and P. P. in the public papers However, I am obliged to him for informing me of the difference between ’ounces, scruples, drachms, or drams, and grains.’ Otherwise, after mistaking a dram for a grain, I might have mistaken an ounce for a dram. But a dreadful objection comes next: ’Some people run as they read. Mr. Wesley’s whole progressive life stands as a proof that he is one of that species of readers. In that mode he hath read the Scriptures, and in that mode doth he read every book.’ There is some truth in this. For several years, while my brother and I traveled on foot, our manner was for him that walked behind to read aloud some book of history, poetry, or philosophy. Afterwards for many years (as my time at home was spent mostly in writing) it was my custom to read things of a lighter nature, chiefly when I was on horseback. Of late years, since a friend gave me a chaise, I have read them in my carriage. But it is not in this manner I treat the Scriptures: these I read and meditate upon day and night. It was not in running that I wrote twice over the Notes on the New Testament (to say nothing of those on the Old), containing above 800 quarto pages. ’But was this supposed misprint of dram for grain ever corrected before the error was detected in the Gazetteer ’ Your next question answers this. ’ Or was it only referred to in the Errata, with pro Dram lege Grain ’ I add a word concerning the former objection. I do still in a sense run as I read. I make haste, though I do not hurry. It behoves me to do, as my work is great and my time is short. For how much can a man expect to remain who has seen between seventy and eighty years And may I not plead for some indulgence even on this account, if I am mistaken in more points than one To Alexander Knox LONDON, January 27, 1776. MY DEAR ALLECK,--I wrote a particular answer to your last a day or two after I received it. ’Tis well if someone did not intercept it; otherwise I know not how it could miscarry. Your illness will continue just so long as is necessary to suppress the fire of youth, to keep you dead to the world, and to prevent your seeking happiness where it never was nor ever can be found. Considered in this view, it is a great blessing and a proof of God’s watchful care over you .... I cannot but admire the wisdom and goodness of Divine Providence with regard to you. As you have all the necessaries and conveniences of life; as you have a tender, indulgent parent; as you have a natural sprightliness and flow of spirits, you must in all probability have excited the admiration or affection of your relations and acquaintance, and have placed your happiness therein, had not so wonderful a counterpoise been prepared for you. A common illness, especially a transient one, would by no means have answered the intention, or saved you either from admiring yourself or from being admired by others. Therefore God keeps you long in His school, the very best wherein Infinite Wisdom could place you, that you may thoroughly learn to be meek and lowly in heart and to seek all your happiness in God. Wishing every blessing to my dear Mrs. Knox and the little ones, I remain Yours affectionately. To Mary Bishop LONDON, February 4, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--If you never wrote, if you forgot me quite, I should still love you with a love of esteem. But I am not content with this. I want to come nearer. Meet me half-way, and I shall still love you with a love of friendship. Although I am thoroughly persuaded that those reasonings are in a great measure from a preternatural cause, and therefore chiefly to be resisted by continuing instant in prayer, yet I think Christian prudence not only permits but requires you to add other means to this. That which I would especially recommend is reading, particularly Pascal’s Thoughts (in the Christian Library) and the first two tracts in the Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion. These temptations are permitted to give you a deep and lasting conviction of the littleness and weakness of your own understanding, and to show you the absolute need wherein you stand of continual light as well as power from on high. That ’ the regulation of social life is the one end of religion’ is a strange position indeed. I never imagined any but a Deist would affirm this. If that good man Mr. D---- did, I suppose it must be a slip of the pen; for he could not but know that the love, without which, St, Paul affirms, all we do profits us nothing, is that humble, meek, patient love of our neighbor, which supposes and flows from the love of God. A degree of reasoning you certainly may and ought to use, only joined with humility and prayer. But what you more immediately want is faith. Believe, and thou shalt be saved into perfect peace.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To Matthew Mayer LONDON, February 4, 1776. DEAR MATHEW,--Robert Johnson complained that you preached out of your turn, and thereby made other preachers who came to preach lose their labor. I heard no complaint of you but this; and to this you have now given a sufficient answer. I have not heard any blame you on Mr. Barker’s account, and am glad that affair is likely to end well. Till it is decided whether we shall build a new Foundery or not, I determine nothing concerning my journeys. Peace be with you and yours! --I am, dear Matthew, Your affectionate brother. Mr. Matthew Mayer, At Portwood, Near Stockport, Cheshire. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, February 7, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--One sin is wanting to fill up the measure. The English in general have not persecuted the Gospel. Therefore we have still reason to hope that God will interpose, when all human help fails. If we build a New Foundery this Summer, I shall spend most of it in London, and only just make a flying journey through England, and look at our friends in the capital places. Possibly I may touch at Edinburgh or Aberdeen. You ’received but one book.’ True: but I desired you to enquire after the other, which is far more valuable. It must be either at Bolton or Liverpool. I am, with love to Sister Hopper. Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss March LONDON, February 7, 1776. I have found some of the uneducated poor who have exquisite taste and sentiment; and many, very many, of the rich who have scarcely any at all. But I do not speak of this: I want you to converse more, abundantly more, with the poorest of the people, who, if they have not taste, have souls, which you may forward in their way to heaven. And they have (many of them) faith and the love of God in a larger measure than any persons I know. Creep in among these in spite of dirt and an hundred disgusting circumstances, and thus put off the gentlewoman. Do not confine your conversation to genteel and elegant people. I should like this as well as you do; but I cannot discover a precedent for it in the life of our Lord or any of His Apostles. My dear friend, let you and I walk as He walked. I now understand you with regard to the Perronets; but I fear in this you are too delicate. It is certain their preaching is attended with the power of God to the hearts of many; and why not to yours Is it not owing to a want of simplicity ’Are you going to hear Mr. Wesley’ said a friend to Mr. Blackwell. ’ No,’ he answered, ’ I am going to hear God: I listen to Him, whoever preaches; otherwise I lose all my labor.’ ’You will only be content to convert worlds. You shall hew wood or carry brick and mortar; and when you do this in obedience to the order of Providence, it shall be more profitable to your own soul than the other.’ You may remember Mr. De Renty’s other remark: ’ I then saw that a well-instructed Christian is never hindered by any person or thing. For whatever prevents his doing good works gives him a fresh opportunity of submitting his will to the will of God; which at that time is more pleasing to God and more profitable to his soul than anything else which he could possibly do.’ Never let your expenses exceed your income. To servants I would give full as much as others give for the same service, and not more. It is impossible to lay down any general rules, as to ’ saving all we can’ and ’ giving all we can.’ In this, it seems, we must needs be directed from time to time by the unction of the Holy One. Evil spirits have undoubtedly abundance of work to do in an evil world; frequently in concurrence with wicked men, and frequently without them. To John Mason LONDON, February 17, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The uncertainty of a passage from Liverpool is a weighty objection; as is also the uncertainty of the passage to Whitehaven, so I must lay that thought aside. A little fatigue I do not regard, but I cannot afford to lose time. Supply the poor people with all our small books, with money or without, and exhort them to keep a love to the Church as well as to their brethren. If we do not build a new Foundery this summer, I hope to see you at the usual time--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson NEAR LONDON, February 22, 1776. DEAR JOSEPH,--We must threaten no longer, but perform. In November last I told the London Society, ’ Our rule is to meet a class once a week, not once in two or three. I now give you warning: I will give tickets to none in February but those that have done this.’ I have stood to my word. Go you and do likewise wherever you visit the classes. Begin, if need be, at Newcastle, and go on at Sunderland. Promises to meet are now out of date. Those that have not met seven times in the quarter exclude. Read their names in the Society, and inform them all you will the next quarter exclude all that have not met twelve times--that is, unless they were hindered by distance, sickness, or by some unavoidable business. And I pray without fear or favor remove the leaders, whether of classes or bands, who do not watch over the souls committed to their care ’ as those that must give account.’--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Miss March LONDON, February 26, 1776. What I advise you to is, not to contract a friendship or even acquaintance with poor, inelegant, uneducated persons, but frequently, nay constantly, to visit the poor, the widow, the sick, the fatherless in their affliction; and this, although they should have nothing to recommend them but that they are bought with the blood of Christ. It is true this is not pleasing to flesh and blood. There are a thousand circumstances usually attending it which shock the delicacy of our nature, or rather of our education. But yet the blessing which follows this labor of love will more than balance the cross, ’To be uneasy under obligations which we cannot repay’ is certainly a fruit of diabolical generosity; and therefore Milton with great propriety ascribes it to the devil, and makes him speak quite in character when he says concerning his obligations to God Himself-- So burthensome, still paying, still to owe. I am quite of another mind; I entirely agree with you that the more sensible we are of such obligations the more happy we are. Surely this yoke is easy and this burthen is light. Perhaps, if you give another reading to Thoughts upon Dress, you will clearly see that both reason and religion are more deeply concerned than we are apt to imagine even in the trifling article of dress--trifling if compared with the weightier matters of the law, yet in itself of no small importance; and that, whether you consider yourself as an individual or as a member of a Christian society. Certainly Dr. Young can only mean, ’ None is happy unless he thinks himself so’; and truly this is no great discovery. Is it any more than, ’ None is happy unless he is so’ If he means more than this, he means wrong, for we know the best man is the happiest; but if I thought myself the best man in the world, I should be very proud, and consequently not happy at all. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, March 3, 1776. DEAR TOMMY,--I am glad you have a convenient lodging at Edinburgh. You should try all the little places round Glasgow as soon as you can preach abroad. Rd. Watkinson is as much called to preach as you or I. But is it any wonder his mouth should be shut when he is worn down with weakness and pain and the unkind censures of those he is among Some of the Calvinists stumbled in lately while I was preaching. ’Ay,’ said one of them, ’poor man! He has quite lost his gift! ’ Perhaps your Greenock critics might do the same. So they said of Hugh Saunderson. Those who will not conform to the Rules of our Society are no members of it. Therefore I require John Campbell, John Laird, and Peter Ferguson to take their choice one way or the other. If they will meet their class weekly, they are with us. If they will not, they put themselves from us. And if the rest of the Society cannot or will not bear the expense, our preachers shall trouble Greenock no more. But show them the reason of the thing in The Plain Account of the People called Methodists. After they have considered this, let them either join with us upon these terms or be our friends at a distance. I think what you propose concerning Brother Watkinson is the best thing that can be done. As soon as possible he should drink decoction of nettles or of burdock morning and evening. If need be, I will send him another little bill. Possibly I may see you in May.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, March 3, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--We are endeavoring to procure a piece of ground on which we think of building a new Foundery, as the old one with all the adjacent houses is shortly to be pulled down. If we build, it will necessarily detain me in London a great part of the summer.’ Both George Shadford and T. Rankin were well when they wrote last. They were threatened unless they would declare in favor of the Republicans; but the matter went no farther than words. I am not sorry that James Kershaw is going to settle at Gainsborough. He may be exceeding useful there. He is more than a match for Mr. Glascot and an hundred Predestinarians beside. There is but one thing to do--let us live and die unto Him that died for us!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, Owston Ferry. To Samuel Bradburn BRISTOL, March 10, 1776. DEAR SAMMY,--Billy Roots must not come to Pembroke-shire any more. Therefore if Brother Dixon leaves it, he must change not with him but some other preacher--suppose with John Broadbent. Our preachers may preach where there is no Society; but I do not require it of them. I expect little good to be done in such places. It is better to break up new ground. Why do you not make a trial at Narberth The more labor the more blessing.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Costerdine BIRMINGHAM, March 26, 1776. DEAR ROBERT,--I refer to you an important affair, which I trust God will give you wisdom to determine. Richard Condy accuses Samuel Woodcock, I hope without sufficient grounds. As soon as possible hear them face to face, and send me your judgement to Manchester. I expect to be there on Saturday, April 6, and on Sunday, April 21 (as well as the three days following), at Leeds. If you judge Brother Woodcock is not guilty, pray write to any preacher in Yorkshire in my name to change places with him. And whatever you do, do quickly!--I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Alexander Knox CONGLETON, April 1, 1776. MY DEAR ALLECK,--I am fully persuaded all your disorders depend upon a deep scurvy. What influence the bark may have upon this I cannot tell; however, I have no objection to a decoction or infusion of it. I object only to your taking it in specie; because I can never reconcile to common sense the introducing ounce after ounce of powdered post into an human stomach. But I really think you rather want anti-scorbutic medicines, such as watercress’s or decoction of nettles or burdock. This accounts for your almost continual depression of spirits, which is a bodily as well as spiritual malady. And it is permitted to repress the fire of youth and to wean you from the desire of earthly things, to teach you that happy lesson-- Wealth, honor, pleasure, and what else This short-enduring world can give; Tempt as ye will, my heart repels-- To Christ alone resolved to live. --My dear Alleck, Yours very affectionately. To Robert Costerdine MANCHESTER, April 7, 1776. DEAR ROBERT,--You have done exceeding well in the case of poor Sam. Woodcock. I do not see what you could do more. But the great question is now what he can do; for I doubt he cannot be employed as a preacher--at least, until he has given sufficient proof of a real and deep repentance. I have sent T. Newall into Epworth Circuit. This day fortnight I expect to be at Leeds; and am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Bishop ROCHDALE, April 17, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--Mr. Jones’s book on the Trinity is both more clear and more strong than any I ever saw on that subject. If anything is wanting, it is the application, lest it should appear to be a merely speculative doctrine, which has no influence on our hearts or lives; but this is abundantly supplied by my brother’s Hymns. After all the noise that has been made about mysteries, and the trouble we have given ourselves upon that head, nothing is more certain than that no child of man is required to believe any mystery at all. With regard to the Trinity, for instance, what am I required to believe Not the manner wherein the mystery lies. This is not the object of my faith; but the plain matter of fact, ’ These Three are One.’ This I believe, and this only. Faith is given according to our present need. You have now such faith as is necessary for your living unto God. As yet you are not called to die. When you are, you shall have faith for this also. To-day improve the faith which you now have, and trust God with to-morrow. Some writers make a distinction which seems not improper. They speak of the essential part of heaven and the accessory parts. A man without any learning is naturally led into the same distinction. So the poor dying peasant in Frederica: ’ To be sure heaven is a fine place, a very fine place; but I do not care for that: I want to see God and to be with Him.’ I do not know whether the usual question be well stated, ’ Is heaven a state or a place ’ There is no opposition between these two; it is both the one and the other. It is the place wherein God more immediately dwells with those saints who are in a glorified state. Homer could only conceive of the place that it was paved with brass. Milton in one place makes heaven’ s pavement beaten gold; in another he defines it more sublimely ’ the house of God, star-paved.’ As full an account of this house of God as it can yet enter into our hearts to conceive is given us in various parts of the Revelation. There we have a fair prospect into the holiest, where are, first, He that sitteth upon the throne; then the four living creatures; next, the twenty-four elders; afterwards the great multitude which no man can number; and, surrounding them all, the various myriads of angels, whom God hath constituted in a wonderful order. ’But what is the essential part of heaven ’ Undoubtedly it is to see God, to know God, to love God. We shall then know both His nature, and His works of creation, of providence, and of redemption. Even in paradise, in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection, we shall learn more concerning these in an hour than we could in an age during our stay in the body. We cannot tell, indeed, how we shall then exist or what kind of organs we shall have: the soul will not be encumbered with flesh and blood; but probably it will have some sort of ethereal vehicle, even before God clothes us ’ with our nobler house of empyrean light.’ No, my dear friend, no! it is no selfishness to be pleased when you give pleasure. It proves that your mind was antecedently in a right state; and then God’ answers you in the joy of your heart.’ So be more and more athirst for that holiness; and thereby give more and more pleasure to Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Hall OTLEY, April 24, 1776. DEAR PATTY,--Since I recovered my strength after my late fever, I have scarcely known what pain or weakness or weariness meant. My health is far better and more uninterrupted than it was when I was five-and-twenty. I was then much troubled with a shaking hand. But all that is over. I am glad Peter Hare has a little care for his mother. You may call upon Mr. Atlay, and desire him to give you two guineas for her. And whatever her son will allow her quarterly, I will allow her the same. I much approve of her being with you.’ It may prove a great blessing to her. It is not improbable a voyage will save Betty Appleton’s life. I think it will either kill or cure. Let us live to-day!--I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate friend and Brother. To Mrs. Martha Hall, At the Foundery, London. To Samuel Bradburn NEAR COLNE, April 29, 1776. DEAR SAMMY,--Keep to the whole Methodist discipline, whoever is pleased or displeased. ’But what shah I do,’ says one, ’with regard to L. Thomas, who is continually proposing new schemes’ ’Why, let him talk on, and go you on your old way just as if there were no such upon earth. Never dispute with them. But do the thing which you judge is for the glory of God.’ When you can get another preaching-room, you may do a little more; till then you must be content. I hope Jenny Smeton is in the Society at Pembroke, and that you are not strange with her. Her sister Lawrie at Greenock, after violent agonies of conviction, at last rejoiced in God for ten days and died in peace. See that your own soul be all alive, and then exhort the believers to expect full salvation.--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To James Barry COLNE, April 30, 1776. DEAR JAMES,--Five or six years ago the Dales Circuit was quite out of debt. How come they in debt now Why, at this rate we shall never have done. If they now collect only for themselves, how does this help me to carry on the general work This is nothing for the purpose of the Yearly Subscription toward a common stock. But be this as it may, you know the rule in the Minutes--that all the money thus collected is to be produced at the Conference. If I am not called back to London to superintend the building/I hope to be in your circuit in June.--I am, dear James, . Your affectionate friend. To Mr. James Barry, At the Preaching-house, Barnard Castle, County of Durham. To Hester Ann Roe WHITEHAVEN, May 3, 1776. MY DEAR HETTY,--With pleasure I sit down to write to my dear Miss Roe, who has been much upon my mind since I left Macclesfield. Once I saw my dear friend Miss Beresford; when I came again, she was in Abraham’s bosom. Once I have seen her living picture, drawn by the same hand and breathing the same spirit; and I am afraid I shall hardly see you again till we meet in the Garden of God. But if you should gradually decay, if you be sensible of the hour approaching when your spirit is to return to God, I should be glad to have notice of it, wherever I am, that if possible I might see you once more before you Clap your glad wing and soar away, And mingle with the blaze of day. Perhaps in such a circumstance I might be of some little comfort to your dear mamma, who would stand in much need of comfort; and it may be our blessed Master would enable me to’ Teach you at once, and learn of you, to die In the meantime see that you neglect no probable means of restoring your health, and send me from time to time a particular account of the state wherein you are. Do you feel your own will quite given up to God, so that you have no repugnance to His will in anything Do you find no stirrings of pride no remains of vanity no desire of praise or fear of dispraise Do you enjoy an uninterrupted sense of the loving presence of God How far does the corruptible and decaying body press down the soul Your disorder naturally sinks the spirits and occasions heaviness and dejection. Can you, notwithstanding this, ’rejoice evermore and in everything give thanks’ Mr. Fletcher shows (as does the Plain Account of Christian Perfection) that sanctification is plainly set forth in Scripture. But certainly before the root of sin is taken away believers may live above the power of it. Yet what a difference between the first love and the pure love! You can explain this to Mr. Roe by your own experience. Let him follow on, and how soon may he attain it! I am glad you wrote to Miss Yates, and hope you will write to Miss Ritchie. As to health, they are both nearly as you are; only Miss Ritchie is a little strengthened by a late journey. I never conversed with her so much before. I can give you her character in one line: she is ’ all praise, all meekness, and all love.’ If it will not hurt you, I desire you will write often to, my dear Hetty, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Freeman EDINBURGH, May 27, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--If you forget me, I shall not easily forget you; I love you too well for that. I hear not from my dear Sister Gayer; surely she has not forgotten me too. If you would take up your cross, and at a proper opportunity gently tell John Bredin what you think, certainly it would do no harm, and probably it would do good. I am glad Mr. Smyth had the courage to preach in the Linen Hall, and still more so that Mr. Abraham is with him. His being pushed out of his house is a good sign: he must be like me, a wanderer upon earth. I hope you as well as my dear Miss Gayer (that sat by my bedside when I was just going away) still hold fast your confidence that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin.--I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Freeman, At No. 2 Ely Place, Dublin. To Ann Bolton EDINBURGH, May 28, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--I had the pleasure of yours last night at my return from the North. Indeed, I was in pain for you; I was afraid of your being quite laid up. If you drank a cup of beef-tea twice or thrice a day, I believe it would strengthen you. I desire Mr. Valton or one of the other preachers will be so kind as to go to the Foundery and bring my grey horse down to Witney. Till the middle of June I am to be in or near New-castle-upon-Tyne; afterwards I shall be at York. Everywhere I am, with the tenderest regard, my dear Nancy, Your affectionate brother. If possible, you should ride every day. To Christopher Hopper EDINBURGH, May 28, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You did exceeding well in writing to the Mayor. I believe he will not burn his fingers again. I have found one that I think would serve Mrs. Wagner as an upper secant. But she is not willing to engage till she knows what she is expected to do. Send me word to Newcastle. Pray tell Michael Fenwick that I am to be at Sheffield not on the 23rd but the 19th of July.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Hopper, At the Preaching-house, In Liverpool. X Post. To Alexander Knox EDINBURGH, May 28, 1776. MY DEAR ALLECK,--I received yours a day or two ago at my return from the North of Scotland…I judge your disorder to be but partly natural and partly divine; the gift of God, perhaps, by the ministry of angels, to balance the natural petulance of youth; to save you from foolish desires; and to keep you steady in the pursuit of that better part which shall never be taken from you. Whether you have more or less sorrow, it matters not; you want only more faith. This is the one point. Dare to believe; on Christ lay hold; see all your sins on Jesus laid, and by His stripes you are healed. Very probably, if I live, I shall be detained in London great part of next summer. Look up! Is not health at hand, both for soul and body! You have no business with fear. It is good for nothing. We are ’ saved by hope.’ . . .--I am, my dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To Miss J. C. March ALNWICK, [May 30, 1776]. Sometimes I have been afraid lest you should sustain loss for want of some reproach or disgrace. Your being young and a woman of fortune, and not wanting in understanding, were circumstances which, according to the ordinary course of Providence, keep reproach at a distance. However, you shall not escape it if our blessed Lord sees it to be the best means of purifying your soul. You shall have it just in due measure and in due time; for He will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good. There is one with me here who seems as yet to be under a peculiar dispensation--to be wholly screened from the reproach of Christ. There is something in the natural temper, the understanding, the person, and the behavior of Lady Maxwell which has hitherto prevented reproach, although she is much devoted to God and in many things quite singular. But she is not careful about it; being wining, whenever He shall see it best’, and in whatever measure He shall choose, to share the portion of her Lord. The knowledge of ourselves is true humility; and without this we cannot be freed from vanity, a desire of praise being inseparably connected with every degree of pride. Continual watchfulness is absolutely necessary to hinder this from stealing in upon us. But as long as we steadily watch and pray we shall not enter into temptation. It may and will assault us on every side; but it cannot prevail. To John Fletcher NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 1, 1776. DEAR SIR,--Your answer to Dr. Price will not interfere with mine. But Mr. Collinson is a more able antagonist than him. However, if he does not publish his tract, you need not take any other notice of it than to fortify your arguments against his plausible objections. If you can’t overtake me at York (July 2) or at any other part of Yorkshire, I hope you will at least plan your business so as to meet me at the Conference. It would be highly expedient that my brother and you and I should then meet together. I have letters from two clergymen in Ireland, one or both of whom will probably be with us before that time. The generality of believers in our Church (yea, and in the Church of Corinth, Ephesus, and the rest, even in the Apostolic age) are certainly no more than babes in Christ; not young men, and much less fathers. But we have some, and we should certainly pray and expect that our Pentecost may fully come. In many places we have good ground for this expectation. In many parts even in Scotland the work of God spreads wider and wider, and likewise sinks deeper--a very probable sign that God will yet be entreated for a guilty land.--I am, dear sir, Ever yours. To Hester Ann Roe NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 2, 1776. MY DEAR HETTY,--It is not uncommon for a person to be thoroughly convinced of his duty to call sinners to repentance several years before he has an opportunity of doing it. This has been the case with several of our preachers. Probably it may be the case with Mr. Roe; God may show him now what he is to do hereafter. It seems his present duty is to wait the openings of Divine Providence. It gives me pleasure to know that you have seen Miss Yates and that you have heard from my dear Betsy Ritchie. I expect she will meet me again in two or three weeks and accompany me for a few days. What an happiness to us both would it be to have Hetty Roe sitting between us! If I durst, I should earnestly desire that you might continue with us a little longer. I could almost say it is hard that I should just see you once and no more. But it is a comfort that to die is not to be lost. Our union will be more full and perfect hereafter. Surely our disembodied souls shall join, Surely my friendly shade shall mix with thine: To earth-born pain superior, light shall rise Through the wide waves of unopposing skies; Together swift ascend heaven’s high abode, Converse with angels, and rejoice with God. Tell me, my dear Hetty, do you experience something similar to what Mr. De Renty expresses in those strong words: ’I bear about with me an experimental verity, and a plenitude of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity’ Do you commune with God in the night season Does He bid you even in sleep, Go on And does He ’make your very dreams devout’ That He may fill you with all His fullness is the constant wish of, my dear Hetty, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Hall NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, July 5, 1776. MY DEAR PATTY,--It is not wisdom to impute either our health or any other blessing we enjoy merely to natural causes. It is far better to ascribe all to Him whose kingdom ruleth over all. And whether we have more or less bodily strength is of little concern so we are strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. He gives strength when it is wanted. The week before last, when I was in the North of Scotland where wheels could not go, the going on horseback (though I should not have chosen it) an hundred miles did me no harm at all. By all means let Suky Hare be with you. Show this to Mr. Atlay, and he will give you two guineas for her; and I will help her farther when I come to London. A little longer, and pain will be no more!--I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate brother. To William Severn WHITBY, June 23, 1776. DEAR BILLY,--I had some thoughts of your remaining another year in Bristol, where I know your labor has not been in vain; but first one, then a second, and afterwards a third preacher desired to be stationed there, and each of them gave such reasons for desiring it as appeared to be of weight. You judge right concerning George Snowden: he is ’ a sensible and upright man,’ ’ and you justly observe the Wiltshire circuits are not so convenient for him. I agree with you, too, that Gloucestershire will suit him well--it will be a comfortable situation for him, provided you will bear him company; for you will go hand in hand. Next year, if we live and you desire it, you may be in Nottinghamshire. But I must lay one burthen more upon you (if a labor of love may be termed so); observe, I speak in your ear! Sister Snowden is good-natured, but is a consummate slut: explain with her largely on this head; convince her that it is both a sin and a shame. She came into a clean house at Stroud; let her take care to keep it clean for the honor of God--for the honor of her husband--for the honor of her country!--I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. If Christopher Walker is willing to go into Gloucestershire, you may take his place in Nottinghamshire. To Isaac Andrews SCARBOROUGH, June 24, 1776. You misunderstood me. I never said or thought that every one who lives and died a Calvinist is damned. I believe thousands who lived and died in that opinion are now in Abraham’s bosom. And yet I am persuaded that opinion has led many thousands to hell.--I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. Isaac Andrews, At Mr. Farrens, In Hunt Street, Mile End, Newtown. To James Barry WHITBY, June 24, 1776. DEAR JAMES,--The writer (I forget his name) does not say the local preachers talked blasphemy, but that several of them talk nonsense and that some of them speak against perfection. This must not be suffered. Fix a regular plan for the local preachers, and see that they keep it. You cannot be too exact in this and every other part of discipline.’ This, however, I expect. You will see the fruit of your labor.--I am, with love to Sister Barry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. James Barry, At the Preaching- house, In Barnard Castle. To Elizabeth Ritchie DONCASTER, July 15, 1776. MY DEAR BETSY,--I suppose you wait for my writing first. Nay, I hope this is the case; otherwise I should be afraid that you were fallen ill again. How is your health And how is your mind Do you find as near and as constant a communion with God as ever Are you always happy Does no circumstance interrupt or deaden your spirit of prayer Do you feel nothing contrary to resignation Can you say with your whole heart-- Determined all Thy will to obey, Thy blessings I restore; Give, Lord, or take Thy gifts away, I praise Thee evermore. The word of our Lord to you is, ’ Feed My lambs.’ Methinks I see you giving yourself up, as far as possibly you can, to that blessed work; carrying the weak, as it were, in your bosom, and gently leading the rest to the waters of comfort. Meantime your own soul will enjoy a well of water springing up into everlasting life. If you find any perplexing temptation in your way, you should not scruple to let me know. Youth is the season for many of the most dangerous temptations incident to human nature. But, indeed, you are preserved from many of these by your settled determination to slight all dreams of creature happiness and give your heart to Him who alone is worthy. And believe me to remain Yours affectionately. To ’Mr. Hawes, Apothecary and Critic’ LONDON, July 20, 1776. DEAR SIR,--My bookseller informs me that since you published your remarks on the Primitive Physick, or a Natural and Easy Method of Curing most Disorders, there has been a greater demand for it than ever. If, therefore, you would please to publish a few farther remarks, you would confer a farther favor upon Your humble servant. To Joseph Benson SHOREHAM, July 31, 1776. DEAR JOSEPH,--I think of Joseph Fothergill, and just as you do; and shall willingly propose him at the Conference. I believe he has considerable gifts and is truly alive to God. You are in the right. We must beware of distressing the poor. Our substantial brethren are well able to bear the burthen. I shall write a letter for each Assistant before the Conference is over. If they are in earnest, all will go well. If the asserters of the decrees are quiet and peaceable, troubling no one with their opinions, reason is that we should bear with them. But if they will not be quiet, if they trouble others, we cannot keep them. Do all you can for God!--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. Pray tell Joseph Thompson I have set him down for Leeds. To Mrs. Downes (Dorothy Furly) LONDON, August 2, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--I know not that you differ from me at all. You are certainly in your place at present; and it seems one providential reason of your ill-health was to drive you thither. Now use all the ability which God giveth, and He will give more. Unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly; it is the hand of the diligent that maketh rich. If you can persuade honest Alice Brammah to be cleanly as well as gentle, she will be tenfold more useful; and so will Billy Brammah, if he will be teachable and advisable; otherwise there is a fly in the pot of ointment. You are sent to Leeds chiefly for the sake of those that enjoy or thirst after perfect love. Redeem the time! Go on in His name! And let the world and the devil fall under your feet!--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Dickinson LONDON, Monday, August 5, 1776. Although I hope to see you to-morrow se’nnight, yet I cannot but write a few lines. None that are in the Excise incur any danger by being a member of our Society; but several officers have been made supervisors, and Mr. Ball is now a collector. So that Mr. Dickinson has nothing to fear from any quarter, but may just do as he is persuaded in his own [mind]. When I was at Taunton’ I was much pleased with the account I heard of you, and should have been glad to talk with you myself. If you have leisure, I can talk with you a little after dinner in Mrs. Pond’s chamber. I hope you will never be weary or faint in your mind, nor ever be ashamed when it concerns your soul. If you have God on your side, nothing can hurt you. O consecrate your early days to Him! To His care I commit you; and am, my dear Suky, Yours affectionately. To Penelope Newman LONDON, August 9, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--Before I received yours we had been speaking in the Conference on that very head--the means of preventing spiritual religion from degenerating into formality. It is continually needful to guard against this, as it strikes at the root of the whole work of God. One means whereby God guards us against it is temptation, and indeed crosses of every kind. By these He keeps us from sleeping, as do others, and stirs us up to watch unto prayer. So He is now stirring you up! Hear His voice; and you will feel more life than ever.--I am, dear Penny, Yours affectionately. To John Crook LONDON, August 10, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--By all means stay in the island till the storm be ended; in your patience possess your soul. Beware of despising your opponents! Beware of anger and resentment! Return not evil for evil or railing for railing. I advise you to keep with a few serious people a day of fasting and prayer. God has the hearts of all men in His hands. Neither Dr. Moor nor the Bishop himself is out of His reach. Be fervent in prayer that God would arise and maintain His own cause. Assuredly He will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able to bear. Violent methods of redress are not to be used till all other methods fail. I know pretty well the mind of Lord Mansfield and of one that is greater than he; but if I appealed to them, it would bring much expense and inconvenience on Dr. Moor and others. I would not willingly do this; I love my neighbor as myself. Possibly they may think better, and allow that liberty of conscience which belongs to every partaker of human nature, and more especially to every one of His Majesty’s subjects in his British dominions. To live peaceably with all men is the earnest desire of Your affectionate brother. To Dr. Ford LONDON, August 10, 1776. DEAR SIR,--I am a little surprised that so odd a design should enter into the head of any of our preachers without having consulted either me or the Assistant. It was a kind Providence that interposed. I believe there is no danger that any other of our preachers should make such attempt any more than Mr. Peacock, who is now removed into another circuit. I have frequently observed that, when prejudice has arisen in a place to such an height that it seemed nothing could withstand it, it has swiftly subsided, almost without any visible means. And this was a fresh proof that the hearts of all men are in the hands of God, and that He turneth them as the rivers of water. Although you do not immediately see the fruit of your labor, this is no reason for being discouraged. Our Lord may permit this, to convince you the more thoroughly that the help which is done upon earth He doeth it Himself. Perhaps when there is least appearance a flame will suddenly break out, and you shall see the day of His power. Commending Mrs. Ford and you to His tender care, I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Dr. Ford, At Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire. To Elizabeth Ritchie LONDON, August 12, 1776. MY DEAR BETSY,--To talk of ’ thinking without ideas’ is stark nonsense. Whatever is presented to your mind is an idea; so that to be without ideas is not to think at all. Seeing, feeling, joy, grief, pleasure, pain are ideas. Therefore to be without ideas is to be without either sense or reason. Mr.---- certainly does not understand the word; he mistakes it for images. O desire nothing different in nature from love! There is nothing higher in earth or heaven. Whatever he speaks of which seems to be higher is either natural or preternatural enthusiasm. Desire none of those extraordinaries. Such a desire might be an inlet to a thousand delusions. I wish your desires may all center in that: I want the witness, Lord, That all I do is right! According to Thy will and word, Well pleasing in Thy sight! I ask no higher state, Indulge me but in this! And soon, or later, then translate To my eternal bliss. You say Satan had laid a snare for you. What snare was that I am concerned in whatever concerns you. 0 continue to remember in all your prayers Yours most affectionately. To the Officer of Excise LONDON, September 1776. SIR,--I have two silver teaspoons at London, and two at Bristol. This is all the plate which I have at present; and I shall not buy any more while so many round me want bread. --I am, sir, Your most humble servant. To Thomas Carlill BRISTOL, September 8, 1776. DEAR TOMMY,--Whatever these poor self-deceivers do, it is our part to go straight forward; and we know the counsel of the Lord that shall stand--the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There is a blessed seed in Wales, and particularly in Brecknockshire. And if you will take the pains when you are in any town to call upon our poor people at their own houses, religion will deepen in their hearts and you will see the fruit of your labor. Begin this as soon as possible.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. PS.--I hope you wrote to George Mowatt. To Hester Ann Roe BRISTOL, September 16, 1776. MY DEAR HETTY,--As I did not receive yours of August 28 before my return from Cornwall, I was beginning to grow a little apprehensive lest your love was growing cold. But you have sweetly dispelled all my apprehensions of that sort, and I take knowledge that you are still the same. The happy change wrought in Miss Peggy Roe as well as in Miss Bradock may encourage you to catch every opportunity of speaking a word for a good Master. Sometimes you see present fruit. But if not, your labor is not lost; it may spring up’ after many days.’ I hope, though your cousins are tried, they will not be discouraged; then all these things will ’work together for good.’ Probably, if they stand firm, religion will in a while leaven the whole family. But they will have need of much patience and gentleness as well as much resolution. If any particular place is proposed for their residence, you would’ [do] well to send me word immediately. They should not abruptly refuse to go; but it would be matter of prayer and consideration. Boarders at Kingswood pay twenty pounds a year. There is no entrance-money or farther expense of any kind. The masters are men of sense, learning, and piety. They are all a family of love. I am not sorry that you have met with a little blame in the affair; and I hope it was not undeserved. Happy are they that suffer for well doing! I was almost afraid all men would speak well of you. Do you feel no intermission of your happiness in Him Does He ’ bid you even in sleep go on’ What do you usually dream of Do you never find any lowness of spirits Is there never any time that hangs upon your hands How is your health Are you entirely free of your cough and the pain in your side You see how inquisitive I am, because everything relating to you nearly concerns me. I once thought I could not be well acquainted with any one till many years had elapsed. And yet I am as well acquainted with you as if I had known you from your infancy. Away with that thought, ’ I shall not have you long.’ Let our Lord see to that. Let us enjoy to-day. You are now my comfort and joy! And I hope to be far longer than this little span of life, my dear Hetty, Yours in tender affection. To Elizabeth Ritchie PUBLOW, September 20, 1776. MY DEAR BETSY,--Some time since, you certainly were in danger of exchanging the plain religion of the Bible for the refined one of Mysticism, a danger which few can judge of but those that feel it. This my brother and I did for several years. This scheme, especially as Madame Guyon has polished and improved it, gives a delicate satisfaction to whatever of curiosity and self-esteem lies hid in the heart. It was particularly liable to make an impression upon you, as it came recommended by one you had a friendship for, whom you knew to be upright and sincere, and who had both sense and a pleasing address. At the same time that subtle enemy ’ who beguiled Eve by his subtilty’ would not fail to enforce the temptation. The more reason you have to bless God that you are delivered out of the snare of the fowler. ’He that followeth Me,’ says our Lord, ’ walketh not in darkness.’ Nothing can be more certain. Closely follow Him, and you will never come into any darkness of soul. On the contrary, your light shall shine more and more unto the perfect day. Nothing but sin can bring you into confusion; and this, I trust, God has bruised under your feet. Surely, then, you have no need of ever losing the least part of what God has given you. But you may ’ stand fast in glorious liberty’ till your spirit returns to God.--I remain Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Downes LONDON, October 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--YOU have abundant reason to praise God, who has dealt so mercifully with you, and to encourage all about you never to rest till they attain full salvation. As to the question you propose, if the leader himself desires it and the class be not unwilling, in that case there can be no objection to your meeting a class even of men. This is not properly assuming or exercising any authority over them. You do not act as a superior, but an equal; and it is an act of friendship and brotherly love. I am glad you had a little conversation with Miss Ritchie. She is a precious soul. Do her all the good you can, and incite her to exert all the talents which God has given her.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Hester Ann Roe BRISTOL, October 6, 1776. MY DEAR HETTY,--To-morrow I set out for London; in and near which, if it please God to continue my life, I shall remain till spring. The trials which a gracious Providence sends may be precious means of growing in grace, and particularly of increasing in faith, patience, and resignation; and are they not all chosen for us by Infinite Wisdom and Goodness So that we may well subscribe to those beautiful lines,-- With patient mind thy course of duty run; God nothing does, nor suffers to be done, But thou wouldst do thyself if thou couldst see The end of all events as well as He. Everything that we can do for a parent we ought to do--that is, everything we can do without killing ourselves. But this we have no right to do. Our lives are not at our own disposal. Remember that, my dear Hetty, and do not carry a good principle too far. Do you still find Labor is rest, and pain is sweet, When Thou, my God, art here I know pain or grief does not interrupt your happiness; but does it not lessen it You often feel sorrow for your friends; does that sorrow rather quicken than depress your soul Does it sink you deeper into God Go on in the strength of the Lord. Be careful for nothing. Live to-day. So will you still be a comfort to, my dear Hetty, Your ever affectionate. To Members and Friends of the Methodist Societies LONDON, October 18, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The Society at London have given assistance to their brethren in various parts of England. They have done this for upwards of thirty years; they have done it cheerfully and liberally. The first year of the subscription for the General Debt they subscribed above nine hundred pounds, the next about three hundred, and not much less every one of the ensuing years. They now stand in need of assistance themselves. They are under a necessity of building, as the Foundery with all the adjoining houses is shortly to be pulled down; and the City of London has granted ground to build on, but on condition of covering it, and with large houses in front; which, together with the new chapel, will, at a very moderate computation, cost upward of six thousand pounds. I must therefore beg the assistance of all our brethren. Now help the parent Society, which has helped others for so many years so willingly and so largely. Now help me, who account this as a kindness done to myself--perhaps the last of this sort which I shall ask of you. Subscribe what you conveniently can, to be paid either now, or at Christmas, or at Lady Day next.--I am Your affectionate brother. The trustees are John Duplex, Charles Greenwood, Richard Kemp, Samuel Chancellor, Charles Wheeler, William Cowland, John Folgham. To Joseph Benson LONDON, October 22, 1776. DEAR JOSEPH,--I apprehend Joseph Fothergill was not designedly omitted. I take him to be a good man and a good preacher. You did right in excluding from our Society so notorious an offender. And you have now a providential call to stand in the .gap between the living and the dead. Fear nothing. Begin m the name of God and go through with the work. If only six will promise you to sin no more, leave only six in the Society. But my belief is an hundred and fifty are now clear of blame; and if you are steady, an hundred more will amend. You must at all events tear up this evil by the roots. The Word to a Smuggler should be read and dispersed. And secure your fellow laborers, that you may all speak one thing. Go on, for God is with you!--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen LONDON, October 22, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--If I live over the winter, I shall have a work upon my hands which will detain me in London great part of the year. This is the building in the room of the Foundery, which must shortly be pulled down. We have agreed with the City of London for the ground, and propose beginning the work early in the spring. This will allow me little time for journeys, as my presence will be necessary on many accounts. Perhaps I may have time to step over to Dublin, and probably that is all I shall be able to do. It is suitable to the wisdom of God, now that He is sending a general call to these kingdoms, to send preachers of every sort, that some or other of them may be adapted to every class of hearer. Mr. Mill is adapted to plain, uneducated men, and some of them have much profited by him. Mr. Hem and Boardman are adapted to an higher class, men of taste and education; and a few even of these in almost every place are persuaded to choose the better part. I think my dear Sidney could no more be idle at Longford than at Lisleen. She would certainly aim at being useful to those that were round about her. Many of our Society there would receive her with joy and profit by her conversation. But she would not, I am persuaded, confine herself to those, seeing we are debtors to all men, and happy are they that can speak a word for the comfort or strengthening of any soul for which Christ died. It gives me pleasure to hear your soul is more established in the faith that works by love. Undoubtedly, if thou canst believe, all things are possible. It is possible for you to be all praise, all meekness, and all love; and what God gives once He is willing to give always. Whereunto you have attained hold fast, and look for all the residue of the promise.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, October 25, 1776. DEAR SAMMY,--I like your proposal well of desiring help from your acquaintance in the neighboring circuits; and the sooner it is put in execution the better, that it may not interfere with the subscription we must shortly make for the new Foundery. Whatever you do, temporal or spiritual, do it with your might!--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Samuel Bardsley, At Mr. Thomas Whitaker’s, Jun., In Colne. To Francis Wolfe LONDON, October 25, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--The remark you make is perfectly just. Nothing will so effectually stop the plague of Calvinism as the preaching salvation from all sin and exhorting all to expect it now by naked faith. Let Brother Wright and all of you be diligent in this and in visiting all our Societies (where it is possible) from house to house. To be all in earnest in the whole work of God is the best prevention of all temptations.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, November 7, 1776. DEAR JOSEPH,--Not only the Assistant but every preacher is concerned to see all our Rules observed. I desire Brother Rhodes will give no tickets either to those who have not constantly met their classes or to any that do not solemnly promise to deal in stolen goods no more. He and you together may put a stop to this crying sin. I wish Edward Jackson would go into the Dales. But here is a great difficulty: Robert Wilkinson, you know, is married; therefore he cannot live (though he may starve) in the Dundee Circuit. I designed that he and Brother Lumley should change places. But what can be done now Consider the matter, and advise, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Elizabeth Ritchie LONDON, November 12, 1776. MY DEAR BETSY,--I love you for your freedom and openness. At all times it is of use to have a friend to whom you can pour out your heart without any disguise or reserve. But it will be of peculiar use if you should ever meet with heavy temptation. Then you will find how true that word is, ’A friend is made for adversity.’ You have exceeding great reason to praise God for what He has already done for your soul. Take heed lest any one beguile you of your blessing by a voluntary humility. Never deny, never conceal, never speak doubtfully of what God hath wrought, but declare it before the children of God with all plainness and simplicity. Do you set the Lord always before you Do you always see Him that is invisible Are you constantly sensible of His loving presence And is your heart praying without ceasing Have you power in everything to give Him thanks Does He bid you even in sleep go on What do you commonly dream of While you sleep, is your heart awake to Him Just when you have time and opportunity, send an answer to, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To John Mason LONDON, November 21, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--One of Mr. Fletcher’s Checks considers at large the Calvinist supposition ’ that a natural man is as dead as a stone ’; and shows the utter falseness and absurdity of it, seeing no man living is without some preventing grace, and every degree of grace is a degree of life. That, ’by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men’ (all born into the world) ’ unto condemnation,’ is an undoubted truth, and affects every infant as well as every adult person. But it is equally true that, ’ by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men’ (all born into the world, infant or adult) ‘unto justification.’ Therefore no infant ever was or ever will be ’ sent to hell for the guilt of Adam’s sin,’ seeing it is cancelled by the righteousness of Christ as soon as they are sent into the world. Labor on, especially by visiting from house to house, and you will see the fruit of your labor.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Carlill CHATHAM, November 25, 1776. TOMMY,--Be of good courage! Play the man! You have God on your side. If you do not immediately see the fruit of your labors, yet in due time you shall reap if you faint not. Preach Christian perfection, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear, and sooner or later God will bless His own word. Regard not those pert lads of my Lady’s Charity School. In our own Societies be exact in discipline. Truth is great and will prevail. The books send to Bristol.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson CHATHAM, November 26, 1776. DEAR JOSEPH,--If any leader oppose, you see your remedy, --put another in his place: nay, if he does not join heart and hand; for ’ he that gathereth not with you scattereth.’ The Word to a Smuggler is plain and home, and has done much good in these parts Taking opium is full as bad as taking drams. It equally hurts the understanding, and is if possible more pernicious to the health than even rum or brandy. None should touch it if they have the least regard either for their souls or bodies. I really think you are in the right. It is better to help Robert Wilkinson where he is than to burthen the Dales with an additional weight. But then what shall we do We have no supernumerary preachers. See if you can do anything with Edward Jackson.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To William Minethorp LONDON, November 29, 1776. DEAR BILLY,--You have nothing to do with past sins. They are blotted out. Whoever tells you the contrary, answer him, ’ Thou art a liar. Get thee behind me, Satan. I will not east away my confidence: Jesus hath lived, hath died for me.’ T. Rutherford told you the very truth. There are three causes of your inward trials: (1) bodily disorder, by means of which the body presses down the soul; (2) Satan, who does not fail to avail himself of this; (3) your own frailty in reasoning with him instead of looking to the Strong for strength. None can advise you as to your body better than Dr. Hamilton. I am afraid you cannot spare this money. Whenever you want it send word to, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. William Minethorp, At Chester Hall, Near Dunbar. To Hannah Ball LONDON, November 30, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--By the account you give, about a fourth part of those near you that were saved from sin stand fast after a trial of several years in that glorious liberty. Of those who received the blessing here in 1762 and 1763, I fear we have hardly a sixth part that have not been moved from their steadfastness. Whereas out of two-and-twenty who received it in Bristol, seventeen or eighteen, I think, retain it to this day. I should imagine most of those who have the advice and example of Mr. Valton would be in earnest: I mean, if he is of the same spirit he used to be; and I hope he does not go backward but forward. But there is something in the increase and decrease of the work of God among a people which all our wisdom cannot account for. However, we are to go on! We cannot stand still or turn back. There is the prize before us.—I am, my dear Hannah, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, December 6, 1776. DEAR TOMMY,--I am glad that you was in the neighborhood to pay the last office of love to Billy Minethorp. I had no doubt but he would die in peace, and it was good that he should die among those peculiar friends, who took care that everything should be done which possibly could be done for him. He was an honest, upright man. Now, Tommy, let us redouble our diligence! Let us do everything just as we would wish to have done it when we are stepping into eternity.--I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately; To Penelope Newman LONDON, December 13, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--You do well in giving me as particular an account as you can of the blessed work in and about Stroud.’ And surely the very same work, if the preachers are zealous, will spread through the whole circuit; especially if they are diligent in visiting from house to house, and so watering the seed that has been sown in public. But do you not see what a temptation you have been under Who is it that told you poor Cheltenham would be forgotten Tell him, ’ Thou art a liar from the beginning. I will not hearken to thee. I will hearken what the Lord Will say concerning me.’ How soon can He make Cheltenham as Stroud, and Mr. Wells as Mr. Valton Look up, Prizzy, look up! Is not the cloud bursting--I am, my dear friend, Yours affectionately. To Miss P. Newman, In Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. To Mrs. Bennis LONDON, December 21, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--You are a great deal less happy than you would be if you did not reason too much. This frequently gives that subtle adversary an advantage against you. You have need to be continually as a little child, simply looking up for whatever you want. It is devoutly to be wished for that we may rejoice evermore; and it is certain the inward kingdom of God implies not only righteousness and peace but joy in the Holy Ghost. You have therefore reason to ask for and expect the whole gospel blessing. Yet it cannot be denied that many times joy is withheld even from them that walk uprightly. The great point of all is an heart and a life entirely devoted to God. Keep only this, and let all the rest go; give Him your heart, and it sufficeth. I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson NEAR LONDON, December 24, 1776. DEAR JOSEPH,--The total suppression of that vile practice will doubtless be a difficult task: but it is worth all the labor; yea, though you should be obliged to cut off some of our oldest members. For you must absolutely go through with your work, leave neither root nor branch; else the reformation will be but for a season, and then the evil will sprout up again. The case of John Reed is one of the most remarkable which has fallen under my notice. From the beginning it was my judgement that the disorder was more than natural. I wish he would take opportunities of writing down as many particulars as he can recollect, and send me as circumstantial an account as he can. You may much assist him herein.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Mary Bishop LONDON, December 26, 1776. MY DEAR SISTER,--You are certainly clear concerning Miss Mahon. You have done all that was in your power; and if she will not any longer accept of your services, her blood is upon her own head. But I will not give her up yet. I have wrote to Mr. Valton at Oxford, and desired him to talk with Mrs. Mahon. Perhaps a letter from her may be of service. But I expect to hear no good of her daughter while she is ashamed to attend the preaching. Either that text in Ezekiel xxxiii. 8 means literally or it has no meaning at all. And nothing is more certain, in fact, than that thousands perish through the neglect of others. And yet God is fully justified therein, because the principal cause of their destruction is their own neglect; their not taking care to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Whatever other ends are answered by prayer, this is one, and it seems the primary one, that we may have the petitions which we ask of Him. Asking is the appointed means of receiving, and that for others as well as for ourselves; as we may learn partly from reason itself, but more fully from our own experience, and more clearly still from revelation. Reason teaches us to argue from analogy. If you (because you have a regard for me) would do more for a third person at my request than otherwise you would have done, how much more will God at the request of His beloved children give blessings to those they pray for which otherwise He would not have given! And how does all experience confirm this! How many times have the petitions of others been answered to our advantage, and ours on the behalf of others. But the most decisive of all proofs is the scripture, ’ Go to My servant Job, and he shall pray for you; for him I will accept.’ It was not a temporal blessing which was here in question, but a spiritual, the forgiveness of their sin. So when St. Paul said,’ Brethren, pray for us,’ he did not desire this on a temporal account only, that ’ he might be delivered out of the mouth of the lion,’ but on a spiritual, ’that he might speak boldly as he ought to speak.’ But the instances of this are innumerable. In proof of the general truth that God gives us both temporal blessings and spiritual blessings in answer to each other’s prayers I need only remind you of one scripture more: ’ Let them pray over him; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick; and if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ The promise in the following verse is still more comprehensive: ’ Pray one for another, and ye shall be healed’ of whatsoever you have confessed to each other. I lament over every pious young woman who is not as active as possible, seeing every one shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. O lose no time! Buy up every opportunity of doing good. And give more and more joy to, my dear friend, Yours affectionately. At Miss March’s, In Bristol. To Robert Costerdine LONDON, December 27, 1776. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I think, as soon as you conveniently can, you should have full explanation with Thomas Warwick in the presence of two or three witnesses. Show him that his proceedings have been contrary to reason as well as to brotherly love. If you can convince him of this, all that is past should die and be forgotten. If not, you cannot give him another ticket.--I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Robert Costerdine, At the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Preaching-house, In Manchester. Editor’s Introductory Notes: 1775 [1] This letter has no name attached to it, but it was probably to the Assistant in Londonderry. Mr. and Mrs. James Smith may have been the friends at Augher, near there, with whom Wesley stayed on May 1, 1769. They had entertained John Smith in 1768, and two o their sons became useful preachers. Wesley’s zeal for the growth of his Societies in knowledge comes out in his words about books and reading. The illness is that in Ireland in June 1775. See letter of July 28, 1775, to James Dempster. [2] The Methodists had a meeting-place in Exeter in 1745 and probably two years earlier, and Wesley had paid several visits to the city. He now hoped that Gidley would be able to watch over the Society. See Thomas’s Reminiscences of Methodism in Exeter, p. 14. [3] Wesley first went to Londonderry on May 11, 1765. He knew no one; but Alexander Knox, sen., a member of the Corporation, took him to his house. He was descended from the family of John Knox the reformer. His son (1757-1831) ’ is shown by his correspondence with Bishop Jebb to have anticipated the Oxford Movement.’ He was not brought up to any business or profession, but became a political speaker. A sharp attack of nervous prostration and sleeplessness in 1797, when he was at the house of Adam Schoales, twenty miles from Derry, did not yield to medical treatment. He fell into black despair, and went to see the Methodist preacher, ’ whose conversation brought me the first ease. I then began to pray with some hope.’ It was then that he became private Secretary to Lord Castlereagh for some years before the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, who urged him to enter Parliament for Londonderry, but he declined to do so. Bishop Jebb speaks of’ the powers of his pen’ and ’, the unrivalled charm of his conversation.’ His picture of Wesley in old age shows how he loved and honored him, and he convinced Southey that he was ’mistaken in supposing ambition entered largely into Wesley’s actuating impulses.’ See Telford’s Wesley, pp. 361-2. He tells Foster in 1829 that, except for times of nervous distress, his mind possessed a degree of habitual peace. ’ I am not subject to misgivings of conscience, as when those letters were passing between John Wesley and me. I hope and trust my conscience is not disturbed.’ In a letter of 1803 to George Schoales he says: ’ Six years ago, in the house of your brother Adam, I underwent a revolution that emancipated me from the slavery of this world. To that wonderful time, therefore, I trace back every thoroughly good habit. I can look back to a point at which I awoke, as it were, from a dream, and found myself as if hanging over fathomless perdition; and I can mark another point, a few days after, when, in conversation with a Methodist preacher, a dawn sprung up, that has been since often beclouded by disease, but which never has gone back.’ See Foster’s Remains of Alexander Knox, iv. 57-8, 128, 565. In quoting this and other letters the editor of Knox’s Correspondence (1836) with Bishop Jebb says (ii. 26): ’ However to be accounted for, the fact is certain that Mr. Knox’s health of body and peace of mind were restored in one hour, after a last severe illness, which revived all his best early impressions, when in England, about the close of the last century. As he expressed himself to the editor: "It is now thirteen years since I gave up the world for conscience’ sake; and from that hour to the present I have never had a return of my illness either of body or mind, but have enjoyed uninterrupted peace." And so it was to the end. It was the editor’s happiness to know, from a common friend who witnessed the departure of this eminent servant of God, that all was peace at the last.’ [4] Matthew Mayer was born near Stockport in 1740. Wesley formed a warm friendship for him, and he did noble service as a lay preacher till his death in 1814. See Journal, v. 20-1n; Methodist Magazine, 1816, pp. 1, 161, 241. [5] Mason was Assistant at Whitehaven. Wesley was at Liverpool on April 10, and went through Lancashire and Yorkshire to Whitehaven, which he reached on May 1. [6] Bradburn was Assistant in Pembrokeshire. Broadbent was at Brecon, and Thomas Dixon in Glamorganshire. The letter is endorsed by Eliza Weaver Bradburn: ’ This letter was written to Samuel Bradburn when twenty-three or four years and five months old. He was then travelling in South Wales.’ See letter of August 31, 1775, and as to Broadbent, letter of December 21, 1775. [7] Miss Roe was born on January 31, 1756, at Macclesfield, where her father was a clergyman.. He died in 1765, and she followed the gay amusements of the time until David Simpson became minister in the town in 1773. She was converted, and joined the Methodist Society. Her mother treated her harshly, and she was thought to be in a consumption. Wesley went to Macclesfield on April 1, 1776, and Miss Roe ’ saw and conversed with him for the first time. He behaved to me with parental tenderness, and greatly rejoiced in the Lord’s goodness to my soul, encouraged me to hold fast and to declare what the Lord hath wrought. He thinks me consumptive; but welcome life or welcome death, for Christ is mine.’ She married James Rogers in 1784, and they were stationed at City Road when Wesley died. She closed her saintly life in 1794 at the age of thirty-eight. See letter of June 2. Wesley introduced Miss Roe to Miss Ritchie, who wrote: ’ I feel towards Miss Roe what I have seldom felt towards any one. I believe, as dear Mr. Wesley expresses it, we "are twin souls." ’ Wesley was at Otley on April 24. Miss Ritchie went with him to various places, and had, ’while travelling, many valuable opportunities for conversation. I thank God I feel my soul much strengthened and my bodily health improved: I have enjoyed uninterrupted sunshine.’ See Bulmer’s Memoirs, p. 61. [8] Edward Smyth frequently preached in the chapel at Dublin. He was the nephew of Dr. F. A. Smyth, Archbishop of Dublin, but was ejected from his curacy for preaching Methodist doctrine. He entered heartily into Methodist work, travelling through Ireland and holding services in the chapels and in the open air. John Abraham, Chaplain to the Chapel of Ease at Londonderry, was greatly quickened by a visit from the Smyths. Wesley stayed with his mother at Fahan. He was ’brought to the saving knowledge of the truth,’ and preached with much earnestness. His friends were opposed to his identifying himself with Methodism. In 1778 he resigned his chaplaincy, and was for some time Wesley’s helper at City Road, London. He was not adapted to the itinerancy, and returned to Ireland in 1779. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 276, 307, 327, 332; and letter of February 22, 1777. Edward Gayer, clerk to the Irish House of Lords, lived at Derryaghy, three miles beyond Lisburn, where his wife and daughters were members of the Methodist Society. They nursed Wesley with great devotion during his serious illness at their house in June 1775. See Journal, vi. 69. [9] Richard Price, D.D., was an Arian minister at Hackney,’ whose Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty Fletcher answered in his American Patriotism. Dr. Price met Fletcher at Stoke Newington, and says his ’air and countenance bespoke him fitted rather for the society of angels than for the conversation of men.’ See Wesley’s Designated Successor, pp. 350, 387. [10] Her cousin Robert Roe, had come from Manchester Grammar School on his way to Oxford, where he was to study for the Church, and had been led to Christ in October 1775 through her changed life. His Methodism blocked his way to ordination. After his father’s death, he decided to stay in Macclesfield, and built a house, where he lived as a boarder with his aunt (Hester Ann Roe’s mother). He preached in the town and country, and many were awakened under his word. He died on September 15, 1782. Charles Wesley wrote to James Hutton from Cowes Road, on November 28, 1735, about his longing ’ to be free from this body of corruption. My brother’s words upon the loss of such a friend as you and your sister express in part what I feel: When the long-expected hour I see That breaks my ponderous chains and seta me free.’ Then follow the lines which appear in this letter. They cannot be traced in Samuel Wesley’s poems, and would therefore be John Wesley’s. Miss Roe found this letter very reviving, and adds: ’ I praise my God, who enabled me in a degree to understand the above, and to answer those deep questions in the affirmative.’ See letters of May 3 and September 16. [11] In Lloyd’s Evening Post for July 22, 1776, Dr. William Hawes, physician to the London Dispensary, in An Examination of Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Primitive Physick, regarded Wesley’s work as that of a dangerous quack. See Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1914, p. 616. [12] Wesley was at Taunton on August 13. Mr. Dickinson had been a linen draper near Bishopsgate, London; but he entered the Excise, and was now Superintendent of Excise at Taunton. He had a considerable estate in Devonshire. Their son, the Rev. Peard Dickinson, born at Topsham in 1758, was now in Bristol, a member of the Methodist Society. See heading to letter of March 17, 1771, to Elizabeth Briggs. [13] Crook had just been appointed to the Dales Circuit. A bull had been issued by the Bishop on July 16, requiring the clergy to use their utmost endeavors to prevent their people from being led by the Methodist preachers. Crook wrote on July 28, ’ The devil has stirred up the Rev. Mr. Moor of Douglas, and made a firebrand of him, to set the whole island on fire.’ The Methodists were hooted and stoned when they went to their services, and the rabble threw dirt and stones at the preaching-place. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 228-30; and letter of September 22, 1775, to Crook. [14] Thomas Ford, Vicar of Melton Mowbray from 1773 to 1820, wrote a beautiful letter to Wesley on July 27, 1775, praying for his increasing usefulness. ’ Who can tell but He means to make you a nursing father to thousands yet to be born! He wrote again after Wesley’s illness in Ireland in June 1776, and invited him to call in 1789, though Wesley was not able to do so. In early life he had loaded himself with stones to throw at Wesley when preaching in the open air, but was impressed and converted. See Arminian Magazine, 1787, p. 443; W.H.S. i. 86-7; and letter of August 3, 1789, to him. [15] An order was made by the House of Lords in May 1776 that the Commissioners should ’ write circular letters to all such persons whom they have reason to suspect to have plate, &c.’ ’The Accomptant-General for Household Plate sent Wesley in September a copy of the order with the following letter ’: REVEREND SIR,--As the Commissioners cannot doubt but you have plate for which you have hitherto neglected to make entry, they have directed me to inform you that they expect you forthwith to make due entry of all your plate, such entry to bear date from the commencement of the Plate Duty, or from such time as you have owned, used, had, or kept any quantity of silver plate, chargeable by the Act of Parliament; as, in default hereof, the Board will be obliged to signify your refusal to their lordships. N.B.--An immediate answer is desired. Wesley replied: [16] Miss Roe says on October 24, 1775: ’ Spent the day at my uncle’s, and had some profitable conversation with Mary Bradock, who seems to have keen convictions of sin. Miss J---- came to me and asked me why M. Bradock was in so much trouble. I answered, "She is in deep distress because her eyes are now opened and she sees herself a sinner."’ Miss Roe did not part with Miss J---- till she had promised to read the Word of God on her knees. On August 2, 1776, Robert Roe writes: ’ I heard the joyful news that my sister Peggy was justified.’ He says: ’ George Bradock, a simple, pious follower of God, often desired me to lead his class.’ On March 27, 1781, James Rogers went to see them, and they had ’ a blessed season in prayer, and cousin Peggy Roe in particular seemed stirred up and comforted.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1784, pp. 77, 587; and letters of June 2 and October 6. [17] Wesley says in 1738: ’My present sense is this,--all the other enemies of Christianity are triflers; the Mystics are the most dangerous; they stab it in the vitals, and its serious professors are most likely to fall by them.’ See Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 57; and letter of November 23, 1736, to his brother Samuel. [18] Miss Roe wrote in her Journal: ’ I am still kept in various trials. This day the following letter was as if sent of God to strengthen me.’ [19] The building of the New Chapel in City Road was an event that concerned the whole of Methodism, and Wesley relied on the support of the whole Connection. [20] Benson found that smuggling was carried on by some members of the Newcastle Society, and told them they must give it up or leave the Connection. ’ They almost all came to me for their tickets,’ says the manuscript Life, i. 619, ’with much brokenness of heart and shame for their former opposition to what is certainly not for my advantage but their own.’ Wesley supported him earnestly. Benson was anxious about the action taken, but ’found his reward in the harmony and prosperity of an affectionate and zealous people.’ See letter of November 7. [21] Mrs. Margaret Johnston, ’a member of the noble family of Annandale,’ was led to religious decision by Mrs. Brown, of Creevy. At once her house was opened for worship and made a home for the preachers. She became ’ one of the brightest ornaments of the Methodist Society in the eighteenth century.’ Wesley stayed with her son-in-law Alexander Kingston at Keenagh near Longford in April 1787. Another daughter, Peggy, married Andrew McCutcheon, of Goshan, Longford. The Johnston motto is Nunquam non paratas. Within the bounds of Annandale The gentle Johnstons ride; They have been there a thousand years, And a thousand years they’ll bide. The Arminian Magazine for 1785, pp. 439-42, gives three pages to an elegy which may have been written by John Pritchard. It speaks of The garden crowned with fruitful trees and flowers, Where oft we offered incense to our King; The pensive mourners shelter in its bowers, Where groans and sighs and lamentations ring. A note says that Mrs. Johnston was looking at the workmen who were pulling down her old house to rebuild it when seized with her last sickness. She died in 1781. See Crookshank’s Memorable Women of Irish Methodism, p. 99; and letter of February 16, 1777. [22] Samuel Wells had been a schoolmaster in Cheltenham, and had opened his seminary to the Methodist preachers. In 1764 the trustees of a disused chapel gave him permission to hold services there. Wesley refers to it in his Journal for October 10, 1766. For John Valton see letter of November 30. [23] Mrs. Bennis removed to Waterford about 1790. Her friend John M’Gregor tells her on September 1, 1790, that her way for many years had been strewn with thorns, but refers to her dutiful and affectionate children and grandchildren. She afterwards went to Philadelphia, where she died in June 1802, aged seventy-seven,’ after struggling with severe and unexpected trials during the last twenty years, through which her confidence in God continued unshaken, her natural cheerfulness and evenness of temper unabated, and her end was peace.’ See letter of August 23, 1763. [24] Benson, in the manuscript Life, i. 628a, gives Thomas Rutherford an account of John Reed, a leader and local preacher at Newcastle, in a letter of January 31, 1777. About March he had been threatened with consumption, could not attend to his business, called his creditors together, and gave everything into their hands, ’though I believe he was nearly able to pay twenty shillings in the pound.’ He fell into despair, and was tempted day and night to commit suicide. He tried to drown himself in the Tyne on the night of April 18, 1776. In June he was put into a lunatic asylum. He escaped about three weeks before Christmas, and wandered about for some days in despair, till he resolved not to take his life, and returned home to his wife and children. His wife persuaded him to attend the Methodist preaching-room, where he was soon able to rejoice with ’ joy unspeakable.’ He gave a full account at the lovefeast. He was very dear to them all, and there was ’ hardly a dry cheek in the whole assembly.... Such a melting season I never saw before.’ In another letter Benson thought he had never been out of his mind, and adds: ’I trust this most remarkable dispensation of divine providence has already proved in some degree, and will prove more and more, a general blessing to the Society in this town.’ A manuscript journal of Charles Atmore’s shows that John Reed was some years afterwards the subject of severe depression. When Wesley was at Newcastle in May 1790, he met him, and said, ’Brother Reed, I have a word from God unto thee. Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.’ He then knelt down to pray, when hope instantly sprang up, and despair gave place; and although he had not been out of his house nor wretched bed for several years, he went that evening to hear Mr. Wesley preach, while God confirmed the testimony of His servant in restoring to him the light of His countenance.’ See letter of January 11, 1777. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 72: 70. 1777 ======================================================================== 1777 CONSOLIDATION AND ADVANCE JANUARY 11, 1777, TO DECEMBER 29, 1779 To Joseph Benson LONDON, January 11, 1777. DEAR JOSEPH,--The matter is short. I require you to meet the Societies of Sunderland and Shields next quarter and to give no tickets to any person who will not promise neither to buy nor sell uncustomed goods any more. I am sorry ---- did not save you the trouble: I thought he had been another man. Pray worry John Reed [See letter of Dec. 24, 1776, and Feb. 15, 1777.] till he writes a circumstantial account. It must be done while things are fresh in his memory, otherwise we shall lose many particulars which ought not to be forgotten. They have made good haste to finish the preaching-house at Sheephill already; I thought it had hardly been begun. [Wesley preached in the new house Sheephill, near Newcastle, on May 16, 1779. ‘Here the work of God greatly revives; many are lately convinced of sin, and many enabled from day to day to rejoice in God their Savior.’] I have just received two letters from New York; one of them from George Robinson, late of Newcastle. They inform me that all the Methodists there were firm for the Government, and on that account persecuted by the rebels, only not to the death; that the preachers are still threatened, but not stopped; and the work of God increases much in Maryland and Virginia.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Francis Wolfe LONDON, January 14, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Let James Perfect immediately change places with Rd. Whatcoat. There must be no delay. You cannot make a better choice. She is an excellent woman. O beware of Calvinism and everything that has the least tendency thereto. Let a burnt child dread the fire!--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Wolfe, At Mr. Walter’s Hatter, In Plymouth Dock. To Thomas Wride LONDON, January 17, 1777. DEAR TOMMY,--If your fellow laborers and you are zealous and active, you will give me a good account of the circuit. I found it in a flourishing state. So will you before you leave it. Robert Empringham has done exactly right as to the sacrament. I advise you to tread in his steps. I wish you would inquire at what price I could have some kind of vessel to carry me from Whitehaven by the isle to Dublin.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. I take no horses with me. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, January 21, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER, There is something exceedingly remark­able in the case of Mr. Dixon. To be snatched away just at the time that he was set above the world! But He with whom we have to do best understands what will be for our real advantage. Probably He saw that prosperity would hurt his soul, and so took him away from the evil to come. I should have great hope that sickness or bodily weakness would be of use to your neighbors. When we feel pain, or when death looks us in the face, what do riches avail? In such circumstances you are richer than them all. You know in whom you have believed. You know that, if all these things pass away, you have in heaven a better and a more enduring substance. You may profit much by Richard Condy. [Condy was stationed at Epworth.] He is a valuable man. I seldom converse with him but he does me good. I wish you would tell him I desire he would send me a full account of his experience. Still be ready to do and to suffer the whole will of God.--My dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper NEAR LONDON, February 1, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--James Kershaw is stark staring mad, more than ever John Reed was. [See letters of March 3, 1776 (to Mrs. Woodhouse), and Feb. 15, 1777.] He prophesies that ’all the Methodists are to go over to America in the belly of a whale.’ Take this as a specimen. We shall not begin our building here before April. Prob­ably I shall take a short journey (to Leeds or Newcastle or Dublin) once a month; but I must never be absent long at a time. [See letter of Feb. 14.] How we shall be able to raise the money I know not. But ’ the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.’--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Hopper, At the Preaching-house, In Manchester. Hester Ann Roe LONDON, February 11, 1777. MY DEAR HETTY,--The papers of one [Charles Perronet, who died on Aug. 12, 1776. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 327-35; and letter of April 26.] who lately went to God are fallen into my hands. I will transcribe a few particulars. His experience is uncommon; and you may simply tell me how far your experience does or does not agree with it. But beware of hurting yourself upon the occasion, beware of unprofitable reasonings. God may have wrought the same work in you, though not in the same manner. ’Just after my uniting with the Methodists, the Father was revealed to me the first time; soon after, the whole Trinity. I beheld the distinct persons of the Godhead, and worshipped one undivided Jehovah and each Person separately. After this I had equal intercourse with the Son, and afterwards with the Spirit, the same as with the Father and the Son. After some years my communion was with Christ only, though at times with the Father, and not wholly without the Spirit. Of late I have found the same access to the Triune God. When I approach Jesus, the Father and the Spirit commune with me. Whatever I receive now centers in taking leave of earth and hasting to another place. I am as one that is no more. I stand and look on what God has done---His calls, helps, mercies, forbearances, deliverance’s from sorrows, rescue out of evils; and adore and devote myself to Him with new ardour. If it be asked how or in what manner I beheld the Triune God, it is above all description. He that has seen this light of God can no more describe it than he that has not. In two of those divine interviews the Father spoke while I was in an agony of prayer for perfect con­formity to Himself, twice more when I was in the depth of sorrow, and each time in Scripture words. It may be asked, ’Was the appearance glorious? ’ It was all divine, it was glory. I had no conception of it. It was God. The first time the glory of Him I saw reached even to me. I was overwhelmed with it; body and soul were penetrated through with the rays of Deity.’ Tell me, my dear maid, if you have ever experienced anything like these things; but do not puzzle yourself about them, only speak in simplicity. You cannot speak of these things to many; but you may say anything without reserve to, my dear Hetty, Yours in tender affection. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, February 14, 1777. DEAR SAMMY,--It is uncertain yet where I shall be this summer. If we do not build, [See letter of Feb. 1.] I shall go to Ireland; if we do, I must reside chiefly in London. Only I would endeavor to make a little excursion into the North. I have not promised to open the house at Halifax in April or May, although it is probable I shall in my journey to or from Newcastle. But my time will be very short, because I can never be absent from the building but about two or three weeks at a time. I am glad you have found a way to Lancaster. Be zealous, be active, and conquer all things!--I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, February 15, 1777. DEAR JOSEPH,--If we build (as I expect we shall) this spring, I shall probably call upon you in May. Now is the time, before you say anything of the new chapel, to procure what subscribers you can to the Philosophy. [The third, enlarged edition of A Survery of the Wisdom of God in the Creatin was published in 1777. See Green’s Bibliography, No 325; and letter of Jan. 15 1778.] I have included all that is material in Dr. Goldsmith’s eight large volumes. Speak earnestly, and you will succeed. Simple Michl. Fenwick has procured twelve subscribers in two days! James Kershaw is stark staring mad. He was so, they tell me, some years ago.[ See letters of Feb. 1 and March 16.] Hasten John Reed in his account, [See letters of Jan. 11 and March 5.] and hasten yourself in extirpating smuggling. I am glad to hear Sister Denton meets again. She is a letter in my debt.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen LONDON, February 16, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--The persons with whom we have to do are so dilatory that I know not when we shall begin to build. Perhaps not this year; and if so, I shall with God’s help go through Ireland as usual. But if we build, I can only visit Dublin, I suppose, about the middle of June. If it will suit your convenience, I shall hope for the pleasure of seeing you then. If any other of the preachers exceed their time (about an hour in the whole service), I hope you will always put them in mind what is the Methodist rule. People imagine the longer the sermon is the more good it will do. This is a grand mistake. The help done on earth God doth it Himself; and He doth not need that we should use many words. According to the account which you give I cannot blame you for keeping the preachers at your house. In such cir­cumstances you did well to detain them. It would have been cruelty to let them go. How wonderfully different from this was the account from Whisby, merely by the omission of a few little circumstances--so little can we depend upon any relation which is given by one whose passions are raging. That none of your little company should have drawn back is more than one could have expected. It is well if a third part of those that at first set their hands to the plough endure to the end. May you and all yours be of that happy number, but particularly my dear Sidney. I commend you all to Him that hath loved you; and am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Robert Costerdine LONDON, February 18, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Wesley bids me tell you that there is to be but one subscription and collection this year (except for Kingswood School), out of which must be taken a sufficient sum for contingent expenses. He expects, therefore, that the Assistants and preachers will exert their whole strength and influence. The Natural Philosophy, now printing, includes the substance of the three former volumes, but with great variations and improve­ments and in a new mode, most of the notes of the former impression being grafted into the text and new notes added. The letter is quite new and the paper exceeding good. He seems determined to spare no pains to render it complete. It is likely to have a great run among the clergy and gentry. As the new building will go forwards as soon as we can lay the foundation, Mr. Wesley will be obliged to spend most of the summer in London, and only take occasional journeys to some of the more important places. He is exceeding well; I think I never saw him better in my life. Mr. Fletcher is exceeding weak; I think he will not recover. Excuse haste; we are in the midst of the visitation of the classes. That God may abundantly bless and prosper your soul and labors is the prayer of Your affectionate friend and brother, PETER JACO [Jaco was Assistant in London.] To Robert Costerdine, At Derby. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, February 29, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad to hear that your little Society prospers. If they increase in grace, they will increase in number; of which I can have no doubt if you watch against all jealousies and continue open and loving to each other. There will be nothing wanting, I am persuaded, on the part of the preachers. [The Hull preachers were George Story (afterwards editor of the Magazine) and William Dufton.] Whenever they speak, they will speak as the oracles of God, with sound speech, which cannot be reproved. And, what is more, the whole tenor of their life is agreeable to their doctrine. Whatever they preach you will experience. What you have received is a pledge of what you will receive; for He that loves you will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, February 22, 1777. DEAR SAMMY,--If George Brown is likely to be an useful preacher, it is no wonder he should be so tempted. If he will forsake the work, there is a young man at Cork, John Howe, who may take his place; so I have wrote to John Watson. I do not remember, I have had a line from John Hampson since Christmas. It will be a difficult thing to keep Mr. Smyth [Wesley met Mr. And Mrs. Smyth in the Isle of Man in June. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 241-2 and letters of May 27, 1776 and June 1 1778.] from running into extremes. He surely will be prosecuted if he publishes anything which the law can lay hold on. And it is easier to prevent the evil than to redress it. To Joseph Benson LEWISHAM, March 5, 1777. DEAR JOSEPH,--The death of John Annet was very remark­able. Such individuals ought to be had in remembrance. Publish the account of Sister Hutton’s death just as you please, either at my expense or your own. [See letter of Oct. 22 to him.] There are two ways to ease the expense of the Philosophy either two or three may join for a set, for which, after all of them have read it, they may cast lots; or they may give sixpence or a shilling weekly to Matthew Errington. And nine-tenths of the book any sensible tradesman, yea woman, may understand. But John Reed! [See letter of Feb. 15.] Where is John Reed’s account? It is high time I should have it.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Hannah Ball BRISTOL, March 13, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--It seems the time is come that you are to have a more commodious preaching-house at High Wycombe. I will give you a plan of the building myself; and employ whom you please to build. But I hope to see you on Wednesday the 26th instant, and to preach about six in the evening [His Journal shows that he preached at Wycombe on the 26th.] after preaching at noon in Oxford. Peace be with your spirit!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop BRISTOL, March 15, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--It does not appear to me that you ought on any consideration to give up the privileges you mention. Neither do I apprehend that you would be more useful in a boarding-school than you are in your present station. I cannot, therefore, advise you to relinquish it. You have now a large field of action: you have employment enough, both temporal and spiritual; and you have ease enough. Abide in your calling. The pious young woman whom I particularly lament over does not live at Bath, but Bristol. But I cannot help her; she allows my premises, but holds fast her own conclusion. Oh who can bear riches! Who can gain money without in some measure losing grace! I verily believe, if she was as poor as you, she would be as advisable. Our Church Catechism is utterly improper for children of six or seven years old. Certainly you ought not to teach it them against your own judgement. I should imagine it would be far better to teach them the short catechism prefixed to the Instructions for Children. [See letter of Feb. 23 1773.] Mr. Floyd [John Floyd, an apothecary and surgeon, was an itinerant from 1770 to 1782, when he settled as a doctor in Halifax and then in Leeds. He died in 1798. See Journal, vi. 350; Atmore’s Memorial, pp 142-4.] thought I had better preach at two on Friday than at twelve. So I propose dining at Mr. Brittain’s on my way. I think you might venture to write a little more than once a quarter to, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss Bishop, Schoolmistress, In Bath. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, March 16, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Madmen have often a deal of cunning; and this frequently puzzles the cause, so that sometimes we can hardly say whether the man is more fool or knave. Right precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints; and much good is usually done at their funerals. You do well to improve all those opportunities. Our friends are about laying the foundation of the new chapel; so that in a few days I must return to London. Then I shall consider what time I can spare from thence, and shall fix my spring and summer journeys accordingly.--I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Alexander Knox BRISTOL, March 19, 1777. DEAR SIR,--If the returns of your disorder are more and more gentle, there is reason to hope it will be at length totally removed. Very probably, if you live to five- or six-and-twenty, your constitution will take a new turn. But it is certainly the design of Him that loves you to heal both body and soul; and possibly He delays the healing of the former that the cure of the latter may keep pace with it. As ’ it is a great loss to lose an affliction,’ He would not have you lose what you have suffered. I trust it will not be lost, but will be for your profit, that you may be partaker of His holiness. It is a blessing that He has given you that fear which is the beginning of wisdom; and it is a pledge of greater things to come. How soon? Perhaps to-day…. If I could spare time, I would gladly accept of your invita­tion; but I doubt whether I can get any farther than Dublin. [He spent Oct. 3-13 in Dublin.] Peace be with all your spirits!--I am, my dear Alleck, Yours most affectionately. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen LONDON, March 28, 1777. (Good Friday.) MY DEAR SISTER,--Surely this is a token for good. If we acknowledge God, He will acknowledge us. In the memory of man never was Good Friday observed in London with such solemnity as this has been, in consequence of a message which the Archbishop of Canterbury sent to the Lord Mayor some days since, incited thereto (it is supposed) by an intimation from His Majesty. I expect the foundation of our new chapel will be laid the latter end of next week. From that day so many things will need to be considered that I must not be long out of town at a time. However, I hope, if my life is spared so long, to step over to Dublin about midsummer; but it will be doubtful whether I can get any farther, though I should not think much of my labor. I will by the grace of God use my strength while I can; the night cometh when no man can work. I am glad you are still of the same mind. While we have time let us do good to all men, but especially to those that are of the household of faith. It gives me pleasure to hear so good an account of Brother Boyle. He has leisure, and he is wise in employing it to good purpose. But I am sorry poor Hugh Brown is so discouraged as to depart from the work. Just so did James Morgan many years ago; but he could not rest till he returned. Those who have labored with him (H. Brown) cannot but be judges whether God has owned his labors. If He has, he cannot lie still and be guiltless; and none is a better judge of this than John Pritchard. I commend you and yours to Him that loves you; and am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton NEAR LONDON, April 24, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--Your state of mind for some time has been that which the Papists very improperly term a state of Desertion; wherein they suppose God deserts or forsakes the soul only for His own will and pleasure ! But this is absolutely impossible: I deny that such a state ever existed under the sun. As I observed before, the trouble you feel is in the very root and ground of it, a natural effect of disordered liver, of the corruptible body pressing down the soul. But you must likewise take into the account preternatural influence. For you may be assured your grand adversary will not be forgetful to avail himself of the opportunity, sometimes by plausible suggestions, sometimes by horrid and grievous injections. But blessed is the soul that endureth temptation. The Lord shall deliver you out of his hand. Doth not He know the way wherein you go? And when you have been tried you shall come forth as gold! I feel much sympathy with you in your troubles, which endear you to me exceedingly. But though I grieve with you, [I joy] over you; for I can easily see ’ the end of the Lord.’ The fire your graces shall refine, Till, molded from above, You bear the character divine, The stamp of perfect love I I am glad you are to spend a few days with my dear friends at Publow. And when you are happy in each other, do not forget, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Penelope Newman LONDON, April 24, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--If I had gone over into Ireland, as I proposed, it would have been scarce possible for me to visit Gloucestershire. But I think the time I had allotted for that journey may be more profitably bestowed in England. There­fore if I live till June, I purpose pay a short visit to Stroud, Tewkesbury, Gloucester, and a few other places. I laid the foundation of our new chapel here on Monday, with an immense concourse of people. Work your work betimes; and in due time He will give you a full reward.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss March LONDON, April 26, 1777. To begin at the end: I did not preach any sermon for you in particular, though by accident. I know what sermon you mean, and both you and I have need of it. I have some fine remains of Charles Perronet’s wherein he describes his own experience. [See letters of Feb. 11 and June 11.] It exactly agrees with yours. He too was led at first to Jesus the Mediator, and seemed in a manner to have no concern with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Afterwards he had communion with the Father, next with the Spirit, and then with the whole Trinity. You therefore are afraid where no fear is. Our Lord is not displeased at your following His Spirit. I do not remember the making mention of covetousness: but it is likely I might; for I am exceedingly afraid of it, lest it should steal unawares (as it always comes in disguise) either upon myself or my friends. I know no way to escape it but (having saved all we can) to give all we can. I think this is at present your rule as well as mine; and I trust it always will be. We cannot impute too much to divine Providence, unless we make it interfere with our free-agency. I suppose that young woman, by saying she did not believe God had anything to do with it, only meant that the passion itself was not at all from God, but altogether from evil nature. She could not mean that God does not in a thousand instances draw good out of evil; yea, that He may not sometimes permit us to be overtaken in a fault to preserve us from a greater. General rules are easily laid down. But it is not possible to apply them accurately in particular cases without the anointing of the Holy One; this alone, abiding with us, can teach us of all things. Thus our general rule is ‘Thou shalt do no murder’; which plainly forbids everything that tends to impair health, and implies that we use every probable means of preserving or restoring it. But when we come to apply this to particular instances, we are presently in a labyrinth, and want that anointing which alone can make plain the way before our face and direct us to do in every, minute circum­stance what is acceptable to God. You have abundant reason to praise God both for spiritual and temporal blessings. Beware of indulging gloomy thoughts; they are the bane of thankfulness. You are encompassed with ten thousand mercies; let these sink you into humble thankfulness. To Lady Maxwell NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 3, 1777. MY DEAR LADY,--The new chapel which we are now building in London requires much of my attendance there, so that I cannot conveniently be absent more than two Sundays together. Accordingly, when I set out, I fixed Saturday, the 19th instant, for my return; and ordered notice to be given of my design to meet the classes the week following. I cannot therefore have the pleasure of seeing you now; which, if it could be, I should greatly desire. I love your spirit; I love your conversation; I love your correspondence: I have often received both profit and pleasure thereby. I frequently find a want of more light; but I want heat more than light. And you have frequently been an instrument of conveying this to my soul, of animating me to run the glorious race. I trust you find no decay in your own soul, but a still increasing rigor. Some time since, you enjoyed a measure of that great salvation, deliverance from inbred sin. Do you hold fast whereunto you had attained, and still press forward, to be filled with all the fullness of God? There is the prize before you l Look up, believe, and take all you want! Wishing you the whole gospel blessing, I remain, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. I hear Sister Gow is gone hence. Did she go in triumph or only in peace? To Thomas Wride DARLINGTON, May 7, 1777. DEAR TOMMY,--I am resolved to make one fair trial of the island. So I have desired Brother Empringham and Joseph Bradford to go over immediately together and preach in every town and village. Now the summer is before us, and let us try what can be done; and let Brother Seed and you exert yourselves in England.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Carlill HULL, May 13, 1777. DEAR TOMMY,--I commend you for letting none but the members of the Society stay when the Society meets, and more particularly at the lovefeasts. You cannot give a ticket to any who robs the King by selling or buying uncustomed goods. You say true. You have been useful wherever you have been; and so you will be still. But those little circuits I reserve for invalids. You and I (blessed be God) are not invalids yet.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Hannah Ball COLNE, June 11, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,---From the many unforeseen hindrances you have met with, it does indeed seem reasonable to infer that God’s time is not yet fully come. It is your present business to tarry the Lord’s leisure. When His time is come that He will work, then who shall hinder? I have lately made diligent inquiry into the experience of many that are perfected in love. And I find a very few of them who have had a clear revelation of the several Persons in the ever-blessed Trinity. It therefore appears that this is by no means essential to Christian perfection. All that is necessarily implied therein is humble, gentle, patient love: love regulating all the tempers, and governing all the words and actions.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Ritchie WAKEFIELD, June 16, 1777. MY DEAR BETSY,--I write a few lines, on condition that you will not write if it does you hurt; it certainly will, if you lean upon your breast or if you write much at a time. But perhaps (of which you yourself must be the judge) you might write a few lines now and then. Do you still find your will wholly given up? Have you no choice as to life or death? and have you no choice as to the manner of your death ? Are you not afraid of the pain of dissolution? Can you freely part with all your friends here? And to an unknown somewhere wing away? Do you never lose your consciousness of the presence of the Three-One God? And is your testimony of His Spirit that you are saved from inward sin never obscured? Are you always happy? Do you always enjoy an hope full of immortality? I ask many questions, that you may have an opportunity of being a witness for God, whether you live or die. I think in life or death you will not forget Yours affectionately. To Walter Churchey LONDON, June 25, 1777. MY DEAR BRTHER,--At present I am very safe; for I am a good many pounds, if not scores of pounds, worse than nothing. In my Will I bequeath no money but what may happen to be in my pocket when I die. It is my religion which obliges me ’to ’put men in mind to be subject to principalities and powers.’ Loyalty is with me an essential branch of religion, and which I am sorry any Methodist should forget. There is the closest connection, therefore, between my religious and my political conduct; the selfsame authority enjoining me to ’fear God’ and to ’honor the King.’ Dr. Coke promises fair, and gives us reason to hope that he will bring forth not only blossoms but fruit. He has hitherto behaved exceeding well, and seems to be aware of his grand enemy, applause. He will likewise be in danger from offence. If you are acquainted with him, a friendly letter might be of use, and would be taken kindly. He now stands on slippery ground, and is in need of every help. I expect to be at Monmouth (coming from Worcester) on Wednesday, July the 9th, and at Brecon on the 10th.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bishop NEAR LONDON, June 26, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--Blessed be God that He hath hitherto helped you and lifted you up from the gates of death ! It is not probable that you will be able to teach school any more, as it implies breathing so long in a confined air and speaking several hours in a day. But I make no doubt of your being able to meet a class, perhaps in a month’s time. Neither need you ever relapse into your disorder, if you take the precautions which common sense will prescribe. Yesterday I spent some time with Dr. Dodd, and spoke very freely to him. He seems to be in the very temper which one would wish, calmly resigned to the will of God. I hope Miss March is recovering her strength as well as you; and am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Bishop, At Miss March’s, In Bristol. To Mr. ---- WORCESTER, July 7, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I advise all that will take my advice to abide where they are called, and not to ’heap to them­selves teachers having itching ears.’ [2 Tim. iv. 3. ] So I advise all that were brought up in the Church to continue in the Church. [See letter of Oct 1, 1778] It never entered my thoughts to advise them to hear none but Methodists.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson WORCESTER, July 8, 1777. DEAR JOSEPH,--What you say is unquestionably right. Why, then, should it not immediately be put in execution? Let Berwick directly be taken into the Newcastle Circuit, and Dunbar be supplied once a fortnight from Edinburgh. Pray write this instantly to Brother M’Nab, [Assistant to Edinburgh.] and admit of no excuse. If by this means there is a preacher to spare, let him step over as soon as possible from Portpatrick and supply the place of that good young man John Harrison [Harrisin, whose obituary appeared the following month, was ‘a promising youth, serious, modest, and much devoted to God.’] in the Lisburn Circuit. Mr. Smyth calls aloud for help: he is zealous and active, but is quite overborne. I have set down you with Brother Hopper in the Manchester Circuit [They went to Bradford in August.]; and am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To John Bredin HAVERFORDWEST, July 17, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--John Floyd, who is in Dublin, comes over to the Conference, [Floyd was stationedin Bristol in 1776 and Leeds in 1777.] and will bring your accounts and money to Bristol. Push out wherever you can into new places. I think you need go no farther than Cork and Brandon next year. Mean­time do, not so much or so much, but all you can for God.-- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Bredin, At Mr. John Fitzhenry’s, At Bollimore, Near Goree, Ireland. To Mrs. Barton BRISTOL, July 29, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--It is well that you have learned to say, ’ The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away.’ Your child is gone but a little before you. How soon shall we overtake her! It is no way inconsistent with Christian resignation to ask conditionally, ’ Let this cup pass from me ’; only with the addition,’ Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou writ.’ Rapturous joy, such as is frequently given in the beginning of justification or of entire sanctification, is a great blessing; but it seldom continues long before it subsides into calm, peaceful love. I believe, if Miss Hurrell [See letter of Oct. 28.] were to spend a little time with you, it might be of great use to many.--I am, with love to Brother Barton, Your affectionate brother. To Alexander Knox BRISTOL, July 29, 1777. DEAR ALLECK,--I am just returned from a journey through Monmouthshire and other parts of Wales. No: God has not forgotten you. You must not say, ’ He hideth away His face, and He will never see it.’ Surely God hath seen it; and He cannot despise the work of His own hands. But He frequently delays giving bodily health till He heals soul and body together. Perhaps this is His design concerning you. But why do not you go to the salt water? If you are short of money, let me have the pleasure of assisting you a little. Meantime I give you a word for your consideration,--’ Why art thou so heavy, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? O put thy trust in God! I shall yet give Him thanks, who is the help of my countenance, and my God.’ Peace be with all your spirits!--I am Yours affectionately. To Elizabeth Ritchie BRISTOL, August 2, 1777. MY DEAR BETSY,--It is with great pleasure I learn that God has been pleased to lift you up from the gates of death, and that your strength is considerably increased, although you are far from being out of danger. When and in what manner was this change wrought? Can you impute it to any outward circum­stance? How did you feel your mind affected when you found a return of strength? Did you rejoice or grieve? or calmly desire, ’ Let the will of the Lord be done’? In what respects are you better than when I saw you? In what respects are you the same or worse? Give me as particular an account as you can. Do you find your soul as much alive to God as ever? Does not the corruptible body press down the soul? Do you feel faith’s abiding impression, realizing things to come? Do you live in eternity and walk in eternity? And do you still (as Mr. De Renty says) ’ carry about with you an experi­mental verity and a fullness of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity’?--I remain Yours affectionately. To George Robinson BRISTOL, August 4, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You will have but one family this year; so that if the Societies increase you will soon be able to lift up your head, especially as I will desire our brethren to allow Brother Brown the seven pounds. Although the number of your children may incite you to it, yet I hope you will not be in haste to make a second choice. Let it be a matter of much prayer and deliberation. Many women will doubtless be offered. But let piety be your first consideration and fortune only the last.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Geo. Robinson, At Langham Row, Near Alford, Lincolnshire. To Alexander Mather [BRISTOL, August 6,] 1777. No, Aleck, no! The danger of ruin to Methodism does not lie here. It springs from quite a different quarter. Our preachers, many of them, are fallen. They are not spiritual. They are not alive to God. They are soft, enervated, fearful of shame, toil, hardship. They have not the spirit which God gave to Thomas Lee at Pateley Bridge or to you at Boston. [In the autumn of 1757, where he suffered much from the mob (Wesley’s Veterans, ii 93-7). Lee was rolled in the common sewer and had his back nearly broken; for his sufferings at Pateley, see ibid iii, 204-6.] Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen, such alone will shake the gates of hell and set up the kingdom of heaven upon earth. To Elizabeth Ritchie ST. IVES, August 24, 1777. MY DEAR BETSY,--Ever since I was informed that it has pleased God in some measure to restore your strength I have lived in hope that He will yet be entreated and will give you back to our prayers. Do you still find the same consciousness of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity? [See letter of Aug 2.] Do you find it day and night? In the midst of trials does it remain the same? But one would be ready to ask, excepting a weak body, what trials can you have? Secluded from the world, and all its care, Hast thou to joy or grieve, to hope or fear? Unless it be for this,--You long to please all for their good, but you cannot succeed. You would fain give them satisfaction, but they will not be satisfied. This may be a dose trial. Send as particular an account as you can of the state both of your body and mind to Yours affectionately. To Alexander Knox PENRHYN, August 29, 1777. MY DEAR ALLECK,--You should read Mr. Fletcher’s Essay on Truth. He has there put it beyond all doubt that there is a medium between a child of God and a child of the devil--namely, a servant of God. This is your state. You are not yet a son, but you are a servant; and you are waiting for the Spirit of adoption, which will cry in your heart,’ Abba, Father.’ You have ’ received the Spirit of grace,’ and in a measure work righteousness. Without being pained for what you have not, you have cause to bless God for what you have, and to wait patiently till He gives the rest by revealing His Son in your heart. For all this I have little doubt of seeing you an healthy as well as an happy man. But it is true nothing less than almighty power can heal either your soul or body. And is not this enough? Have not you reason to rejoice that ’ salvation cometh of the Lord’? I pray, on whom can you better depend? who loves you better than He? Away, then, with despair! Hope unto the end. To Him I recommend you all; and I am, dear Alleck, Yours most affectionately. To his Wife GWENNAP, September 1, 1777. MY DEAR,--I sincerely wish a reunion with you if it could be upon good terms. Otherwise it would not continue; and then the last error would be worse than the first. But what are those terms on which it probably would continue? In order to know we must state the case; which I will do as briefly as I can, leaving out all unnecessary circumstances. [See letters of July 15, 1774, and Oct. 2, 1778.] Some years since, without my consent or knowledge, you left me and settled at Newcastle. I received you again without any terms--nay, without any acknowledgement that you had done wrong. Two years ago you left me again without my consent or knowledge. A few days since, I met you, and (to my great surprise) you seemed willing to return. I was willing to receive you upon these terms: (1) restore my papers; (2) promise to take no more. But upon reflection I see I was too hasty. For you have given copies of my papers, and these you cannot recall. Like­wise you have spoken all manner of evil against me, par­ticularly to my enemies and the enemies of the cause I live to support. Hereby many bad men have triumphed and been confirmed in their evil ways; and many good but weak men have been stumbled, and some have drawn back to perdition. A sword has been put into-the hands of the enemies of God, and the children of God have been armed against one another. Things standing thus, if I was to receive you just now without any acknowledgement or reparation of these wrongs, it would be esteemed by all reasonable men a confirmation of all you have said. But it may be asked, ’What reparation are you either able or willing to make? ’ I know not if you are willing to make any. If you are, what reparation are you able to make? Very little indeed; for the water is sprit, and cannot be gathered up again. All you can do now, if you are ever so willing, is to unsay what you have said. For instance, you have said over and over that I have lived in adultery these twenty years. Do you believe this, or do you not? If you do, how can you think of living with such a monster. If you do not, give it me under your hand. Is not this the least you can do? To his Great-niece Patience Ellison BRISTOL, September 7, 1777. MY DEAR PATTY,--Only go on as you have begun. Labor to be not almost but altogether a Christian; and not only an outside but an inside Christian, the same in heart and in life. Then you will receive more and more blessings from Him who watches over you for good, and that observes the faintest motions of your heart towards Him, and is ever ready to bring every good design into effect. In order to your improvement in every respect, serious company will be of admirable use, and you will have need to keep your mouth as with a bridle when you are among triflers. But let them do as they please. You have one thing to do-- to work out your own salvation. I will send you the volume of poems. The more you read (only a little at a time) the more you will love reading. And to assist you in anything will always be a pleasure to, my dear Patty, Your affectionate Uncle. To Alexander Clark BRISTOL, September 8, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--If we live till spring, I hope to reconcile most of the contending parties. In the meantime, that something may be done at the present, I have wrote to Mr. Boardman at Cork and desired him to come to Dublin immediately. Mr. Bradburn is to supply his place at Cork. In every place the Assistant chooses the leaders. But any leader or any other person does well to appeal to me if he thinks himself hardly used. When Mr. Boardman comes, I wish you would speak to him; and whatever he determines will be agreeable to Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, In Chancery Lane, Dublin. To Alexander Clark BRADFORD-[UPON-AVON], September 9, 1777. MY DEAR BRETHERN, [This letter was sent to Clark for himself and the other leaders.] --It is certain our preachers have a right to preach our doctrines, as my lady’s have to preach theirs. None can blame them for this. But I blame all even that speak the truth otherwise than in love. Keenness of spirit and tartness of language are never to be commended. It is only in meekness that we are to instruct those that oppose themselves. But we are not allowed upon any account whatever to return evil for evil or railing for railing. I have desired Mr. Boardman to be in Dublin as soon as possible. I believe you know his spirit. He is a loving, peaceable man. Meantime in your patience possess ye your souls.--I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, In Chancery Lane, Dublin To Alexander Clark BRISTOL, September 11, I777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I received your last letter this after­noon, and one at the same time wherein are these words: Last Sunday morning the two Clarks in a very indecent and unbecoming manner persisted to meet their classes, and peremptorily refused to admit the appointed leader, who it is said with all Christian meekness endeavored to reason with them. But they were inflamed, and had so kindled and irritated the spirits of their classes that with a mob-like anarchy they declared they would have none else to meet them. What could be done? Was it not necessary to disband such unsubdued and inflammatory spirits? In the most tender, gentle, awful, and affecting manner Mr. Hampson at the Society last night showed the consequences of such proceedings and the necessity of order and good government, and then declared the two Clarks to be no longer members of this Society. This is not wrote or dictated by either of the preachers, but by (I believe an impartial) bystander. I am sorry both for the thing and for the occasion of it. But in very deed I know not what to say or do. For many years I have had a particular regard for Alexander Clark, and I have so still. I love him as a plain, honest man that wishes to do all things well. But what can I advise you to in the present case? in this trying hour? I would really advise you to sit still for a little while. Very soon you may expect to see Mr. Boardman. And as he will be the Assistant, he will be able, if anything is wrong, to set it right. Commending you and our brethren to the God of peace and love, I remain Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Alex. Clark, In Chancery Lane, Dublin. To Samuel Wells BRISTOL, September 11, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You may remember it was observed at the Quarterly Meeting that the present contributions can­not support four preachers; and it was considered, What can be done either to increase the contributions or to lessen the expenses? The easiest way, we thought, to increase the contributions was this: Let our ablest Societies advance quarterly according to their abilities. £ s. d. Coleford has agreed to advance . . 1 0 0 Motcomb . . . . 10 6 Corsley . . . . 10 6 Frome . . . . 6 6 Is not Braford Society able to advance. . 1 0 0 Freshford . . . . 10 6 Shaftesbury . . . . 8 0 Seand . . . . 7 6 Catbench . . . . 4 6 Oakhill . . . . . 2 6 If they can and will do this, nothing will be wanting. In order to lessen the expenses, the Motcomb Society has engaged to furnish the Quarterly Dinner every Midsummer, the Coleford Society every Michaelmas, the Societies of Frome and Corsley every Christmas. If the Bradford Society chooses to furnish it at Lady Day, it is well. If not, Motcomb will do this too. By this means several pounds in the year will be saved and many uncomfortable complaints prevented. One thing more I desire. I request all the Wiltshire Societies to do as they do in other circuits, to pay their quarterly collection when they receive their tickets. And it is then I hope persons of property will advance their subscriptions according to their ability. Out of this serve the other preachers first, and yourself last. [Wells was Assistant in North Wilts Circuit.]--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Bishop BRISTOL, September 15, 1777. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP,--There is seldom much heat in the preaching-house at Bradford: at least, it is not caused by the largeness of the congregation; although I think it was larger last week than I have seen it for several years. We have reason to be thankful that none of our friends at Bristol have been hurt by Mr. Hilton’s change. [See letters of Aug. 6 and Oct. 22 (to Miss Bishop).] They seem to be grieved but not hurt, rather the more established in the truth. Of Miss Flower I have heard something not so agree­able. But I can say nothing yet. In a day or two I hope to have an opportunity of talking with her, and then I shall know how to judge. If she will copy after my dear Miss Yerbury, I shall have no more pain about her. The sea breezes may be of service to you, if you have an opportunity of using constant exercise. This has brought many from the gates of death. It is beyond all medicine whatever. I am in great hopes this sickness will not be unto death, but that the glory of the Lord may be revealed. Kempis’s rule admits of many exceptions. Whatever was the case then, we have now abundant proof that very ’many are made better by sickness’; unless one would rather say ‘in sickness.’ This is one of the grand means which God employs for that purpose. In sickness many are convinced of sin, many converted to God, and still more confirmed in the ways of God and brought onward to perfection. His gracious design in yours seems to be chiefly this--to wean you yet more from created things, to make and keep you dead to all below. To this end you are in a manner cut off from everything that you may find your all in Him. If He should see good to restore you, you will be an instrument fit for the Master’s use. It seems the best way to profit by that retirement which results from your present weakness is to divide your time between reading, meditation, and prayer, intermixed with serious conversation. And when your strength will permit, you must endeavor to do a little good; only take care at first not to go too far. Some years since, we had a little Society at Southampton; perhaps you may find some frag­ments of it remaining. May the God of all grace, after you have suffered awhile, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, and settle you!--I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, September 15, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,---You know how nearly I am concerned in whatever relates to you. My regard for you has been invariable ever since you was with me in London. I then set you-down for my inalienable friend, and such I trust you will always be, until the union of our spirits will be complete where our bodies part no more. Why, then, should I not speak (as I have done hitherto) in all simplicity. Why should I not tell you just what rises in my heart even on the most delicate occasion! I cannot once suppose you will take it amiss. I speak plainly because I love you. God has lately delivered you out of imminent danger, that of being unequally yoked with an unbeliever. That he is so now will admit of no dispute. And it is not plain that ever he was otherwise. It is highly probable that he never was: that he either wore the appearance of religion for a time, or deceived himself as well as others by mistaking good desires, transient desires for good tempers, whether those desires were real----. But it is certain they were not deep; and as they were chiefly from love to you, it is scarce possible they could have been lasting. And now, instead of praising God for your great deliverance, you are [set] against Him, as [if] it were no deliverance at all! You are fretting and grieving yourself because the snare is broken, because your soul is taken out of the net! But must not this grieve the Holy Spirit of God? What deep unthankfulness! And it is well if here be not a little inordinate affection lying at the bottom of all; otherwise it is a mere device of Satan to hinder you soaring aloft upon the wings of love. My Nancy, arise and shake yourself from the dust! You have acted wisely and faithfully. God has heard your prayer. He is well pleased with the sacrifice you have made [Admit] no thought to the contrary; and if one should, give no place to it--no, not for a moment. And whenever you are troubled on this or any account, [Miss Bolton seems to have replied at once. See letters of April 24 and Sept. 27.] what human friend can you unbosom yourself to more freely than to, my dear, Nancy, Your tenderly affectionate. To Duncan McAllum BRISTOL, September 24, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--There is a good deal of weight in what you and our other brethren say concerning the infancy of the work of God at Inverness. I therefore consent to your staying in the North till spring upon this one condition, that you try what can be done north of Inverness by spending one or two days every week ’in preaching at Moss, Cromartie, or wherever the people are wining to hear. Commending you all to the grace of God, I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, September 27, 1777. Shall not I speak to my dear friend all that is in my heart? I know no reason why I should not. I have done so from the time I knew you first, and more especially from the time you was with me in London. Then I took more intimate know­ledge of you: I tasted of your spirit. I observed all your tempers, and marked you down as the ’ sister of my choice.’ As such I have looked upon you ever since without any inter­mission or variation. And sometimes you have been free and open to me; but at other times you have been more shy and distant. My Nancy, let that time of distance and reserve return no more! Be to me always (if you can) what I am to you, a faithful and tender-hearted friend. Undoubtedly Satan, who well understands the manner how the mind is influenced by the body, can, by means of those parts in the animal machine which are more immediately subservient to thinking, raise a thousand perceptions and emotions in the mind, so far as God is pleased to permit. I doubt not but he was the chief agent in your late painful exercises. [See letter of Sept. 15 to her.] And you gave him advantage by reasoning with him--that is, fighting him at his own weapons; instead of simply looking up and saying, ’Thou shalt answer for me, O Lord, my God.’ You undoubtedly want more thankfulness. And you want more simplicity; that grace, Cambray says, ’which cuts the soul off from all unnecessary reflections upon itself.’ You are encompassed with ten thousand mercies; and the greatest of all is, ’ Christ in a pure and spotless heart! ’ Beware of ever admitting any doubt or reasoning concerning this! Where­unto you have attained hold fast! And use all the grace you have received. Warn every one, and exhort every one, especially those who groan after full salvation. I cannot on any account pass an whole day without com­mending you to God in prayer. I thank you for writing to me so soon. Continue to love and pray for, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Mrs. Smyth BANGOR FERRY, October 15, 1777. MY DEAR MRS. SMYTH,--As I believe both you and our friends in Dublin will be pleased to hear of our safe landing, I will first give you a short account of what has befallen us hitherto. We went on board the packet about seven. The wind was full in our teeth and blew high. However, tacking to and fro, by the help of the tide, we got out to sea before noon. When the tide turned against us, we made little way, but beat up and down till night. The wind rising higher and higher, and the sea in proportion, my fellow passengers were all sick: I, by the blessing of God, was not sick at all. How­ever, as I could not read, I lay down about seven, but (which is very uncommon with me) could not sleep till past midnight. In the morning, the wind being still very high and directly contrary, we found ourselves out of our course, having been driven far to the southward. But being under the Carnarvonshire shore, we were in tolerably smooth water. About noon, the wind coming a point to the south, we put out to sea again. But the storm increased, and about four carried away our bolt-sprit and tore one of the sails all to bits. The captain and his men with all quietness and composure quickly repaired the loss. And before six, by the good providence of God, we landed safe at Holyhead,--I believe in answer to many of your prayers, who were not forgetful of us. I blamed myself for not taking the opportunity of talking with you on Sunday morning. I had desired it many times; but neither you nor I could speak freely before much company. You are in the right not to rest satisfied without the present witness that you are a child of God. The bare remembrance of past things will neither make you holy nor happy. And if you continue to seek it, you will surely find it; for ’every one that seeketh findeth.’ When your mouth is opened, you may call upon God with many words out of the abundance of your heart. But if you have few or none, you may ’ groan to Him that reads the heart the unutterable prayer." You certainly did right in casting in your lot among the people of God. But it is no wonder that you are tempted concerning it. However, that matter may be made easy. Agree upon a time when Sister King may meet Mrs. Blachford, Mrs. Shiels, and you by yourselves. I believe you will then find no difficulty in speaking. And it will be a blessing to your soul. You have set your hand to the plough: see that you look not back; neither you nor my dear Mr. Smyth. Go on; run, and never tire, till we meet in our Father’s house.--I am, my dear sister, Yours in tender affection. To Mrs. William Smyth, In William Street, Dublin. To Walter Churchey LONDON, October 18, I777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--You see how ’good wits jump.’ We agree that no politics shall have a place in the Arminian Magazine. But poetry will; only my brother and I are the judges what pieces shall be admitted. It may be some will think us too nice in our choice; but that we cannot help. As to a review of religious books, it might be well; but I have two objections: (1) I scruple my own sufficiency for the work; (2) I would not at any price be bound to read over all the present religious productions of the press. Peace be with you and yours, young and old!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, October 18, I777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I believe what you say of John Hilton [Benson says on Oct. 7 (manuscript Life, i. 788): ‘I wrote a very close letter to Mr. Hilton three weeks ago; but have had no answer. I wish our friendship may not be at an end.’ See letter of Aug. 6.] is true; therefore I hindered the angry ones from falling upon him at the Conference. There is no divine visitation which is likely to have so general an influence upon sinners as an earthquake. The rich can no more guard against it than the poor. Therefore I have often thought this would be no undesirable event. I hang out no false colors. Scriptural, Christian, &c., are all equivocal words. I mean a magazine purposely wrote to defend Universal Redemption. Other magazines give forty pages for sixpence; this gives eighty for a shilling. [See previous letter.] My time is short; so I publish as much as I can at once, if haply I may live to finish it. All these things I have maturely weighed. I have said over and over there are weighty reasons why no preacher should ever be a trustee. Sycophants are wide ’of this question.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson WITNEY, October 22, 1777. DEAR JOSEPH,--I do not wonder you do not conceive what Grotius meant by that odd sentence; for I doubt whether he conceived it himself. I can translate it, but I cannot under­stand it; it is well if any one can. ’Everything exists necessarily or of itself; not as it is considered in a general view, but as it actually exists. But individual things’ (only) ’exist actually.’ There is a good English translation of this book, published some years since by Dr. John Clarke, Dean of Sarum. [John Clarke (1682-1757) was Dean of Salisbury in 1728. For Samuel Clarke, see letter of Sept. 24, 1753.] He was (I think younger) brother to Dr. Samuel Clarke. I have no objection to your printing a thousand or two of the account of Mrs. Hutton’s death. It may be of use for you to visit Manchester again when opportunity serves. Only do everything in full concurrence with the Assistant.--I am, dear Joseph, Yours affectionately. To Mary Bishop NEAR OXFORD, October 22, 1777. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP,--By long experience I am con­vinced that natural strength of understanding is no defense against the most absurd errors; more especially if we lean to it ever so little, if we are not deeply conscious of our own weakness. I am therefore jealous of you also: I am afraid lest you too ’fall where many mightier have been slain.’ Indeed, some have not scrupled to say already, ’Oh, Miss Bishop will soon be enlightened as well as Miss Flower. [ See letters of Sept. 15 (to her) and Nov. 16.] She has such a regard for Mr. Hilton, that he will soon open her eyes.’ As yet I cannot believe he will; yet I do not say there is no danger. Has he opened the cause? Has he spoke o wrote to you upon the favorite subject? Has he talked you about ’being still, ceasing from your own works, and from crying, Lo here and lo there’? If he has, what impression did that smooth and plausible conversation make upon your mind Was you almost persuaded it was right? or did you stand unmoved? If you was moved, if you too should leave ’the fallen Methodists,’ and join ’the Friends, the only living people in the world ’; still, I do not find myself inclined to bring am heavy indictment against you. I should not be angry; though I should grieve, for I cannot easily part with those I love. I am inclined to think your friend of Bath made a mistake with regard to the person. I did receive ’ a letter which I knew-not what to make of.’ But it was from Miss Flower, not Miss Bishop. I do not remember that ever I received a letter from you which I did not understand. I know few people who write or speak more intelligibly than you do; and I hope you will soon give a fresh proof of it to, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately To Miss Bishop, At Mrs. Taylor’s, Above Bar, Hanover Row, Southampton. To Mrs. Barton STONY STRATFORD, October 28, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad that in spite of all discouragement’s your little Society still keep together. There is un­doubtedly a fairer prospect now than there has been for some time. I believe good will result from Miss Hurrell’s visit. [See letter of July 29 to Mrs. Barton.] She has been of use to many. And it is certain both T. Hanson [The ministers in the Hull Circuit.] and James Hudson [The ministers in the Hull Circuit.] are workmen that need not be ashamed. They are good preachers and (what is more) good men; and their heart is in the work. I wish when opportunity serves you would speak freely to them. Men of this kind are not always to be found. You have been long led in a rough and thorny way. But as your day so your strength has been. He that loves you gives you help for to-day, and you need not take thought for to-morrow. You have His love and truth and promise on your side, and He hath never failed them that seek Him. Peace be with your spirit!--I am, dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Barton, In Norwood, Beverley, Yorkshire. To the Assistant Preachers [October 1777.] MY DEAR BROTHER, About March you may begin to make the subscription for the new chapel. Till then I will beg you with all possible diligence to procure subscriptions for the Philosophy. [See letter of Feb. 15.] Spare no pains. It will be the most complete thing in its kind of any in the English tongue. But it is well if I procure as many subscribers as will pay the expense of the edition.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. ----- LONDON, November 9, 1777. I have not time to write to you so full and so plain upon the point as I have written in the sermons that are printed. I have a thousand other things to do, and I have said all I can say. Here is a precipice on each side. To say every man can believe to justification or sanctification when he will is contrary to plain matter of fact. Every one can confute it by his own experience. And yet if you deny that every man can believe if he will, you run full into absolute decrees. How will you untie this knot? I apprehend very easily. That every man may believe if he will I earnestly maintain, and yet that he can believe when he will I totally deny. But there will be always something in the matter which we cannot well com­prehend or explain.--I am, &c. To William Ripley WESTMINSTER, November 13, 1777. DEAR BILLY,--It is well if the houses both at Driffield and Guisborough be not too small. Mr. Atlay will send you a complete set of my Works. If you increase in substance, you are in great danger of decreasing in grace. Treacle-plasters would very probably prevent that crack­ling of the joints. To prevent worldly-mindedness be as much employed in the work of God as you possibly can. Peace be with you and yours!--I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Will. Ripley, In Whitby, Yorkshire. To Mary Bishop LONDON, November 16, 1777. DEAR MISS BISHOP,--You have entirely taken away my fear (indeed, not a vehement one) of your following the example of poor Miss Flower and connecting yourself with the Quakers. [See letters of Oct. 22, 1777, and May 15, 1778, to her.] I am glad you are not tossed to and fro even by those you love well, and hope you will always say, ’ I am a friend to Socrates and to Plato, but much more to truth.’ ’To be faithful to the teaching of the Spirit of God,’ you have been exhorted ever since you joined the Methodists. This sentiment is not peculiar to Mr. Hilton [See letter of Feb. 7, 1778.]; nor, I believe, any scriptural sentiment. What I have lamented in him for some years is an aptness to condemn and to despise his brethren. There is no failing more infectious than this; ’tis much if you did not catch a little of it from him. For otherwise you would hardly pass that sentence, ’ that the body of Methodists are degenerated.’ You cannot possibly judge whether they are or no. Perhaps you converse with one or two hundred of them. Now, allowing two-thirds of these to be degenerated, can you infer the same concerning thirty or forty thousand? Yet thus much I will allow. Two-thirds of those who are grown rich are greatly degenerated. They do not, will not save all they can in order to give all they can. And without doing this they cannot grow in grace; nay, they continually grieve the Holy Spirit of God. It gives me pleasure to hear that you are recovering your strength of body. That you may continually increase in spiritual strength also is the constant wish of, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss Bishop, At Mrs. Taylor’s, Southampton. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, November 22, 1777. DEAR TOMMY,--You send me a pleasing account of the isle; just such an one as I expected. For I did not doubt but the work of God would prosper in your hands. They talk, but they can do nothing. If the Act of Tolera­tion does not extend to the isle, neither does the Conventicle Act. So they have no ground to stand upon. It is soon enough to take the oaths when you are required so to do. If any one actually molests you, then apply to the Governor, telling him, ’ I desired you so to do.’ He will likewise do you justice in case of riots.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. My kind love to Mr. Corlett. [See heading to letter of Jan. 17.] You may sell many of the penny tracts, and they will do much good. To the Reader of the ’ Arminian Magazine’ LEWISHAM, November 24, 1777. It is usual, I am informed, for the compilers of magazines to employ the outside covers in acquainting the courteous reader with the beauties and excellencies of what he will find within. I beg him to excuse me from this trouble: from writing panegyric upon myself. Neither can I desire my friends to do it for me in their recommendatory letters. I am content this Magazine should stand or fall by its own intrinsic value. If it is a compound of falsehood, ribaldry, and nonsense, let it sink into oblivion. If it contains only the words of truth and soberness, then let it meet with a favorable reception. It is usual likewise with magazine writers to speak of them­selves in the plural number: ’ We will do this.’ And, indeed, it is the general custom of great men so to do. But I am a little one. Let me, then, be excused in this also, and permitted to speak as I am accustomed to do. To Mrs. Crosby LONDON, December 2, 1777. MY DEAR SISTER,--I hope you will always have your time much filled up. You will, unless you grow weary of well doing. For is not the harvest plenteous still? Had we ever a larger field of action? And shall we stand all or any part of the day idle? Then we should wrong both our neighbor and our own souls. For the sake of retrenching her expenses, I thought it quite needful for Miss Bosanquet to go from home. And I was likewise persuaded (as she was herself) that God had something for her to do in Bath and Kingswood; perhaps in Bristol too, although I do not think she will be called to speak there in public. The difference between us and the Quakers in this respect is manifest. They flatly deny the rule itself, although it stands clear in the Bible. We allow the rule; only we believe it admits of some exceptions. At present I know of those, and no more, in the whole Methodist Connection. You should send word of what our Lord is doing where you go to, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 8, 1777. DEAR JOSEPH,--Undoubtedly Bishop Newton’s book on the Prophecies is well written. [Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol 1761-82, Dean of St. Paul’s 1768, See letter of March 10, 1763.] And he is certainly a man of sense and of considerable learning. This he has shown in what he writes on the Revelation. But with regard to the passage you mention I cannot agree with him at all. I believe the Romish antichrist is already so fallen that he will not again lift up his head in any considerable degree. The Bishop of Rome has little more power now than any other of the Italian Princes. I therefore concur with you in believing his tyranny is past never to return. But there is no comparison, either as to sense, learning, or piety, between Bishop Newton and Bengelius. The former is a mere child to the latter. I advise you to give another serious and careful reading .to that extract from his comment on the Revelation which concludes the Notes. There you have one uniform consistent [view] far beyond any I ever saw. And I verily believe the more deeply you consider it the more you will admire it. Does any one deny that a kite is bigger than a lark, or that Ogilvie has written a larger book than Virgil? And certainly there are larger magazines than ours; but it does not follow that they are better. Ours is reduced to half the price, and will contain forty-eight pages, which is the usual number for sixpence. We are called to propagate Bible religion through the land--that is, faith working by love, holy tempers and holy lives. Let us do it with our might!--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss March NEAR LONDON, December 10, 1777. You do not at all understand my manner of life. Though I am always in haste, I am never in a hurry’; because I never undertake any more work than I can go through with perfect calmness of spirit. It is true I travel four or five thousand miles in a year. But I generally travel alone in my carriage, and consequently am as retired ten hours in a day as if I was in a wilderness. On other days I never spend less than three hours (frequently ten or twelve) in the day alone. So there are few persons in the kingdom who spend so many hours secluded from all company. Yet I find time to visit the sick and the poor; and I must do it, if I believe the Bible, if I believe these are the marks whereby the Shepherd of Israel will know and judge His sheep at the great day; therefore, when there is time and opportunity for it, who can doubt but this is matter of absolute duty? When I was at Oxford, and lived almost like an hermit, I saw not how any busy man could be saved. I scarce thought it possible for a man to retain the Christian spirit amidst the noise and bustle of the world. God taught me better by my own experience. I had ten times more business in America (that is, at intervals) than ever I had in my life. But it was no hindrance to silence of spirit. Mr. Boehm [See letter of Aug. 31, 1772, to Philothea Briggs.] was Chaplain to Prince George of Denmark, Secretary to him and Queen Anne, principal manager of almost all the public charities in the kingdom, and employed in numberless private charities. An intimate friend, knowing this, said to him when they were alone, ’Sir, are you not hurt by that amazing hurry of business? I have seen you in your office, surrounded with people, listening to one, dictating to another, and at the same time writing to a third; could you then retain a sense of the presence of God? ’ He answered, ’ All that company and all that business no more hindered or lessened my communion with God than if I had been all alone in a church kneeling before the communion table.’ Was it not the same case with him to whom Gregory Lopez said, ’ Go and be an hermit in Mexico’? I am concerned for you; I am sorry you should be content with lower degrees of usefulness and holiness than you are called to. But I cannot help it: so I submit; and am still, my dear Miss March, Yours in sincere affection. To Mr. Powell LONDON, December 18, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Your proposal is good. Let Mr. Watson, who is a pious and sensible youth (?), act as a fourth preacher; at least till you hear farther from Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Powell, In the Drapery, Northampton. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, December 20, 1777. DEAR TOMMY,--You gave me an agreeable account of the progress of the work of God in the island. I apprehend you will meet with no hindrance from men in power. They know the mind of the King. You cannot with a good conscience receive that froward man either as a leader or a member of the Society unless he acknowledges his fault. Otherwise he would do more hurt in the Society than out of it.--I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. I fix no journeys till after Christmas. To John Bredin LONDON, December 23, 1777. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have wrote to Mr. Creighton. [See letters of May 24, 1773, and July 12, 1778.] Yours of the 12th instant I received this afternoon. I desire one of the preachers in the Armagh Circuit to change with you till Lady Day. Before that time (if my life health are spared) I hope to be in Ireland myself.--I am Your affectionate brother. I shall be glad of a correspondence with the clergyman mention. To Mr. John Bredin, At Mr. Maire’s Merchant, In Iniskillan. Editor’s Introductory Notes: 1777 [1] Wolfe had evidently moved from Wilts North, where he is appointed in the Minutes of 1776. Perfect was Assistant in Cornwall East, Whatcoat second preacher in Cornwall West. [2] In 1776 Wride was again Assistant at Whitehaven, with Robert Empringham and Richard Seed as colleagues. He wrote on January 13, 1777, to Wesley. On the previous Tuesday he had heard from Empringham (then in the Isle of Man), who had also written on December 10: ’ The Rev. Mr. Corlett seems to be very friendly with me and the people; but he does not give me the sacrament, but I stay in the church till he has done giving it to others. The Bishop, I suppose, binds him to deny us the privilege; and if you see it expedient, you may write to Mr. Wesley to let us know if he will break the Satannical bond, which I think he can with the help of God.’ This circumstance, says Wride, ’ is the reason of my present writing. As to my own thoughts of the matter, I think Brother Empringham has in this done the best he could have done; and to thinking people it may speak more than the Bishop is aware of. But as it is a point in which I have never been exercised I thought it needful to have your advice.’ Wride expected his colleague back in Whitehaven on the 24th, and hoped to go to the island by the packet on its return on the 27th. He asks, ’Would you choose to have the General Collection made this year in the island, as they are a young people, and in general poor? Do you think to call on the island on your way to Dublin? If so, would it not be well to engage a vessel of the island to come for you, to take you to Dublin or the North? Perhaps this may be of little interruption to your travelling plan as any other way whatever.’ Wesley took kindly to this suggestion. Wride replied from Douglas on February 3. Wesley could take the packet from Whitehaven, which left every Monday for the Isle of Man. ’ This will cost you but five shillings, cabin passage. I have spoke to our friends at Peel, and they will take care to put you over to Ireland. As to the price, they will demand nothing; they are so glad to hear of your coming that they will do anything they can.’ They could take him from Peel to Portaferry in about six hours, or to near Newry in about seven. If Wesley wished to go to Dublin, they would land him a little short of the place, to avoid the press-gang. ’ I suppose, if you choose to be landed at Portaferry, you will have Mr. Smith and Mr. Corlett to accompany you over. Last Saturday I spent good part of the afternoon with Mr. Corlett. He appears to be as friendly a man as I have met with. He is looked upon to be as good a scholar as any clergyman in the island. He is not ashamed to own or defend us, and yet he is amazingly fearful of the Bishop. I suppose he is not well acquainted with ecclesiastical law; but, however, if you come over, he says, "Mr. Wesley shall not preach in the factory" (the place we preach in), "but he shall have my pulpit." ’ Wride speaks of several cases of people affected under his ministry, who seemed to fall into a trance. ’ These things are neither new nor rare; they were stumbling-blocks to Mr. Corlett for some time, but now he acknowledges them miraculous.’ See Journal vi. 151; and letters of August 10, 1776 (to John Crook), and May 7, 1777; and for Empringham, March 25, 1780 (to George Robinson). [3] Wesley did not get to Ireland till October 3, and left on the 13th. John Pritchard, the Assistant at Londonderry, was taken very ill at Mrs. Johnston’s house in the depth of winter. He says: ’ Great was the love and multiplied were the favors I received from her. For all the time I was ill at her house she was to me as an affectionate mother and a tender nurse. Her example increased my desire for holiness, and wrought in me a greater degree of zeal to promote the interest of our Savior wherever I came.’ Mrs. Johnston writes to him on March 14, 1777, c/o Mr. Shean, merchant, Londonderry, ’ I have a very pleasing letter from our very dear Mr. Wesley,’ and quotes a paragraph. In another letter she tells Pritchard: ’I had letters from Mr. Wesley and Bob Crawford also lately, very good and kind ones. Surely the Lord moves the hearts of His children to write comfortably to me.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 212; and letters of October 22, 1776, and March 28, 1777, to her. [4] This letter, the signature of which is cut away, is endorsed, ’With William Hewden’s best respects to Mr. Duncan.’ Bradburn had removed from Limerick to Dublin in the spring of 1777. Howe was admitted on trial in August, and appointed to Water­ford. George Brown (who in 1782 married Anne Devlin, whom Mrs. Johnston, of Lisleen, had befriended after she renounced Popery) was now in Lisburn; he was one of the hundred preachers named in the Deed of Declaration, and died in 1822, ’ a bright example of Christian simplicity and sincerity.’ Watson, the Assistant at Athlone, became an itinerant in 1771; he retired after fourteen years, and died at Bath in 1837. Hampson, now at Dublin, left Wesley because his name was not inserted in the Deed of Declaration in 1784. [5] Hopper writes to Benson on March 11 (manuscript Life, i. 678): ’ If James Kershaw be mad, we ought to pity and pray for him; it is a calamity indeed. But I am afraid there is some art, for what end I cannot determine…. I am glad to hear Jacky Reed continues happy and devoted to God….I wonder what way the good old man will move this year. I can come to no certain knowledge yet.’ See letters of February 15, 1777, and October 31, 1778 (to Hopper). [6] Mrs. Johnston sends her love to him through John Pritchard on April 7. The people had been very happy in hearing him, and wished much to hear him again. Two anti-Methodists said they would go to Clady to hear him. On April 9 she writes to Pritchard: ’Letters from England, Longford, and Cork. Good news. Glory to God! Mr. Wesley begins with the following paragraph.’ She quotes the letter down to ’ His Majesty.’ The Journal for March 28 has: ’ I received an affectionate message from a great man. But I shall not wonder if the wind changes.’ A note in the Journal, vi. 142, says: ’ This may have been either Lord Dartmouth or Lord North.’ Perhaps, in view of this letter, it may have been from Archbishop Cornwallis, who was warmly in favor of tolerance, or from King George III himself. Mrs. Brown, of Creevy, had two sons, George and Hugh, who became Methodist preachers. Hugh, admitted on trial in 1776, was now at Athlone, where he remained after the Conference of 1777. A nervous disorder compelled him to retire from the itinerancy, and he died three years after, in 1781. For George Brown, see letter of February 22. Alexander Boyle, of Kirlish Lodge, was converted about 1774, and did much by his labor and liberality to extend the work. Wesley stayed with him in May 1787, and says: ’ I do not wonder the work of God spreads in these parts; the spirit and behavior of Mr. Boyle and his wife, continually employed in doing good, have an amazing influence on all their neighborhood.’ See Journal, vii. 284; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 291. [7] This letter (part of which has been torn) shows wonderful dis­crimination and versatility in what Wesley says to his correspondents. His letters are not merely self-revelation; they are living portraits of his friends. [8] Wesley left London on April 6, visited Birmingham, Chester, and other places, returned to town on the 19th, and laid the foundation-stone of City Road Chapel on the 21st. Lady Maxwell replied on June 31: ’ My fellowship is now continually with the Father and the Son, through the eternal Spirit. See Journal, vi. 144; Arminian Magazine, 1788, pp. 215-16. [9] Bradford was Wesley’s travelling companion. Wesley went to the Isle of Man on Saturday, May 31, and stayed till June 3. Wride entered fully into his plans. He sent Wesley on May l0 a remarkable account of the conversion of William Kaughin, a godless sailor, and of ’some things most disagreeable (I doubt diabolical), of which in my next I shall trouble you with some unpleasing accounts.’ He also mentions a proposal to get Empringham and his wife to reside at Daughby, which he did not approve. There were about three hundred members on the island. On May 24 he sends a full account of the its or trances into which some had fallen. See letter of January 17. [10] The Memoir for November 9 says: ’ I had this day a most blessed but indescribable impression on my soul of the Three-One Jehovah, all equal in deity, while these words flowed from my heart, "The Lord, He is the God."’ See letters of April 26 and June 16. [11] Miss Ritchie was threatened with consumption, and was under the care of Dr. Hey, the eminent surgeon in Leeds. Her father was paralyzed and on the verge of death, her mother also was ill. Though in poor health himself, Wesley traveled from Malton to Otley to see her on May 9, and found her in ’ the third stage of a consumption.’ She replied on June 24: ’Glory be to God, I constantly feel His spirit witnessing with mine that the blood of Jesus cleanseth from all sin! From the time I first received this blessed testimony I have never lost it. Of late it has been more strong, more permanent, more clear. Indeed, I am always happy, and sometimes unspeakably so.’ See Journal, vi. 147-8; Bulmer’s Memoirs, p. 75; and letters of June 11 and August 2. [12] Thomas Coke belonged to Brecon, where Churchey lived. He met Wesley on August 13, 1776. He was dismissed from his curacy at South Petherton, attended the Bristol Conference on August 5, 1777, and cast in his lot with Wesley. [13] Towards the end of June Miss Ritchie’s health improved, and in July she was able to report, ’ The violence of my dangerous symptoms is greatly decreased.’ And in the course of a few months her health was · surprisingly re-established,’ though for many years it was precarious. See Bulmer’s Memoirs, pp. 76-7; and letters of June 16 and August 24. [14] Robinson was for many years Circuit Steward in the Grimsby Circuit, and his account-book is still preserved; he did marry again. Isaac Brown was the Assistant. Wesley greatly loved ’ honest Isaac Brown.’ He died at Pontefract in 1815. A remarkable letter from him to Wesley, describing his conversion and what he suffered for his Methodism and God’s providential help, is in the Arminian Magazine, 1787, pp. 496-8. [15] ’Mr. John Holdsworth, an aged preacher in our Connection’ says, James Sigston in his Life of Bramwell, ii. 280, ’has favored me with the following extract of a letter which Mr. Wesley addressed to Mr. Alexander Mather, and which has been copied verbatim from the original.’ At the Conference in Bristol Wesley ’ particularly inquired (as that report had been spread far and wide) of every Assistant, "Have you reason to believe from your own observation that the Methodists are a fallen people? "’John Hilton withdrew from the Connection because he felt they were fallen; but the almost universal answer was that there was’ no decay in the work of God among the people in general.’Mather had been Assistant in Staffordshire, and at this Conference moved to Colne. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 245-6. Near the close of the Conference at Leeds in 1755 Wesley said: ’ It has been affirmed that none of our present preachers are so much alive as they were seven years ago. I fear many are not. But if so they are not fit for the work, which requires much life. Otherwise your labors will be tiresome to yourself, and of little use to the people: tiresome, because you will no longer serve Christ and the people, willingly and cheerfully; of little use, because you will no longer serve them diligently, doing it with your might. I have several reasons to fear it is so with many of you. But let your conscience be the judge,-- Who of you is exemplary, so much alive to God, so as to carry fire with Him wherever you go? Who of you is a pattern of self-denial in little things? Who of you drinks water? why not? Who of you has not four meals a day? Who of you fasts on Friday? why not? Who of you goes through his work willingly and diligently, and on no account disappointing the congregations? Who visits the people on Mr. Baxter’s method? Is your heart in the work wholly, not giving way to indolence or unconcernedness, not yielding to the fear of men? ’ See Sutcliffe’s manuscript History of Methodism, p. 468. [16] Patience Ellison was a useful member of a Dissenting congregation in Bristol. Her father, John Ellison, was the son of Wesley’s sister Susanna, and was an officer in the Excise or Customs. She used to travel with Wesley around Bristol; but for a time became a Calvinist, and was thus separated from him. She afterwards married Mr. Whereat. See Journal, iv. 71n, vii. 57n; Clarke’s Wesley Family, ii. 273; and letter of May 15, 1779. [17] Samuel Bradburn, the second minister in Dublin, had preached powerfully against Calvinism, and had been accused by Solomon Walker, a man of wealth and influence in the Society, with preaching false doctrine. Charges were also made against James Martin, Treasurer of the Widows’ Alms Houses, of defrauding the charity. His books showed that he had really advanced money and that a considerable sum was owing to him. Hampson, the superintendent minister, expelled the two Clarks and two other leaders for unchristian conduct. The dispute became so sharp that Wesley went over to Ireland, and on October 6 met the contending parties in Dublin. Thirty-four members had been put out of or left the Society. Wesley could ’ in no wise pacify them. They were all civil, nay it seemed affectionate, to me; but they could never forgive the preachers that had expelled them: so that I could not desire them to return into the Society; they could only remain friends at a distance.’ They met in class by themselves, but regularly attended the services at Whitefriar Street Chapel. See Journal, vi. 172-3; and next two letters. [18] McAllum was at Aberdeen. Wesley had received him on trial in 1775, and he became a scholar and a powerful preacher. He died in 1834. [19] Mrs. Smyth was the daughter of William Grattan, a wealthy Dublin goldsmith. She and her husband were converted in London under the ministry of William Romaine, and joined the Society on their return to Dublin. This led to his brother, the Rev. Edward Smyth, being introduced to Methodism. Wesley and Fletcher stayed with them. For Mrs. King, who was a class-leader in Dublin, see letter of Sep­tember 9, 1784. Theodosia Tighe, daughter of Lady Mary Tighe and granddaughter of the first Earl of Darnley, married in 1770 William Blachford, a clergyman of extensive property, who was in charge of Marsh’s Library in Dublin. He died three years later, leaving a son and daughter. His widow became a Methodist. See letter of July 31, 1785. [20] Wesley had mentioned his plan for a magazine at the Bristol Con­ference, and on August 14 had drawn up proposals for printing the Arminian Magazine. Churchey took a keen interest in the matter, and is even said to have suggested the publication. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 280-3; and next letter. [21] Benson wrote from Halifax on October 7 that he had been trans­lating Grotius’s De Veritate religionis Christianiae, and was much pleased with his arguments. He was puzzled by the passage in Book I. sect. iii. His difficulty lay in the latter part of the sentence: ‘Non plures esse Deos, sed Unum Deum. Hoc inde colligitur, quod Deus, ut supra jam dictum est, est id, quod est necessario, sire per se; necessario autem, sive per se, quidque est, non qua in genere consideratur, sed qua actu est, actu autem sunt res singulae.’ Benson suggested that his translation might be useful if published in the new Magazine. In the Newcastle Circuit Benson had disposed of 2,000 copies of A Short Account of the Death of Mrs. Mary Hutton, of Sunderland, who died of consumption on February 24, at the age of thirty-two. He had given a copy of it to Hopper at the Bristol Conference for Wesley to print another edition if he thought proper. If he did so, John Atlay, the Book Steward, might send 300 to Bradford, 300 to Manchester, and as many as he chose to Leeds. If Wesley did not use it, Benson himself intended to print 2,000 more. ’I spent a few days at Manchester as I came from Conference,’ he continued, ’ and I trust not in vain. If you give me leave, I shall pay them another visit before winter, which the Stewards and others solicit, and which I can do without prejudice to this circuit, as we have several vacant days on our plan, which yet, I dare not, as long as I have health and strength, leave vacant, but employ them in making excursions into various places.’ See manuscript Life, i. 792-3; W.H.S. x. 113-15. [22] Ripley was born in 1739, came to Whitby in 1760, and died in December 1784. Wesley says he was ‘for many years a burning and a shining light.’ See Journal, vii. 169; W.H.S. iv. 127-32, vi. 37-44. [23] Rutherford had been appointed in 1777 to the Whitehaven Circuit, which included the Isle of Man. He reached Douglas on September 26, and stayed on the island till February. The Bishop had set the clergy most violently against the Methodists; Out the work was growing. See letter of December 20. [24] This letter appeared on the cover of the first issue of the Magazine. Wesley had spent the afternoon with Dr. Lowth, the Bishop of London, at Ebenezer Blackwell’s, and began that day to collect materials for his Magazine. ’ If it once begin, I incline to think it will not end but with my life.’ Dr. Abel Stevens says the history of Methodism could never have been written if Wesley had not published this repertory of its early biographies and correspondence. See Journal, vi. 176. [25] Miss Bosanquet went from Cross Hall to Bath on December 8. Soon afterwards Wesley laid the stone of the chapel there, and she was led to speak with some degree of freedom in the lovefeast that evening. She also found’ much freedom in speaking for God ’ in the classes and bands. She stayed in Bath till April, and was made a spiritual blessing to many. See Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, pp. 130-2. [26] This last letter of a great series throws a flood of light on Wesley’s habits of work and study. See letter of March 4, 1760. [27] Rutherford describes his disappointment that the people who had invited him to preach in one of the towns sold gin, and as soon as preach­ing was over the people ’ filled the house, drank, whistled, and sung.’ See Rosser’s Methodism in the Isle of Man, p. 90; and letter of Novem­ber 22. 1778 To Mrs. Johnston, Annandde, Listeen. MY DEAR SISTER, - I do not remember the receiving any letter from you, either at Dublin or since I left it. Neither have I received any fresh complaint concerning you. [See letter of Feb. 14 to her.] What I formerly heard I gave you an account of, to which you gave me a distinct answer, and I was fully satisfied. I am relieved to think someone talked of making a fresh complaint. But it is very probable his heart failed, and so the child was strangled in the birth. Indeed, I do not wonder if people are not forward to complain of you to me. Because they know I am a prejudicial person: they know the tender regard I have you and yours, and consequently how hard it is for me: to blame you in anything. That God may give you many happy is the prayer of, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Taylor LONDON, January 15, 1778. DEAR TOMMY, - I am glad you have seen Mr. Pugh. The Philosophy is finished, [See letter of Feb. 15, 1777.] and will be sent down next month. I spoke briefly before; but since you urge me to it, I will now come full upon your subject. As to Preaching, you ought not to preach against that unscriptural, blasphemous, mischievous doctrine constantly - no, nor very frequently. But you ought now and then to bear a full, strong, express testimony against it; otherwise you are a sinner against God and your people and your own soul. I have done this too seldom, scarce once in fifty sermons: ought to have done it once in fifteen or ten. As to Writing and Publishing, the deadly poison has for many years been spread through England, chiefly by means of those pestilent declamations the Gospel and the Spiritual Magazine. Whatever is designed for an antidote to this poison must be spread in the same manner. Thousands have been thereby poisoned already, and are now twice dead. To guard those who are not poisoned yet (not to get money), I fight them at their own weapons. I oppose magazine to magazine, though of a totally different kind. But it seems you know nothing at all of the matter. You do not appear to have even read the Proposals. This Magazine not only contains no railing, but (properly speaking) no controversy. It proves one point: ’God willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ It goes straight forward, taking notice of no opponent, but invariably pursuing the one point. And this is the only way to preserve Methodists and to make the Calvinists quiet. Meantime the Letters and the Lives, which will make a considerable part of every number, contain the marrow of experimental and practical religion; so that nothing of the kind has appeared before. Therefore a magazine of this kind is a new thing in the land; and those who formerly spoke against magazines may with a good grace recommend this as being quite another thing and published upon other motives. I do not desire any Calvinist to read it. I publish it not to convince but preserve. I know by long experience they will never bend but when the war is carried into their own quarters. This I will do, as long as God spares my life, in love and in meekness of wisdom. This is the way, and the only way, to establish a lasting peace. But is it not odd that a Methodist preacher, an Assistant, should be the only one who sees my brother and me, and the bulk of the preachers, and the body of the people to be wrong Tommy, distrust yourself. Do not lean much to your own understanding. ’Tis possible they may be right and you wrong. You do not at all understand the affair. We are well rid of those turbulent men. With love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Duncan McAllum LONDON, January 17, 1778. DEAR DUNCAN,-Our brethren at Inverness [McAllum was now in Dundee, and was appointed to the Aberdeen Circuit at the Conference of 1778.] write to me and earnestly desire that you may come thither again. I have no objection: therefore write to the preacher there and change places with him as soon as you can. You should be at Inverness and at Perth by turns. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Carlill LONDON, January 25, 1778. DEAR TOMMY, - In my father’s poem on the Life of Christ [The Life of our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: An Heroic Poem. Dedicated to Her Most Sacred Majesty; in Ten Books. Attempted by Samuel Wesley, Rector of South Ormsby, in the county of Lincoln, 1693.] there are many excellent lines; but they must be taken in connection with the rest: it would not be at all proper to print them alone. Mr. Toplady might easily have answered Mr. Hervey, and maintained his point, upon supposition of Absolute Decrees; for it is certain whatever is ordained of God is right. If, therefore, ’whatsoever is is ordained of God,’ then ’whatever is is right.’ Mr. Toplady therefore was consistent with his principles; Mr. Hervey was not. You two and Brother Pritchard [The preachers at Bristol were John Goodwin, Thomas Carlill, and John Pritchard.] should procure all the subscribers you can to the Magazine. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 24, 1778. It is surely a wise and gracious Providence which has detained you so long at Withey. You was sent thither and still remain there for the good of the poor people. I wish you could meet all the women of the Society either in band or class. Lay yourself out among them as much as ever your strength and leisure will permit. You was formerly the nursing mother of the Society; they grew and prospered under your hand, and they have not prospered since. They have pined away like poor orphans ever since you was removed from them. [See letter of Jan. 11, 1775, to Francis Woffe.] Possibly now they may spring up and flourish again; and then you will not think much of your labor. It would undoubtedly be of use if a few of you were to meet together for this very purpose, to improve one another in Christian knowledge as well as in love. And you cannot insist too much on that point - that, whatever our past experience has been, we are now more or less acceptable to God as we more or less improve the present moment. But it is no wonder that many are so angry at this assertion, for it strikes at the very root of Calvinism. That you are tempted to peevishness, to discontent, or to anything else will be no loss as long as you are conqueror over all, yea more than conqueror through Him that loveth you. And so, I doubt not, you will always be; because your trust is not in yourself but in Him. - My dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Mary Bishop LONDON, February 7, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - It is no great matter whether those doubts arose in your mind by conversing with Mr. Hilton, [See letter of Nov. 16, 1777.] by reading (his oracle) Mr. Law’s later works, or by your own reasoning. But certainly the subject is of the last importance, and deserves our most serious consideration. Indeed, nothing in the Christian system is of greater consequence than the doctrine of Atonement. It is properly the distinguishing point between Deism and Christianity. ’The scriptural scheme of morality,’ said Lord Huntingdon, [Francis, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Lady Huntingdon, was a freethinker.] ’is what every one must admire; but the doctrine of Atonement I cannot comprehend.’ Here, then, we divide. Give up the Atonement, and the Deists are agreed with us. This point, therefore, deserves to be more largely considered than my time will permit. But it is the less needful now because I have done it already in my letter to Mr. Law; to which I beg you will give a serious reading, whether you have read it before or no. It is in the nineteenth volume of the Works. [See letter of Jan. 6, 1756, sect. II. 2, 3, to William Law.] But it is true I can no more comprehend it than his lordship; perhaps I might say than the angels of God, than the highest created understanding. Our reason is here quickly bewildered. If we attempt to expatiate in this field, we ’find no end, in wandering mazes lost.’ But the question is (the only question with me; I regard nothing else), What saith the Scripture It says, ’God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’; that ’He made Him, who knew no sin, to be a sin-offering for us.’ It says, ’He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.’ It says, ’We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the atonement for our sins.’ But it is certain, had God never been angry, He could never have been reconciled. So that, in affirming this, Mr. Law strikes at the very root of the Atonement, and finds a very short method of converting Deists. [He is evidently thinking of Charles Leslie (1650-1722), Nonjuror and his A Short and Easy Method with the Deists.] Although, therefore, I do not term God, as Mr. Law supposes, ’ a wrathful Being,’ which conveys a wrong idea; yet I firmly believe He was angry with all mankind, and that He was reconciled to them by the death of His Son. And I know He was angry with me till I believed in the Son of His love; and yet this is no impeachment to His mercy, that He is just as well as merciful. But undoubtedly, as long as the world stands, there will be a thousand objections to this scriptural doctrine. For still the preaching of Christ crucified will be foolishness to the wise men of the world. Hovever let us hold the precious truth fast in our hearts as well as in our understanding; and we shall find by happy experience that this is to us the wisdom of God and power of God. I do not doubt but your health will be so far re-established that you may either teach school or live in Bath. But I do not know whether you will be able to do both together, to teach school in Bath. A little time will determine. And meanwhile we know that will be which is best. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss Bishop, At Mrs. Taylor’s, Southampton. To Duncan McAllum LONDON, February 11, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You do not write too often. When I think your letters troublesome, I will tell you. I leave it to your choice how you should divide your time between Perth and Inverness. [See letter of Jan. 17.] It seems to me you should spend at least a month in the North before the Conference. If you have not money for the journey, I will help you. I shall hardly see Scotland this year. About the end of next month I expect to be in Dublin. If Brother Ellis is angry at you, be not you angry at him. A soft answer turneth away wrath. - Dear Duncan, Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, February 14, 1778. DEAR SAMMY, - So your mother is at rest! We shall go to her, though she will not return to us. I am glad you are so agreeably situated, and that you already see some fruit of your labor. About the 27th of March I expect to be at Chester. If a ship be ready at Parkgate, I purpose to embark directly; if not, I shall pay you a visit at Liverpool. [He sailed from Liverpool on March 31.] I fix upon nothing: let the Lord do as seemeth Him good. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen LONDON, February 14, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - The fact was true. And there was a grievous mistake with regard to the time of it for that letter (which was wrote, I suppose, a year and a half ago); since that time I have had no complaint of the kind. [See letter of Jan. 8.] If I had, I should have let you know. But you need not be under any apprehension of my being offended at you either on this or any other account. I am not easily offended at those I love, and I have loved you ever since I saw you for your artlessness and sincerity; and I believe you will never quit that character, though it be ever so much out of fashion. I cannot doubt but Robert Swindells’ stay at Lisleen was of use to others as well as himself. As Shakespear’s ’the man of exceeding honesty,’ one may take his word. Therefore I am strongly persuaded he is no Calvinist; yet I do not wonder that it should be imputed to him, for he was leaning toward it for many years. This all our preachers know; but they did not all know that he now sees more clearly. In about a fortnight I purpose to set out from London, and probably about the end of next month I shall be in Dublin. I intend with God’s help to visit the South of Ireland first start, make Londonderry beginning of June. If so, I will have the pleasure of seeing you and your dear family before the end of May. Peace be with all your spirits,-I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Maxfield February 14, 1778. I was a little surprised to read in a late publication of yours the following assertions: - 1. Thomas Maxfield was ’some of the firstfruits of Mr. Whitefield’s ministry’ (page 18). 2. ’When he went abroad, he delivered me and many thousands more into the hands of those he thought he could have trusted them with, and who would have given them back to him again at his return. But, alas! it was not so.’ (Ibid.) ’I heard Mr. Whitefield say at the Tabernacle, in the presence of five or six ministers, to Mr. Wesley, a little before he left England for the last time: "I delivered thirty thousand people into the hands of your brother and you when I went abroad. And by the time I came back you had so turned their hearts against me that not three hundred of them would come to hear me." I knew this was true.’ (Ibid.) 3. ’I heard Mr. Whitefield say: "When I came back from Georgia, there was no speaking evil of each other. Oh what would I not give or suffer or do to see such times again! But oh that division! that division! What slaughter it has made ’It was doctrine that caused the difference; or, at least, it was so pretended.’ (Ibid.) ’He preached a few times in connection with his old friends. But, ah! how soon was the sword of contention drawn!’ (Page 19.) 4. ’where can you now find any loving ones of either party They have no more love to each other than Turks.’ (Ibid.) ’Read their vile contentions, and the evil characters they give of each other, raking the filthiest ashes to find some black story against their fellow preachers’ (page 20). They ’slay with the sword of bitterness, wrath, and envy. Still more their shame is what they have sent out into the world against each other on both sides about five or six years ago, and till this very day.’ (Page 21.) To satisfy both friends and foes I propose a few queries’ on each of these four heads. I. As to the first, I read a remarkable passage in the Third Journal, the truth of which may, be still attested by Mr. Durbin, Mr. Westall, and several others then present, who are yet alive: ’A young man who stood behind sunk down as one dead; but soon began to roar out and beat himself against the ground, so that six men could scarce hold him. This was Thomas Maxfield.’ [See letter of May 28, 1739; and for Henry Durbin, May 3, 1786, n.] Was this you If it was, how are you ’the first-fruits of Mr. Whitefield’s ministry’ And how is it that neither I nor your fellow laborers ever heard one word of this during all those years wherein you labored in connection with us II. ’When he went abroad again, he delivered me and many thousands into the hands of Mr. Wesley.’ When where in what manner This is quite new to me! I never heard one word of it before! But stay! here is something more curious still! ’I heard Mr. Whitefield say at the Tabernacle, in the presence of five or six ministers, a little before he left England the last time, "I delivered thirty thousand people into the hands of you and your brother when I went abroad."’ Mr. Whitefield’s going abroad, which is here referred to, was in the year 1741. Did he then deliver you into my hands Was you not in my hands before Had you not then for above a year been a member of the Society under my care Nay, was you not at the very time one of my preachers Did you not then serve me as a son in the gospel Did you not eat my bread and lodge in my house Is not this, then, a total misrepresentation Would to God it be not a willful one! ’I heard,’ you say, ’Mr. Whitefield say at the Tabernacle, in the presence of five or six ministers, a little before he left England the last time.’ Who, then, can doubt the truth of what follows For here is chapter and verse! Here both the time, the place, and the persons present are specified. And they ought to be, seeing the crime alleged is one of a very heinous nature. Many a man has been justly sentenced to death for sins which in the sight of God were not equal to this. The point, therefore, requires a little more examination. And, first, I desire to know what are the names of those five or six ministers and which of them heard Mr. Whitefield say, ’When I went abroad’ (in 1741) ’I delivered thirty thousand people into the hands of you and your brother’ Thirty thousand people! Whence did they come Did they spring out of the earth Why, there were not at that time five thousand Methodists in England or in the world. The Societies in London, Bristol, and Kingswood (the only ones I had) contained fourteen or fifteen hundred members. I believe not so many were in his Societies. But, were they fewer or more, they were nothing to me. He never entrusted me with them. He never delivered into mine or my brother’s hands either his Society at the Tabernacle in London, or that in Bristol, or in Kingswood, or any other place whatever. He never delivered (that I remember) one single Society into my hands. I bless God I needed it not. I did not need to build upon another man’s foundation. A dispensation of the gospel was given me also; and my labor was not in vain. I was constrained to cry out (and you yourself used the same words to God in my behalf), - O the fathomless love Which has deigned to approve And prosper the work of my hands! With my pastoral crook I went over the brook, And, behold I I am spread into bands! With what view, then, can you charge me with that perfidy which I am no more guilty of than of high treason For what end can you affirm, ’When he went abroad, he delivered many thousands into the hands of those he thought he could have trusted them with’ Delivered! when where how What can you mean I flatly deny that ever he delivered one thousand or one hundred souls into my hands. Do you mean, ’He spoke honorably of you to them at Kennington Common and Rose Green’ True; but not so honorably as I spoke of you even at London - yea, as late as the year 1763 I Yet was this the same thing with ’delivering the people’ at London ’into your hands’ Nay, but ’Mr. Whitefield trusted that you would have given them back at his return.’ Them! whom His Society at London or Bristol I had them not to give. He never entrusted me with them. Therefore I could not ’give them back.’ But how melancholy is the exclamation that follows: ’Alas ! it was not so.’ Was not how Why, I did not give back what I never had received, but went straight on my way, taking the best care I could of those who entrusted themselves to me. III. So much for the second article. As to the third, your words are, ’I heard Mr. Whitefield say, "Oh that division! that division! What slaughter it has made!"’ But who made that division It was not I. It was not my brother. It was Mr. Whitefield himself; and that notwithstanding all admonitions, arguments, and entreaties. Mr. Whitefield first wrote a treatise against me by name. He sent it to my brother, who endorsed it with these words: ’Put up again thy sword into its place.’ It slept a while; but after a time he published it. I made no reply. Soon after Mr. Whitefield preached against my brother and me by name. This he did constantly both in Moorfields and in all other public places. We never returned railing for railing, but spoke honorably of him at all times and in all places. But is it any wonder that those who loved us should no longer choose to hear him Meantime was it we that ’turned their hearts against him’ Was it not himself But you say, ’It was doctrine that caused the difference’ (oddly enough expressed!); ’at least, it was so pretended.’ It was so pretended ’I What do you mean that difference of doctrine was only pretended that we were agreed at the bottom, and only fought like prize-fighters to show our skill Nay, here was no pretence. The thing was as plain as the sun at noonday. Did not Mr. Whitefield proclaim upon the house-top the difference between us and him And yet it was not merely the difference of doctrine that caused the division. It was rather the manner wherein he maintained his doctrine and treated us in every place. Otherwise difference of doctrine would not have created any difference of affection; but he might lovingly have held particular redemption and we general to our lives’ end. He did indeed ’ preach a few times in connection with his old friends. But how soon was the sword of contention drawn! ’By whom Truly, by himself. Do not you know (thousands do, if you do not) that when he preached in the very Foundry, and my brother sat by him, he preached the absolute decrees in the most peremptory and offensive manner What was this but drawing the sword and throwing away the scabbard Who, then, is chargeable with the contention and division that ensued IV. ’But where,’ you ask, ’can you now find any loving ones of either party’ Blessed be God, I can find many thousands, both in London, in Bristol, in Kingswood, and in various parts, not only of England, but also of Scotland and Ireland; persons as full of love both to God and man as any I knew forty years ago. Some of these I find (and much rejoice to find) in Mr. Whitefield’s Societies. And I pray God they may increase a thousand-fold both in number and in strength. Nay, they have no more love to each other than Turks.’ They! who This is not the case with our Societies. They not only love each other, but love their enemies, even those that still despitefully use them. But ’read their vile contentions, and the evil character they give each other, raking the filthiest ashes to find some black story.’ I will answer for one. I give no ’evil character’ of my ’fellow preachers.’ I ’ rake into no filthy ashes for black stories.’ Let him who does take it to himself. ’They slay with the sword of bitterness, wrath, and envy.’ I do not. I plead, Not guilty. As I envy no man, so neither my wrath nor bitterness slays any human creature. ’Still more to their Shame is what they have sent out into the world against each other on both sides about five or six years ago, and till this very day.’ ’What they have sent out against each other on both sides about five or six years ago.’ Within five or six years I have been vehemently called to answer for myself: twice by Mr. Richard Hill, and afterwards by his brother. [See Green’s Anti-Methodist Publications.] Have you read what we ’have sent out into the world against each other on both sides’ If you have not, how can you so peremptorily affirm what ’both sides’ have done You cannot possibly be a judge of what you have not read; and if you had read, you could not have passed such a sentence. Three tracts I have wrote; but in none of these do I ’slay with the sword of bitterness or wrath or envy.’ In none of them do I speak one bitter or passionate or disrespectful word. Bitterness and wrath, yea low, base, virulent invective, both Mr. Richard and Mr. Rowland Hill (as well as Mr. Toplady) have poured out upon me in great abundance. But where have I in one single instance returned them railing for railing I have not so learned Christ. I dare not rail either at them or you. I return not cursing, but blessing. That the God of love may bless both them and you is the prayer of Your injured yet still affectionate brother. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, February 21, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Many angry opponents we are to expect; but they may say just what they please. It is my determination to answer none, but to go straight on my way. [Hopper was in Bradford. Wesley was severely attacked in the press. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 261-7; and previous letter.] On Sunday evening, March 1, I am to leave London. After spending a few days at Bristol, I purpose making the best of my way to Chester in order to embark for Ireland. I hope to be in Dublin about the end of March. If so, I shall be able to visit all the Societies before July. - I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, February 23, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - Although I hope to see you next week, I cannot but write a few lines. Who knows but the illness of Miss Bishop might be permitted for this very thing-that you might have a more clear and open way to help the women at Bath forward What you have to do at Bristol does not yet appear; Providence will open itself by-and-by. I am glad Philly Cousins retains her confidence. See that she has something to do. [’Brother Cousins was restored to the love of God’ a few days after Miss Bosanquet reached Bath in December. See letters of Dec. 2, 1777, and Nov. 1, 1778.] I had not heard anything of Tommy Westall’s daughter; and am glad she is so well disposed of. Let Brother Taylor and Nancy Tripp do all they can for God. [Richard Taylor, her business man at Cross Hall. Ann Tripp (1745-1823) was governess to the orphans at Leytonstone, and lived with Miss Bosanquet in Yorkshire. For Thomas Westall, see letter of Dec. 20, 1746.] This is an acceptable time. I hope to see you on Tuesday afternoon [He was at Bath on March 3.]; and am, my dear sister, Yours very affectionately. To Miss Bosanquet, In the Orange Grove, Bath. To John Valton LONDON, February 25, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You would do well to take a cup of decoction of nettles every morning and to observe what food agrees with you best. Inure yourself to the open air by going into it more or less every day when it does not rain. It would not be proper for you to spend another year in the Gloucester-shire Circuit. You are called to another part of the vineyard; and God does all things well. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Valton, At the Methodist Preaching-house, In Worcester. To Alexander Knox LONDON, February 26, 1778. DEAR ALLECK, - In the latter end of March I hope to be in Dublin, and about the 28th of May in Londonderry. [preached on May 28 in Londonderry, and stayed till June 4.] It is a place I always loved; but I shall love it more than ever if I have the pleasure of lodging with you. With regard to your health, both of body and mind, if you could take one advice it would have a surprising effect. It is this: ’Take no thought for the morrow.’ You know not how much even your body suffers by this. To-day only is yours. Look up, and He will bless you all to-day. - I am, my dear Alleck, Very affectionately yours. To Kitty Warren BRISTOL, March 5, 1778. DEAR SISTER WARREN, - I believe your sister saw me several times, though I saw her but once. It was only a few hours before we set out that I had any thoughts of visiting Ireland. And when I came to Llyngwair, I was in hopes of leaving it immediately. But we were providentially detained a little and a little and a little longer, and I believe not in vain. I am not at all sorry that you are not called to remove from Haverford. You seem to me to be just in your place. You have many opportunities of personal improvement, such as you could not have had in a country village and in an hurry of various business, and you have now a sufficient sphere of action wherein you may employ whatever talents you have received. Now live for eternity! Be a good steward of the manifold gifts of God. Be equally ready to do and to suffer His whole will, and aspire after all His promises! You send me a pleasing account of the work of God among you. God will bless those that serve Him with a single eye. Only cure Brother Broadbent [John Broadbent, the Assistant at Pembroke, ’frequently so exhausted himself in preaching that he was ready to drop down when he concluded his sermon.’ See letters of Dec. 21, 1775, and Oct. 31, 1778 (to Miss Warren).] of screaming, and you will do him a real kindness. It is strange that so many good men are guilty of self-murder. You see, upon reading your postscript, I have mended my address. I am willing to amend any fault you will tell me of. Indeed, I do not desire there should be any ceremony between us; but as much love as you please. The more I converse with you, the more near you are to, my dear Kitty, Yours affectionately. My love and service attend Mrs. Vaughan and your mother. To Miss Warren, Haverfordwest. To Alexander Knox DUBLIN, April 2, 1778. MY DEAR ALLECK, - I came hither this morning, after a rough passage, from Liverpool; and purpose (if God continue my life and health) to be with you at Londonderry on Friday, May 28. It is right to know ourselves, but not to stop there, as you are apt to do. This is only of use if it leads us to know Him that loves and saves sinners; and, I doubt not, He will save you. Trust Him, and you shall praise Him. I hope my dear Sally has not forgotten me. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To Thomas Wride NEAR MARYBOROUGH, April 20, 1778. DEAR TOMMY, - I do not remember J. Woodcock. But if the accout you give of her be just (and I have no reason to believe the contras), I cannot see any objection to your choosing her; although you do well not to depend upon her brother, for his humor may easily change. Whatever you do should be done with much prayer, as the matter is of no small importance. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. I hope the ’Sword-drawer’ is not a preacher. To Mary Bishop CASTLEBAR, May 15, 1778. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP, - When I received Miss Flower’s last letter, I was utterly astonished. [See letters of Nov. 16, 1777, and Aug. 20, 1778.] It was a civil (shall I say, or uncivil) discharge from writing to her any more, and seemed to me to express every passion which I thought she ought not to feel. I was therefore at a full stand, not knowing whether it was advisable to write again or not. After pausing a while, I thought it would not be amiss to write one letter more. I did so, writing in as plain and sincere a manner as I could, and yet mildly and affectionately. I believe this was about a month ago. I have not had a line from her since. I cannot therefore write again; it would be quite out of character. Yet I am greatly concerned for her, and was thinking but yesterday, ’What can I do farther Is there no prudent and affectionate friend, for whom she has still a respect, and whom I might desire to interpose on this delicate occasion, and if possible to remove this misunderstanding’ You are the woman! As soon as ever I read your letter I saw it clear as the day. She loves you still; and you have an affection for her. Use, therefore, the privilege of friendship. I am afraid she has one with her that does her no good - that, instead of laboring to remove any prejudice, would endeavor to increase it, and gradually to wean her from all her friends. If you pay her a visit, you will easily perceive whether my fears are just or no. And you will soon discover whether any one has taken pains to increase rather than heal this little breach. Go in God’s name, and add this to the other instances of friendship which you have on all occasions shown either to her, or to, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours affectionately. To Miss Bishop, Near the Cross Bath, In Bath. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen LONDONDERRY, June 1, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - My little complaint left me almost as soon as I left Lisleen, and has not returned since. It is well that our life and all things pertaining to it are in His hands. He orders all things well; and being assured of this, we need be careful for nothing: it is enough that in all things we may make our requests with thanksgiving. I make no doubt but He will hear the prayers on behalf of your whole family; but the time and manner of answering our prayers He reserves in His own power. And He has given you a token for good, - already you have one if not more children that love and fear Him; and the rest are not such enemies of the gospel as persons of their rank usually are. You have reason to thank God for what He has done, and to expect all that He has promised. Mr. Abraham is beset on every side; but hitherto he stands like a rock. He seems fixed in his resolution to give up all things that he may win Christ. I believe he will set out with me on Thursday for Coleraine, and then I trust we shall part no more. Mr. Smyth was unable to meet us here, but hopes to do so at Ballymena. [See letters of Feb. 22, 1777, and July 12, 1778.] If I live a year or two longer, there islittle doubt but that I shall see the North of Ireland again. I commend you and all our dear friends that are with you to Him that has loved us and given Himself for us; and am, my dear sister, Yours very affectionately. To Samuel Bradburn LONDONDERRY, June 4, 1778. DEAR SAMMY, - I have wrote this morning to Mrs. Karr, and suppose she will answer me either to Belfast or Lisburn. It is now your part to be instant in prayer that God may order all things well. I hope to be at the Man of War [A small decayed hamlet in co. Dublin. Bradburn went there to meet Wesley on June 26, and slept there. Wesley married him on the 28th to Betsy Nangle.] on the 26th instant at five or six in the evening; at Dublin on the 27th. On Monday and Tuesday I may meet the classes; so the Conference will begin on Tuesday, July the 7th. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To a Friend LONDONDERRY, June 5, 1778. DEAR SIR, - I have a long letter from an anonymous correspondent respecting the Arminian Magazine. It appears to be wrote with a friendly design and in an excellent spirit. The objections mentioned therein seem to be partly his own, partly repeated from others. The first is: ’It is too short; some other magazines are almost as long again. It is true there are as many pages as in others; but there are not so many lines in a page, not so many by ten or twelve, as in the Spiritual Magazine.’ I answer by confessing the charge. It is undeniably true that it does not contain so many lines either in prose or verse as the Spiritual Magazine. And Tonson, who is himself a wit, Weighs writers’ merits by the sheet. [Prior’s Epistle to F. Shephard.] So do thousands besides; but I do not write for these. I write for those who judge of books not by the quantity but by the quality of them, who ask not how long but how good they are. I spare both my reader’s time and my own by couching my sense in as few words as I can. Those who prefer the dealers in many words may find them on every side. And from these they may have not only as much more but ten times as much for their money. A second objection is: ’Here is not variety enough.’ I answer, Here is all the variety I promised: I promised the bulk of the Magazine (as the very title implies) should treat of Universal Redemption. And hence you had reason to expect that the greatest part of every number would turn on that single point. Do you blame me for keeping close to my point for not rambling from my subject It is not my manner; I do not aim at it. Whether in speaking or writing, I endeavor to avoid this kind of variety, and to keep one thing always in view. ’But there is not variety in the historical part.’ What do you mean Would you have me insert bits and scraps of history or give in each number part of the life of one man and part of that of another I never proposed this: I think it is far better to select a few of the best lives I know, and to go entirely through one before I enter upon another. In the letters there is certainly as much variety as any reasonable man can expect. Indeed, they are all serious. And they all relate to one thing, the work of God in the heart. But this also was what I promised at first, what I proposed from the beginning. ’But would it not be advisable to procure and print letters from various correspondents’ Yes, if I could hope for better than I have already; but I have no hope of this. I believe very many of those that now lie by me will not easily be excelled, either in point of sentiment or expression, by any other I can receive. ’But would not many of your correspondents propose objections, and thereby occasion more variety ’They would; but that is a kind of variety which I peculiarly dislike. I have studiously avoided it from the beginning, and shall to the end of the work. I design going straight on in proving my point without turning aside to the right hand or the left. ’But you have no pictures or other decorations or embellishments which other magazines have.’ It is true. But I will tell you what I have (if you cannot find it out without telling) - such paper as no magazine in England was ever printed upon before. Consider l this one single article costs more than all their fine embellishments put together. Permit me to say once for all: to men of taste, men of sense, and men of piety I am in hopes this Magazine will recommend itself without any but its own intrinsic ornaments. But if any of these will inform me how it may be improved, consistently with my first design, the favor will be thankfully acknowledged by, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Alexander Knox KILREA, June 5, 1778. MY DEAR ALLECK, - I advise you, 1. Never sit up later than ten. 2. Never rise later than six. 3. Walk at least an hour daily in the open air: if it rains all day, in the dining-room. . . . . . 7. Spend the first hour in the morning and from five to six in the evening in private prayer and reading the Scriptures in order, with the Notes and any other closely practical book. 8. Spend some time afterwards in the morning in reading Bishop Pearson or any other book of divinity; and spend more or less time in the afternoon in reading history, poetry, or philosophy. 9. Trust in God. Resist every distrustful thought the moment it is injected. God is on your side. Believe not the old murderer who tells you the contrary. Write all your mind to me from time to time. I hope you will all find a blessing when you meet on Sunday. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am Yours affectionately. To George Gidley DUBLIN, July 4, 1778. My DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad to hear that the work of God begins to increase even in poor Exeter. If Jos. Jones is able and willing to preach morning and evening, I should have no objection to his laboring next year in your circuit. [Joseph Jones was appointed to Cornwall East in 1778.] As to the house, it would undoubtedly be a means of much good if it can be procured. All the difficulty is to procure the money. We cannot do much because of the building at London. [City Road Chapel was being built.] But ’the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.’ - I am Your affectionate brother. To Alexander Knox DUBLIN, July 11, 1778. MY DEAR ALLECK, - It is a natural effect of your bodily weakness and of the turn of your mind that you are continually inclined to write bitter things against yourself. Hence you are easily persuaded to believe him that tells you that you ’are void of every degree of saving faith.’ No; that is not the case. For salvation is only by faith; and you have received a degree of salvation. You are saved from many outward sins - from the corruption that overspreads the land as a flood. You are saved in a degree from inward sin; from impenitence, for you know and feel yourself a sinner. You are saved in a degree from pride; for you begin to know yourself poor and helpless. You are saved from seeking happiness in the world: this is not a small thing. O praise God for all you have, and trust Him for all you want ! Peace be with your spirits! - I am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen DUBLIN, July 12, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - Our friends in London are by this time pretty well recovered from their panic. They will no more be afraid of my going into the South of Ireland than into the South of England. The truth is, God allots us health or sickness, ease or pain, just as He sees one or the other is best for us. Mr. Abraham is exceedingly happy, and I believe will be exceedingly useful. I do not despair of Mr. Creighton. [See letters of Dec. 23, 1777, and Sept. 29, 1779.] His heart seems entirely with us. If they thrust him out, I will take him in. Peace be with you and yours. - I am, my dearest sister, Affectionately yours as ever. To Duncan McAllum DUBLIN, July 14, 1778. DEAR DUNCAN, - I would have you change once in two months, and will help you as to the expense. Dwell in the land, and be doing good, and verily thou shalt be fed. You have nothing at present to do in Afric. Convert the heathen in Scotland.-I am, dear Duncan, Yours affectionately. To Pendope Newman NEAR LEEDS, August 2, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - I just snatch time to write a few lines, I had desired to go through Gloucestershire to Bristol; but I am disappointed. It will be necessary on several accounts that I shoed go round by London. After spending two days there and one at Bristol (if God permit), I must hasten forward to Cornwall. Keep the poor people about Gutherton, [Gotherington, near Tewkesbury.] if you can, in that lovely simplicity. I must if possible save Mr. Valton’s life. [See letter of Feb. 25.] - I am, dear Penny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs P. Newman, In Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. To Arthur Keene LEEDS, August 3, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am of the same opinion with you. It seems to me Jeremiah Brettell will be useful in the Liverpool Circuit. Upon this consideration I have altered my first appointment and stationed him there for the ensuing year. I hope you will always be diligent in business, as one branch of the business of life. But let this be still uppermost in the thoughts of you and my dear Bella [Mrs. Keene.]! - I am, dear Arthur, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LEEDS, August 3, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - Which would be the most prudent way it is hard to say (although it is an old proverb, Do not stir fire with a sword). But one may easily tell which is the most Christian way to return blessing for cursing. A gentleman in Dublin has been abusing his wife all manner of ways for above twenty years. And for several months past he prays and weeps and says his wife is the best woman in the world. God is able to make Mr. Woodhouse like Mr. Fetherston. [For a Francis Fetherston in Dublin, a student at Trinity College in 1756, see Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 108.] If thou canst believe, thou shalt see the glory of God. - I am, my dear sister, Affectionately yours. To Mrs. Woodhouse, Owston Ferry. To Alexander Knox LONDON, August 16, 1778. MY DEAR ALLECK, - You have long been under that temptation of despising the day of small things; although, indeed, they are not small things which God has done for you already. That you are still too lukewarm is most certain: you have need to stir up the gift of God that is in you; and you have need to praise Him that His hand is still upon you for good, preserving you from presumptuous sins. You ought to be sensible of this, and to be thankful for it, which you may be without ’applauding yourself.’ That you have ’no right to expect the continuance of your health ’is undoubtedly true - that is, you cannot claim it from God’s justice; you do not merit it at His hands. But is this the measure whereby He deals with His poor creatures Does He give us no more blessings than we deserve Does He treat us in all things according to His justice Not so; but mercy rejoices over judgment! Therefore expect from Him, not what you deserve, but what you want -health of soul and health of body: ask, and you shall receive; seek, and you shall find; not for your worthiness, but because ’worthy is the Lamb.’ The peace of God be with all your spirits! - I am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To Mary Bishop TAUNTON, August 20, 1778. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP, - My dear friend (that was) received no reproach from me, deserved or undeserved. But when I found I could not speak to her alone, I unbosomed myself by writing, telling her mildly and plainly (as friendship obliged me to do) all I heard and all I feared concerning her. I had no conception of her taking it amiss; and was therefore utterly amazed at her answer; - I think, unkind and unjust to the highest degree, and more proper to be wrote to a young schoolboy than to one who had been a preacher for fifty years and who for above twenty had watched over her soul! Be that to herself whether her correspondence with me be ever renewed or no. Blessed be God, I have correspondents enough; and I want no one living to correspond with me, unless those that do it for their own sake, and that hope to be some way profited by it. Truly I think if any one has reason to resent, it is me and not her; for I do not remember that I have received such an answer to such a letter for twice twenty years. [Miss Flower. See letter of May 15.] It is, I trust, a good Providence which has brought you to Frome, that you may do a little work for your Master. But you must be content to do a little; otherwise you will soon do nothing. If you stay there two or three weeks longer, I shall have the pleasure of seeing you there; as I hope to be at Frome the Tuesday after I return to Bristol. - I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours very affectionately. To Miss Bishop, At Miss Hancock’s, In the Market-place, Frome. To Richard Locke BRISTOL, September 6, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am quite satisfied with regard to Mr. Brisco. My coming round by South Petherton prevented my accepting your kind offer. You have sometimes had earnest desires of being altogether a Christian. O beware those desires do not grow cold. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Richard Locke, Burnham, Near Bridgwater. To Kitty Warren SHAFTESBURY, September 8, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - It is true that some of our friends of Brecon have intimated to me that they feared a prophet would not be honored in his own country, and that Billy Church [He was the younger son of John Church, of Brecon, and grandfather of the Rev. H. L. Church, Wesleyan minister 1844-93. See Young’s Methodism in Wales, p. 136; and letter of Oct. 13.] might do more good elsewhere. But they did not mention his changing with Brother Pescod. And I should have a particular objection to it - namely, that he would not have those opportunities of preaching in Welsh which he has now. There is therefore no danger of Joseph Pescod’s [Pescod, now at Pembroke, died in 1805, aged fifty-four, after serving twenty-eight years as a preacher, with unblemished character and sound judgment. His preaching was pleasing and profitable.] quitting his circuit before the end of the year. Let all of you now make the full use of the advantages which you enjoy; especially of meeting in band, which I hope none of you neglect who have tasted that the Lord is gracious. I am glad you feel the want of a deeper change. Whereunto you have attained hold fast; but rest not till you experience the full rest that remaineth for the people of God. You will never weary me with your letters. The oftener you write the more I love you. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, my dear Kitty, Yours affectionately. To Alexander Knox BRISTOL, September 27, 1778. MY DEAR ALLECK, - I am afraid the late return of your fits was in some measure my fault, because I did not provide you with the remedy which probably would have prevented it. I thought of it, indeed; but went no farther when you said your grandmother would send you down to the salt water. I doubt you have not been there this fine autumn, and now the year is too far spent. Some time since, I was reading an account of a person in France, whom his confessor absolutely forbade (for such a time) to think of his sins, and ordered him ’to think only of the mercies of God in Christ.’ It had an admirable effect on that desponding man. I know not but it might have the same upon you. Do not look down, but look up. Let not the corruptible body press down the soul, and give no place to the evil one, who would keep you continually poring on the dark side of the prospect. There is good determined concerning you, and not evil. God has not forsaken you. Thou shalt not die, but live, and declare the loving-kindness of the Lord. He has, indeed, chastised and corrected you, but He hath not given you over to death. But you must not coop yourself up in the house: you must be in the open air as much as possible; nay, and you should be on horseback as often as you can.... I commend you all to Him that careth for you; and am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To Samuel Tooth BRISTOL, September 27, 1778. DEAR SAMMY, - A thought comes into my mind, which is to rest between you and me. What if I was to undertake building one of the front houses myself and to employ you alone thereon Consider, and answer me two questions: (1) What would the whole expense of it be for what sum would you begin and finish it (2) What credit could you give me - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. Would you like to build the next house on your own account To Mr. Sam. Tooth, Carpr., Worship Street, Moorfields, London. To Samuel Tooth BRISTOL, October 1, 1778. DEAR SAMMY, - I took it for granted that you had seen the plan of the houses [See previous letter.] drawn by Mr. Peacock. We had it, and agreed to it some months ago. In this both the elevation and everything else ’is marked. Pray go to Mr. Matthews as soon as you receive this, and tell him I desire he would show you the plan. I think it was he that brought it to us. You may, if you please, show him this letter. I believe the elevation of the houses is also specified in our lease from the City. On Friday the 9th instant I hope to be at the Foundry; where you may meet Your affectionate brother. To his Wife BRISTOL, October 2, 1778. As it is doubtful, considering your age and mine, whether we may meet any more in this world, I think it right to tell you my mind once for all without either anger or bitterness. After alluding to the fact that his wife left him without his consent or knowledge, he goes on to observe: Ever since (and, indeed, long before) you have made my faults the constant matter of your conversation. Now, suppose an husband has many faults, is it the part of a prudent wife to publish or conceal them You have published my (real or supposed) faults, not to one or two intimates only (though perhaps that would have been too much), but to all Bristol, to all London, to all England, to all Ireland. Yea, you did whatever in you lay to publish it to all the world, thereby designing to put a sword into my enemies’ hands. He concludes: If you were to live a thousand years, you could not undo the mischief that you have done. And till you have done all you can towards it, I bid you farewell. To Elizabeth Ritchie SALISBURY, October 6, 1778. MY DEAR BETSY, - Since I saw her I have had the pleasure of receiving two letters from --; and I am more and more convinced that she has sustained no real loss from her late trials. Indeed, the greatness of them proved the greatness of her grace; otherwise she must have utterly fainted. But I am afraid the poor tenement of clay has received such a shock as will not easily be repaired. The wonderful behavior of Mrs. was more than it was well able to bear. But the comfort is, He with whom we have to do is the Physician. I doubt whether any embodied spirit can feel such entire self-abasement as is felt by those spirits that see the face of our Father which is in heaven. And undoubtedly the nearer they approach the throne the more abused they will be. The plerophory (or full assurance) of faith is such a divine testimony that we are reconciled to God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning it. This refers only to what is present. The plerophory (or full assurance) of hope is a divine testimony that we shall endure to the end; or, more directly, that we shall enjoy God in glory. This is by no means essential to or inseparable from perfect love. It is sometimes given to those that are not perfected in love, as it was to Mr. Grimshaw. And it is not given (at least not for some time) to many that are perfected in love. I do not say you ought to pray for it; but I think you may, only with absolute resignation. In this, as in all things, ’ His manner and His time are best.’ I rejoice to hear of the continuance of your health. [She had written, ’My own health also is better than when you were here. I have been three weeks in the North, chiefly on the edge of a cold moor, which has agreed with me very well.’] But you will still need constant exercise; to which should be added as often as may be change of air. That you may enjoy more and more health, both of soul and body, is the prayer of Yours affectionately. To Cornelius Bayley NEAR LONDON, October 12, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I will read over and consider your MS. the first opportunity. Before I read it I cannot but mention a little remark which I have frequently made. There are many good-natured creatures among the Methodists who dearly love to make matches; and we have many other good-natured creatures who dearly love to make authors. Whereas it is the glory of the Methodists to have few authors. And a young man can hardly be too slow in this matter. To save her postage I write a line or two in yours to poor Sister Bastable. [The widow of Cornelius Bastable, See letter of Dec. 15, 1763.] Peace be with your spirits! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Corn. Bayley, At the New Room, In Bristol. To William Church WALLINGFORD, October 13, 1778. DEAR BILLY, - The soul and the body make a man; the spirit and discipline make a Christian. Let John Watson [Watson was his superintendent.] and you agree together, and be exact in this wherever you go. Insist upon the observance of all the Society rules, and on the observance of all, even the least, of the band rules by all who meet in band. I give, for instance, no band tickets to any woman who wears either ruffles or an high-crowned cap. If any will not lay aside these rather than lose that blessed means of improvement, she is not worthy of it. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, October 17, 1778. DEAR SAMMY, - I think you judge exactly right. You are called to obey me as a son in the gospel. But who can prove that you are called so to obey any other person What I require, according to the twelfth Rule of an Helper, of John Hampson and you is that each of you in his turn spend four weeks, and no more, first at Cork and then at Bandon. When, therefore, you have been four weeks at Bandon, I desire you to return straight to Cork. And if John Hampson will not then go to Bandon, I will order one that will. Pray show this letter to Mr. Mackrill, [One of the Cork leaders and stewards.] whom I beg to assist you in this matter. The Friday following the full moon is the watch-night, the next Sunday but one the lovefeast. Pass smoothly over the perverseness of those you have to do with, and go straight forward. It’s abundantly sufficient that you have the testimony of a good conscience toward God. - I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Mary Bishop LONDON, October 18, 1778. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP, - I am not unwilling to write to i you even upon a tender subject, because you will weigh the matter fairly. And if you have a little prepossession (which who has not), yet you are willing to give it up to reason. The original Methodists were all of the Church of England; and the more awakened they were, the more zealously they adhered to it in every point, both of doctrine and discipline. Hence we inserted in the first Rules of our Society, ’They that leave the Church leave us.’ And this we did, not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience. We believe it utterly unlawful to separate from the Church unless sinful terms of communion were imposed; just as did Mr. Philip Henry, [The favorite pupil of Busby at Westminster School preached as a Nonconformist 1672-81. See letter of June 14, 1786.] and most of those holy men that were contemporary with them. ’But the ministers of it do not preach the gospel.’ Neither do the Independent or Anabaptist ministers. Calvinism is not the gospel; nay, it is farther from it than most of the sermons I hear at church. These are very frequently un-evangelical; but those are anti-evangelical. They are (to say no more) equally wrong; and they are far more dangerously wrong. Few of the Methodists are now in danger from imbibing error from the Church ministers; but they are in great danger of imbibing the grand error - Calvinism from the Dissenting ministers. Perhaps thousands have done it already, most of whom have drawn back to perdition. I see more instances of this than any one else can do; and on this ground also exhort all who would keep to the Methodists, and from Calvinism, ’Go to the church, and not to the meeting.’ But, to speak freely, I myself find more life in the Church prayers than in the formal extemporary prayers of Dissenters. Nay, I find more profit in sermons on either good temper or good works than in what are vulgarly called gospel sermons. That term is now become a mere cant word. I wish none of our Society would use it. It has no determinate meaning. Let but a pert, self-sufficient animal, that has neither sense nor grace, bawl out something about Christ and His blood or justification by faith, and his hearers cry out, ’What a fine gospel sermon!’ Surely the Methodists have not so learnt Christ. We know no gospel without salvation from sin. There is a Romish error which many Protestants sanction unawares. It is an avowed doctrine of the Romish Church that ’the pure intention of the minister is essential to the validity of the sacraments.’ If so, we ought not to attend the ministrations of an unholy man; but, in flat opposition to this, our Church teaches in the 28th Article that ’the unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the validity of the sacraments.’ Although, therefore, there are many disagreeable circumstances, yet I advise all our friends to keep to the Church. God has surely raised us up for the Church chiefly that a little leaven may leaven the whole lump. I wish you would seriously consider that little tract Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England. [See Works, xiii. 225-32; Green’s Bibliography, No. 201; and letters of July 7, 1777.] These reasons were never answered yet, and I believe they never will be. I am glad you have undertaken that labor of love, and I trust it will increase both your spiritual and bodily health. - I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Yours very affectionately. To Miss Bishop, At Mrs. Hancock’s, In Frome, Somersetshlre. To Alexander Knox LONDON, October 26, 1778. DEAR ALLECK, - You need never be afraid of writing me too often. I am nearly concerned in all that concerns you, and am therefore always well pleased to hear from you and to find you are still setting your face heavenward. The directing as to this or that means is as much an answer to prayer as if the cure was immediately wrought. But it will be a double blessing if you give yourself up to the Great Physician, that He may heal soul and body together. And unquestionably this is His design. He wants to give you and my dear Mrs. Knox both inward and outward health. And why not now Surely all things are ready: believe, and receive the blessing. There can be no doubt but your bodily disorder greatly affects your mind. Be careful to prevent the disease by diet rather than physic. Look up, and wait for happy days! - Dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To Christopher Hopper LONDON, October 31, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - At a General Conference David Evans [Hopper was at Bradford. Evans ’desists from traveling’ at the Conference of 1776, and is readmitted in 1779.] was judged unqualified for a traveling preacher. At the last Conference we determined to receive no more married preachers. For what reason For an exceeding plain one - because we cannot keep them. I cannot: if you can, you may. But the people cannot or will not keep any more. James Kershaw’s prophecies are very ingenious, and as authentic as Jacob Behmen’s. [See heading to letter of March 1777.] I really think the French will burn their fingers. [See letter of July 10, 1779, to Samuel Bradburn.] We are much obliged to them for making our countrymen friends with each other. I am glad the knotty affair at Bolton is concluded, and hope the sour man is now in a good humor. - I am, with love to Sister Hopper, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Kitty Warren LONDON, October 31, 1778. MY DEAR MISS WARREN, - You did well to write. You are a woman of candor and tolerably able to judge on critical occasions. I do not find that Mr. Broadbent [John Broadbent was then Assistant at Glamorgan. See letters of March 5, 1778, and April 4, 1782 (to John Atlay).] has been to blame or that he has done anything more than he believed it was his duty to do. It seems you are called to calm as far as possible the warm spirits on both sides. A soft answer turneth away wrath. Do all the good you can; and you will give more and more comfort to, my dear Kitty, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Cousins LONDON, November 1, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - It is just as it should be. I have formerly said, ’I wonder how Mr. Whitefield can go on! For he has honor, and (comparatively) no dishonor. And this is "a test for human frailty too severe."’ Now I have not that insupportable burthen. I have honor enough in all reason. But it is properly balanced with dishonor. I have good report, and (what is absolutely necessary) evil report too. To-day I am to open our new chapel. [See Journal, vi. 215-16; and letter of Sept. 27 to Samuel Tooth.] Hence also will arise both honor and dishonor. Yet a little while and all these things that seem considerable now will pass away like a dream. You do well, as often as you have opportunity, to make a little excursion among your neighbors. You have already seen the fruit of your labor of love; and more fruit will follow. I do not at all despair of poor Mr. Wood. He has not yet shaken off his convictions. Work your work betimes [See letter of Feb. 23.] and in His time He will give you a full reward. - I am, my dear Penny, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, November 13, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad Sister Crosby has been at Beverley and that you had an opportunity of hearing her. She is useful wheresoever she goes, particularly in exciting believers to go on to perfection. There is frequently something very mysterious in the ways of divine Providence. A little of them we may understand; but much more is beyond our comprehension, and we must be content to say, ’What Thou doest I know not now, but I shall know hereafter.’ At present it is sufficient for me to know that all His ways are mercy and truth to them that love Him. Even in these troublous times there is a very considerable increase of the work of God. Cleave to Him with your whole heart, and you will have more and more’ reason to praise Him.-I am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, November, 18, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - I have no intimacy with Lord North. I never saw him. I never wrote to him; very probably I never shall. I never asked any favor of him. I would not on any consideration whatever. It is a saying, You do not know what kind of animals great men are. They will not move an hair’s breadth out of their line. They will on no account interfere in each other’s province. Now, I told you before, only the Commissioners at the Customs dispose of Custom House places. And I know not one of those Commissioners. Therefore I can do nothing in this matter. [Compare letter of Dec. 26.] I am not sparing of my pains; but I know what I can do and what I cannot. If I could do it, you would not need to ask anything twice of Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Hannah Ball [ROBERTSBRIDGE], December 2, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - Little things contrary to our will may be great blessings. We have need to apply the general word, ’Take up thy cross, and follow Me,’ to a thousand little particulars: a smoky room, a cold morning, a rainy day, the dullness or perverseness of those we are with-these and innumerable little crosses will help us onward to the kingdom. But the most profitable of all crosses to your own soul may be the unfaithfulness or unfruitfulness of your sisters, without one or other of which they never could have lost any blessing which God had given them. Nothing can exercise and therefore increase your faith and love like the seeming to spend all your strength for naught. Oh how this increases, my dear Hannah, my love to you! How much more does it increase His love for whom you labor! We do not thoroughly understand the meaning of that word, ’The times anti seasons God hath reserved in His own power.’ Undoubtedly He has wise reasons for pouring out His Spirit at one time rather than another; but they lie abundantly too deep for human understanding to fathom. To us He says, ’What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter!’ - I am, my dear Hannah, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Crosby DOVER, December 9, 1778. MY DEAR SISTER, - It is no new thing for the temple to be built in troublous times. And in the end all the fierceness of man shall turn to His praise. Meantime we know the Lord sitteth above the water-floods and will give His people the blessing of peace. He is pleased to ghre lite just the same health and strength that I had forty years ago. Fire and water cannot well dwell together, nor warm Calvinists and Arminians. Let us love them and help them all we can. But the less intercourse our people have with them the better. It is well you spent a little time at pool Beverley. The little flock there stand in need of all the help we can give them. Hardly any Society in England has been as they have been from the very beginning. It is almost a miracle that two of them are left together. The work of God 1orospers well in London. A new chapel brings almost a new congregation, and hereby the old is greatly stirred up. Let us all work while the day is! - I am, with love to both Brother Robinsons, [Thomas and William Robinson, of Bridlington Quay. See letter of May 22, 1770.] dear Your affectionate brother. To John Toocks NEAR LONDON, December 26, 1778. Never was there a time (at least in my remembrance) when employments of this kind were so difficult to be procured. I know several young persons who are well qualified for any such place; but they cannot get any, and are almost perishing for want. So that what I can do for you I know not. [Compare letter of Nov. 18.] - I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. John Tooelm, At Mr. Treffs, Taylor, Near the White Hart, East Street, Colchester. To Captain Richard Williams LONDON, December 30, 1778. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The January Magazine was filled up before yours came. Because I do not care to depend on myself alone, I usually submit all the verses which are sent me to the judgment of my brother and the other preachers that are with me. And whatever they agree is proper I publish as soon as convenient. It seems to me the ’Address to the Watchman’ may be of general use. I believe it will be published in one of the following magazines. [The letter on Dueling appeared in March. See Arminian Mag., 1779, pp. 146-8; and letters of Sept. 13, 1774 (to him), and Feb. 25, 1783 (to Joseph Taylor).] I am Your affectionate brother. To Capthin R. Williams, Crarick, Near Redruth. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Taylor was at Wednesbury. ’ Calvinism, Antinomianism, and downright Ranterism had so laid waste this county, that there was small hopes of doing much good.’ He preached out of doors with much success; and ’when the new year came in, God revived His work.’ ’Near two hundred were this year added to the Societies.’ It is interesting to note that Taylor objected to all kinds of miscellaneous reading, and wrote rather strongly to Wesley, objecting to his proposed Magazine. See letter of November 24, 1777. [2] Swindells reconciled George Piggott, of Chetwynd, near Cork, to his only son, whom he had disinherited. After his conversion Piggott altered his will in his son’s favor, who settled an annuity on the Methodist preacher, which he enjoyed till his death. Wesley knew his Shakespeare; but this is an interesting reference to Othello, III. iii. 258 - ’This fellow’s of exceeding honesty.’ See letters of February 28, 1748, n, and December 7, 1782. [3] Maxfield had issued a pamphlet which contained grievous misrepresentations and severe reflections on Wesley. Wesley writes on February 4, 1775: ’I had much conversation with Thomas Maxfield. He said his printing that wretched book against me was owing to the pressing instances of Mr. Whitefield and Lady Huntingdon. I cannot tell how to believe it; but if it was, they might have been better employed.’ See Journal, v. 497-8; and letters of May 1763 (to a Friend), and February 12, 1779. [4] Valton was appointed to Bristol in 1778. The long rides from Stoutport, Worcester, and Stroud taxed his strength. For some weeks he had a bilious fever at Stroud, where Mrs. Scudamore and her family ’had me removed to their house and showed me no litfie kindness.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 76-7; and letter of August 2. [5] A little memorandum in Wride’s writting gives some particulars of his family: ’Elenr Woodcock died -; John (her son), May 10; Susan Harrison, Jan. 3, about 15 months after we came togr; Tristram, while we were in Kent, about six months after John Woodcock; John Harrison, 20 of July, while we were at Whitehaven; Betty Elizth Hind, about a year after we came to York; Chas. Harrison, in 18o1.’ In a letter to Wesley, dated Chatham, October 27, 1785, Wride says that another preacher told him that he ’had thoughts of mantaue-maker at Welbourn’ ; but Wride replied, ’You are too late. She is my wife.’ He tells Wesley also that in May 1786 she heard of the death of her only brother - ’whom she loved, I think, to a degree of idolatry.’ [6] The letter to Mrs. Karr, which would have shown Wesley as Brad-burn’s ally in his match-making, has not been preserved; but we can reconstruct the romance behind it. Miss Nangle’s father, a jeweler in Dublin, died when she was three. Her mother married John Karr, also a jeweler, and died a year later. Mr. Karr then married the widow of Mr. Palmer. She was a well-to-do Methodist, and showed great kindness to Miss Nangle. Karr’s behavior led the girl to remove to the house of Mrs. King; and after his death, Bradburn told Wesley of his affection. Wesley wrote to Mrs. Karr, who replied that, were Miss Nangle her own daughter, she would be guided by him. Bradburn says: ’Before Mr. Wesley arrived, I prepared everything, giving Mrs. Karr to understand our design; but she gave me equivocal answers. Contrary, however, to her expectations, Mr. Wesley invited her to breakfast with him at Mrs. King’s, the morning after his arrival, being his birthday. As soon as she entered, he began the ceremony, and married us in the parlor. Pride would not let her affront Mr. Wesley, and she was forced to appear satisfied. Thus were the wise taken in their own craftiness.’ See Bradburn’s Memoirs, pp. 62-9. [7] The first Methodist meeting-place in Exeter was in Theatre Lane, behind the Guildhall. They next met in a room over Northgate; and were now treating for the chapel in Musgrave’s Alley, which became known as ’Gidley’s Meeting.’ It had been the High School, founded by Dean Brayleigh in 1343, and was on lease from the Dean and Chapter. Dr. Musgrave lived there for thirty years. Wesley preached in it on August 31, 1779. ’It is both neat and solemn, and is believed to contain four or five hundred people.’ The new chapel in the Mint was opened in xSx3. See Journal, vi. 252-3. [8] Tyerman thought McAllum was the young man who offered to go to Africa at the Conference of 1778; but this was John Prickard. See Wesley’ s Veterans, iii. 256-7. [9] For more than thirty years Keene was one of the Dublin Stewards. In 1817 he took part in opposing the administration of the Sacraments by the preachers, and helped to form the Primitive Wesleyan Society. He died in 1818. Brettell had been stationed at Lisburn. Wesley altered the appointment in the Minutes of 1778, where he is down for Macclesfield and the next year also. See letter of October 12, 1780, to J. Brettell. [10] Wesley preached in the evening at South Petherton on September 3. Locke had evidently invited him to stay with him at Burnham. Thomas Brisco was Assistant in Gloucestershire. [11] Samuel Tooth had been an itinerant for one year; then he became a timber merchant and builder. He built City Road Chapel, which Wesley opened on November 1, and was now preparing to build the house in which Wesley first slept on October 8, 1779 died in 1791, See next letter. [12] In an article in the Methodist Recorder the Rev. Charles H. Kelly refers to a letter sold by auction in London on Bierember 4, 1898, for 12 10s. Is this a part of that letter It is described as ’the last, perhaps, that Wesley wrote to his wife. It has no word of affectionate commencement or finish. It simply begins with a bald sentence. It is plain-spoken, strong in reproof and expostulation, and decisive.’ See letter of September 1, 1777. [13] Miss Ritchie wrote on September 25: ’A few days ago I was conversing with one of the Lord’s highly favored ones about the deep things of God. He was speaking of the full assurance of hope, and said the Apostle exhorted those who were partakers of faith and love "to show the same diligence in seeking the full assurance of hope."’ He told her that he believed this was the privilege of all who were renewed in love. ’On hearing this I could not help thinking, if such a testimony is really to be enjoyed, it is no wonder I have it not, as I have never believingly sought it.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1788, p. 550. [14] Cornelius Bayley (afterwards D.D. of Trinity College, Cambridge) had been a master in the Grammar School at Whirchurch, Salop, and was second master at Kingswood. He helped Wesley in the morning service at Manchester on May 18, 1783, and on the 25th read prayers for him at Nottingham and gave the wine at the Sacrament. Wesley had married him the previous day at Buxton. In 1788 he became the first incumbent of St. James’s, Manchester, which he built. The MS. referred to was probably his Hebrew Grammar, published in 1782. See Journal, vi. 410-13; History of Kingswood School, pp. 76, 79-80; and letter of October 31, 1784. [15] William Church was born at Brecon in 1749, became a Methodist preacher in 1777, and ceased from traveling in 1790. He was employed in 1796 by Mr. Eyre, of Hackney, as a Home Missionary in Surrey and Sussex. He opened a Charity School at Deptford for Welsh boys, as the Government had transferred several hundred shipwrights from Pembroke to Depfford. The Earl of Dartmouth, several of the Welsh bishops, and John Newton of St. Mary Woolnoth supported him in this work. He often enjoyed a pipe with Newton. On St. David’s Day, when one of the Welsh bishops preached the annual sermon on behalf of the Welsh Charity School in Gray’s Inn Lane, in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, Church acted as clerk, and received a guinea and a bottle of wine. He died in 1830 at the age of eighty-one. Dr. Adam Clarke, who was his colleague in Cornwall East in 1784, says in his Letter to a Preacher that Church was found out in the free use of Keach’s Metaphors. His grandson had his copy of Keach, and in his manuscript Account admits the soft impeachment. See letter of September 8. [16] This letter shows how Wesley kept his hand on his preachers and placed them where he felt they could do the best service. John Humpson, sen., was Bradburn’s superintendent at Cork. They quarreled about the monthly interchange. Humpson found ’the accommodations’ at Bandon very disagreeable, though Bradburn was content with them, See Memoirs, p. 69. [17] This letter was found by Mr. H. J. Mills, of Bath, among his father’s papers. Miss Bishop became the second wife of Mills’s grandfather, who was a member of the Society of Friends. She consulted Wesley as to the step she was about to take. Mills’s father sent Wesley’s letter to Bishop Phillpotts of Exeter, who describes it as ’the singularly interesting letter.’ ’I consider the document very singularly valuable. I return it with a strong sense of the favor conferred on me by the communication.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 73: 71. 1779 ======================================================================== 1779 To Mr. -- LONDON, January 4, 1779. SIR, - In September last a gentleman near Bristol showed me a letter which he had received from the Rev. Mr. Fletcher at Paris. I desired him to give a transcript of one part of it, which he immediately did. It was as follows: Mr. Voltaire sent for Mons. Tonchin, first physician to the Duke of Orleans (one of his converts to infidelity), and said to him, ’Sir, I desire you will save my life. I will give you half my fortune if you will lengthen out my days only six months. If not, I shall go to the devil and carry you with me.’ This is the man to whom a crowned head pays such a violent compliment! Nay, this is the man whose works are now publishing by a divine of our own Church; yea, a chaplain to His Majesty! Pity but the King should know it! I set my name at length on purpose; and if the publisher of that poor wretch’s works writes a panegyric upon him or them, I shall think it my duty to go a little farther and show the real value of those writings. - I am, sir, Your humble servant. To the Society at Keighley LONDON, January 11, 1779. I have a few questions which I desire may be proposed to the Society at Keighley. Who was the occasion of the Methodist preachers first setting foot in Leeds William Shent. Who received John Nelson into his house at his first coming thither William Shent. Who was it that invited me and received me when I came William Shent. Who was it that stood by me while I preached in the street with stones flying on every side Williaam Shent. Who was it that bore the storm of persecution for the whole town and stemmed it at the peril of his life William Shent. Whose word did God bless for many years in an eminent manner William Shent’s. By whom were many children now in paradise begotten in the Lord and many now alive William Shent. Who is he that is ready now to be broken up and turned into the street William Shent. And does nobody care for this William Shent fell into sin and was publicly expelled the Society; but must he be also starved Must he with his grey hairs and all his children be without a place to lay his head Can you suffer this O tell it not in Gath! Where is gratitude Where is compassion Where is Christianity Where is humanity Where is concern for the cause of God Who is a wise man among you Who is concerned for the gospel Who has put on bowels of mercy Let him arise and exert himself in this matter. You here all arise as one man and roll away the reproach. Let us set him on his feet once more. It may save both him and his family. But what we do, let it be done quickly. - I am, dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Kitty Warren LONDON, January 14, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - Let poor Charles Maund’s follies die and be forgotten! It is well you have no more to do with him. It seems to me the great sin you (the Society) are now guilty of is poverty. And though you do repent of it, you do not forsake it. The question is, By what means can you either lessen your expense or increase your income We are here at our wits’ end how to pay for the new chapel, as many of our workmen are unpaid still. For riches the Calvinists beat us altogether. However, by-and-by we must help you as we can. Trust in God, and all will be well! Grace and peace be with you! - I am, my dear Kitty, Yours in tender affection. To Jasper Winscom LONDON, January 14, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Ours are traveling preachers; therefore I can never consent that any of them should remain for a month together in the island. [The Isle of Wight.] If you can contrive that the additional preacher have full employment, then we can inquire where one can be found. It seems to me that you take the matter exactly right with regard to the Portsmouth preaching-house, and that the only thing to be done is to get the mortgage out of Mr. Pike’s hands. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Morgan LONDON, January 17, 1779. It gives me much pleasure to hear that my dear Miss Morgan is still studious of redeeming the time, and that you have had so fair an opportunity of improving it while you were absent from Bristol. I was indeed full of fears concerning you lest you should be less usefully employed than you might. But the account you give me of the help provided for you in your retirement has dispelled my fears, and I have a strong hope you will improve to the uttermost all the talents which God has entrusted you with. But on how slippery ground do you tread I It is unquestionably your duty to cultivate your understanding in the best manner you are able. And yet how difficult is it to do this without either thinking of yourself more highly than you ought to think, or laying too great a stress upon knowledge, as if it is a road upon a level with love. We allow it is of great value in its place - that is, in subordination to holiness as the handmaid of love. But still, I trust your heart says: To love is all my wish! I only live for this! To this let everything minister! This one thing let us do! Let us follow after pure and spotless love! What a blessing is it that God has given you a measure of it already! But does not your soul cry out, - A glimpse of love cannot suffice; My soul for all Thy presence cries That He may give you an whole desire is the continual wish of, my dear Miss Morgan, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Morgan, At Miss Chapman’s, In Caroline Court, Bristol. To George Gidley LONDON, January 25, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, Any house is ipso facto licensed, if the demand is made either at the Bishop’s Court, the Assizes, or the Quarter Sessions. The Act of Parliament licenses, not the Justices; they can neither grant nor refuse. If you have witnesses, your house is licensed: you need trouble the Sessions no farther. If they trouble you, the Lord Chief Justice will do you right. You should mildly and respectfully tell them so. - I am Your affectionate brother. PS. - I have wrote to the Chancellor, and hope he will trouble you no more. To Samuel Wells LONDON, January 18, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - According to the Act of Toleration, - 1. You are required to certify to the Registrar of the Bishop’s Court or the Justices the place of your meeting for divine worship. This is all you have to do. You ask nothing at all of the Bishop or Justices. 2. The Registrar or Clerk of the Court is ’required to register the same, and to give a certificate thereof to such persons as shall demand the same; for which there shall be no greater fee or reward taken than sixpence.’ I advise you to go once more to the Sessions, and say, ’Gentlemen, we have had advice from London: we desire nothing at all of you; but we demand of your clerk to register this place and to give us a certificate thereof, or to answer the refusal at his peril.’ Answer no questions to justices or lawyers but with a bow, and with repeating the words, ’Our business is only with your clerk: we demand of him what the Act requires him to do.’ If you judge proper, you may show this to any of the Justices. [Wells was Assistant at Tiverton, to which circuit Exeter belonged.] What I have written, I am ready to defend. PS. - You led the Justices into the mistake by your manner of addressing them. Beware of this for the time to come; you have nothing to ask of them. To Mr. Samuel Wells, At Mr. Gidley’s, Officer of Excise, Exeter. To Elizabeth Padbury LONDON, February 10, 1779. MY DEAR BETSY, - A letter from you is always agreeable. I feel a sincere affection for you; so much the more because you are free and unreserved, both when you write and when we converse together. I am glad you think of me when you do not see me. Distance need not be any bar to affection. It is good that you should be tenderly concerned for those of your own household; but so as always to hold that anchor fast, ’Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ And you have great reason to hope that sooner or later prayer will prevail for them. But the time God has reserved in His own hand, and we know ’His manner and His time are best.’ Whether you have a longer or a shorter time to praise Him on earth is of no great moment. It is enough that you shall have an eternity to praise Him in heaven! Let this be ever in our eye! And never forget, my dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Padbury, At Whittlebury, Near Towcester. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, February 11, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - This is our comfort - that we know our Lord has all power in heaven and in earth; and that, whensoever He willeth to deliver, to do is present with Him. He did, indeed, very remarkably interpose in your behalf by raising up those friends in time of need. You have reason to praise Him, and you have reason to trust Him. He will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good. I am glad to hear that at length there is likely to be a day of visitation even for poor Beverley. If you have two or three that are strong in faith, they will wrestle with God in mighty prayer and bring down a blessing on all that are round about them. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Charles Delamotte LONDON, February 11, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am agreeably surprised with a letter from my old friend, whom I long desired to see; and how I missed of seeing you when I was last at Barrow I cannot yet comprehend. It is very probable I shall have some more work to do with regard to that wretched infidel. For if Dr. Bealey, the publisher of his Works, prefixes to them a flaming panegyric, I shall think it my duty to deal exceeding plainly both with the author and the translator. I am now in my seventy-sixth year, and am by the wonderful mercy of God in at least as good health as I was in my twenty-sixth, and in some respects better. So when it pleases Him He bids the sun of life stand still And stops the panting soul. I am glad you speak a word to your brethren on behalf of our good Master. This is worth living for. - Believe me to be, as ever, dear Charles, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Delamotte, At Barrow, Near Barton, Lincolnshire. To Hester Ann Roe LONDON, February 11, 1779. MY DEAR HETTY, - It is a great mercy that, on the one hand, you have previous warning of the trials that are at hand; and, on the other, are not careful about them, but only prep. ared to encounter them. We know, indeed, that these (as well as all things) are ordered by unerring Wisdom, and are given us exactly at the right time and in due number, weight, and measure. And they continue no longer than is best; for CHANCE has no share in the government of the world. [See letter of Aug. 12, 1731, to Mrs. Pendarves.] ’THE LORD REIGNETH,’ and disposes all things strongly and sweetly for the good of them that love Him. I rejoice to hear that you have now less hindrances in the way and can oftener converse with His people. Be sure to improve every one of those precious opportunities of doing and receiving good. I am often grieved to observe that, although on His part ’the gifts and calling of God are without repentance’; although He never repents of anything He has given us, but is willing to give it always; yet so very few retain the same ardor of affection which they receive either when they are justified or when they are (more fully) sanctified. Certainly they need not lose any part of their light or love. It may increase more and more. Of this you are a witness for God; and so is our dear Miss Ritchie. [See letter of Oct. 6, 1778, where the full assurance of hope is discussed.] You have not lost anything of what you have received; your light has never grown dim nor your love grown cold since the moment God first visited you with His great salvation. And I hope also you will ever retain the same affection for Yours most tenderly. To Elizabeth Ritchie LONDON, February 12, 1779. MY DEAR BETSY, - The remark of Luther ’that a revival of religion seldom continues above thirty years’ has been verified many times in several countries. But it will not always hold. The present revival of religion in England has already continued fifty years. And, blessed be God, it is at least as likely to continue as it was twenty or thirty years ago. Indeed, it is far more likely; as it not only spreads wider but sinks deeper than ever, more and more persons being able to testify that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. We have therefore reason to hope that this revival of religion will continue, and continually increase, till the time when all Israel shall be saved and the fullness of the Gentiles shall come. I have heard that Mr. [Maxfield] is in London, but have not heard where he is or what he does. [See letter of Feb. 14, 1778, to him.] As far as I can learn, he lives in the utmost privacy and does not preach at all. He seems to think that his present calling is to be an hermit in London. Surely it is your wisdom to stand fast even in the outward liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. You are now happily disengaged from caring for the things of this world, and need only care for the things of the Lord, how you may be holy in body and spirit, and how you may promote His kingdom upon earth. I have abundant proof that Baron Swedenborg’s fever, which he had thirty years before he died, much affected his understanding. Yet his tract [Probably his Account of Heaven and Hell. See Journal, vi. 230.] is ’majestic, though in ruins.’ He has strong and beautiful thoughts, and may be read with profit by a serious and cautious reader. Some weeks since, I began another Journal, [The Eighteenth Part of the Journal (Jan. 1, 1776-Aug. 8, 1779) was issued in 1785.] and am going on with it when I have any scraps of time; probably it will be finished next month. I expect to visit Yorkshire this spring, when I hope to see you. [See her letter to Wesley in Arminian Mag., 1789, p. 105.] -I am Yours affectionately. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, February 13, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - You have done exactly right. Still be of neither side, but steadily follow after peace. I am glad Sister Jones remains in the House. I desire you and my Betsy (love constrains me to call her so) will leave Cork by the middle of March at the farthest. I have sent to-day to T. Rutherford to change with you for six weeks. You must send him word of the day when he should be at Cork. If you want money or anything else, you will not want it long if you send word to, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Knapp NEAR LONDON, February 19, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - I hope to be at Tewkesbury on Wednesday, April [He probably meant March, when on the 17h he ’preached at Tewkesbury about noon, and at Worcester in the evening.’] 19, so as to preach at noon, and to be at Worcester to preach either at six or half-hour after, as you judge best. It would not be so agreeable to me to be at Worcester unless I was to be at your house. I love the house for the sake of its inhabitants, particularly my dear Suky. On Thursday at noon I am willing to preach at Stourport, of which timely notice should be sent to Mr. Cowan. You are all, I hope, pressing on to the mark! ee! the prize is before you am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, February 24, 179. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am in great hopes that the manner of your mother’s death, together with her dying exhortations, will make a deep and lasting impression on some (at least) of her children. Brother Tunney [William Tunney, the second preacher in Oxfordshire, became an itinerant in 1774, and desisted from traveling in 1781.] did well to make a full use of so solemn an occasion. It is not improbable that from this very time a good work may commence, which, if you build a large and commodious chapel, will greatly and swiftly increase. I advise you whenever you build to build exactly on the model of our new chapel [City Road Chapel, London. A Mr. Jacques at Wycombe had frequently disturbed them by beating a drum during the whole hour of meeting. A site had been found, and Mr. Batting had subscribed handsomely and undertaken to superintend the erection of the chapel. See letter of Oct. 23.]; only reducing the dimensions, perhaps, from eighty by sixty to fifty or sixty by forty feet, according as your ground will allow. Surely He will withhold from us no manner of thing that is good. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To George Robinson LONDON, February 24, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad you have a little work to do in our Lord’s vineyard, and doubt not but you will do it faithfully. If it please God to prolong my life and health, I purpose visiting Lincolnshire about midsummer. [Wesley preached at Langham Row on July 5, and on June 1780, where he refers to ’ onest George Robinson and his fourteen children.’ For a noble letter from him to Wesley, see Arminian Mag., 1787, pp. 496-8.] It is well you wrote, or probably there would not have been a night to spare for Lungham Row. But I will now endeavor to bring it in. I did not think any of your daughters had remembered me. Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Robinson, At Langham Row, Near Alford, Lincolnshire. To Samuel Bardsley BRISTOL, March 7, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - I am now just set out on my great journey; probably I shall not reach Inverness till June. It will be in July, if I am spared so long, that I shall visit Derby and Nottingham. My journey is longer this time than it was the last. Let us work while the day is! Exhort all the believers strongly and explicitly to go on to perfection, and to expect every blessing God has promised not to-morrow but to-day! - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Rankin KINGSWOOD, March 12, 1779. DEAR TOMMY, - It is well that Mr. Varde understands and enters into your proposal. When things are a little brought to bear, I shall hope to hear from him. I desire you to accept of two hundred of the Narrative, and of any other book you have occasion for. It gives me pleasure to hear that Sister Rankin and you are happy in each other, and that there are no jealousies or misunderstanding among the, preachers. Stand fast, striving together for the hope of the gospel! Does not John Atlay know that he should always send me a franked letter as it is The Duke of Beaufort’s for instance. Half the letter costs something; the whole would cost nothing. Peace be with you and yours! - I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. You may have my plan from Brother Pearson. Pray tell Mr. Atlay he did not send one quarter enough of the American Narrative [For A Brief Narrative of the Revival of Religion in Virginia and Popery Calmly Considered, see Green’s Bibliography, Nos. 330, 336.] either to Birstall or Bristol. Let three or four hundred of Popery Calmly Considered be sent hither directly. Why does not he send the books to the Isle of Man They want [two] sets of the Short Hymns. To George Gidley BOLTON, April 11, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It seems to me that this is a very providential thing, and that you did well not to let the opportunity slip. There is no doubt but our brethren at the Conference will readily consent to your asking the assistance of your neighbors. [That assistance was for the erection of a preaching-house. The letter was endorsed, ’Mr. Wesley’s approbation of Exeter purchase.’ See letter of Jan. 25.] And the time appears to be now approaching when poor Exeter will lift up its head. There is no danger at all of your being a loser by any bond or security that you have given. If I live till the latter end of summer, I hope to call upon you in my way to Cornwall. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Gidley, Officer of Excise, In Exeter. To Mrs. Hall NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 15, 1779. DEAR PATTY, - So far I am come. I have little above three hundred miles to go before I turn my face southward again. I advise you to apply to two, three, or four intelligence officers with regard to Nancy. [A seamstress at Salisbury whom Mrs. Hall’s husband seduced. See letter of June 20, 1755.] It is certain there are places to be had in London. And if the worst come, we must not insist upon her coming to the chapel. I do not know that she is any better for coming. She is not likely to profit less anywhere else. She was out of her wits to come to London. Mrs. Glynne [See W.H.S. iv. 217-20.] told me when I was last at Shrewsbury that she had as much work there as ever she could do, but she never would take advice, and acted contrary to the judgment of all her friends in coming to London without why or wherefore. I wonder John Pawson [Pawson was now Assistant at City Road.] and his wife do not live in my apartments. They complained of the closeness of their own. Are they neither well full nor fasting You sent me no word about Betsy Ellison. [Elizabeth, daughter of John Ellison and granddaughter of Wesley’s sister Susanna. Dr. Clarke says she turned out unfortunate, and that Wesley showed her ’great kindness, often relieving her in distresses to which her imprudence had reduced her, treating her with great tenderness, and giving her advices which, had she followed, would have led her to true happiness.’ For her sister Patience, see letters of Sept. 7, 1777, and Feb. 4, 1789.] I hope no news is good news. You must not forsake her. She has hardly any real friend in the world but you and me. What a blessing it is to have one Friend! How many have never found one in their lives! - I am. To Ann Bolton SUNDERLAND, May 18, 1779. MY DEAR NANCY, - You make me smile. You address me as if you had never seen me. Why so Have I told you that I did not love you as well as ever I did in my life And yet, to say the truth, I was scarce ever more tried about you than I was lately. You was under my own roof for many days. And yet I hardly got an hour’s conversation with you. That cruel ’something or other’ always interposed and defrauded me of your company. I am glad, however, that others enjoyed it. And your labor with them was not in vain. You was a messenger of good to many souls, who bless God for the consolation. If you suffer a little yourself in conveying help to others, so much the better; this will turn to your account. I can wish nothing better for you than that you may be ’patient in bearing ill and doing well.’ There is little danger of .imputing too much to the good providence of God. It is deeply concerned even in extracting good out of the infirmities, follies, yea and sins of men in general. But it is peculiarly concerned in everything great and small that pertains to the children of God. It disposes all things strongly and sweetly that befall them, perhaps through their own mistake, for their profit, that they may be the more largely partakers of His holiness. He superintends all you do and all you suffer. And it is an invariable rule; ’Whatever you do not choose yourself God chooses for you.’ You did not choose the distress of your friend; therefore God chose it for you. And so He did every circumstance consequent upon it which was afflictive to you. I will tell you, my Nancy, what afflicted me. It seemed to me that you had lost your affection for me, that you was grown cool and indifferent. And yet it may be this was only my own imagination. But I am jealous over you, because I have a tender regard for you, and have had ever since I knew you. This makes me exceeding watchful over you. How is your health at present Have you any particular complaint besides your headache Will not that be eased by cold bathing Write without any reserve to, my dear Nancy, Yours invariably. Any time [you write] direct to [London]. To Mrs. Gair NEAR DUNBAR, May 26, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - It Was not your own desire to miss me at Alnwick as well as at Newcastle; otherwise I might have blamed you, and supposed that your love was grown cold, But I do not believe that is the case; and it is still your desire to love God. What, then, should hinder your recovering His love, if you still walk in all His appointed ways if you still contrive all the opportunities you can of hearing His word. of communicating, of prayer, reading, and meditation It cannot be, if you seek Him, but you will soon find. He will return and abundantly pardon. Who knows how soon Perhaps to-day; and why not at this hour You ask what I think of that strange book. I think the writer was distracted otherwise she could have no excuse. - I am, dear Becky, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Carlill ABERDEEN, June 13, 1779. DEAR TOMMY, - I think it the safest way not to permit any Dissenting teacher to preach in any of our preaching-houses. [Carlill was Assistant in Oxfordshire. See letter of Jan. 23, 1778.] We have suffered so much by this already that we ought to beware of it for the time to come. I am glad to hear that poor John Taylor has recovered his ground. Now let him watch and pray that he may no more enter into temptation. It will be some time before I shall be able to fix the stations of the preachers. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Carlill, At Mr. Morris’s, In Withey, Oxfordshire. To Samuel Bardsley EDINBURGH, June 19, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - I suppose John Atlay has paid the money. He is cautious to an extreme. I hear what angry men say or write; but I do not often regard it. Lemonade will cure any disorder of the bowels (whether it be with or without purging) in a day or two. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and down. They seldom are in vain. Honest Andrew Dunlop [The Assistant at Limerick.] writes me word that the book money is stolen. Pray desire him to take care that the knave does not steal his teeth. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bradburn EDINBURGH, June 19, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - I hear what angry men say or write, but I do not often regard it. I think Sister Ward and Malenoir counsel you well. I love you the better for loving them. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and down. They seldom are in vain. - I am, with kind love to my dear Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bradburn EPWORTH, July 10, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - It is the judgment of many that, since the time of the Invincible Armada, Great Britain and Ireland were never in such danger from foreign enemies as they are at this day. Humanly speaking, we are not able to contend with them either by sea or land. They are watching over us as a leopard over his prey, just ready to spring upon us. They are mighty and rage horribly: but the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier; and now is the time, at this awful crisis, for the inhabitants of the land to learn righteousness. I make no doubt but you improve the important opportunity and lift up your voice like a trumpet. Who knoweth but God may be entreated of us as He was for Nineveh Our brethren in various parts of England have set apart an hour in a week for prayer (namely, from eight till nine on Sunday evening) in behalf of our King and country. Should not the same thing be done in Ireland too particularly at Cork and Bandon. Those who have not opportunity of meeting at the time may pray part of the hour in private. Meantime there is a text for: you: ’I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.’ - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Duncan McAllum EPWORXH, July 10, 1779. DEAR DUNCAN, - This is the circumstance which puzzles the case: who can preach in Erse but you Cannot you, then, think of any preacher, whom you love, and who is a zealous, active man Inverness should by all means be a circuit by itself, including as many towns as you please, north and south. I wish you would think of it, and send me the plan to London. Did not Sister Anderson receive my letter I wonder she did not answer. Joseph Moore utterly denies he ever offered her marriage. [Inverness was separated from Aberdeen at the Conference of 1779, and McAllum made superintendent. Moore was the second preacher at Edinburgh. He desisted from traveling at this Conference.] I desired her to tell me the very words he spoke or wrote.-I am, dear Duncan, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Duncan McAllum, At Mr. John Watson’s, Slater, Inverness. To John Bredin LONDON, July 24, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - As you desire it, I will place you and Billy Myles (whose letter I have received) in the Londonderry Circuit. But it is a circuit of great importance. I hope you will both exert yourselves therein to the uttermost. It is a dangerous time, and you have need to give yourselves unto prayer.-I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. John Bredin, At Mr. Charles Harrison’s, In Limerick. To Miss Livingston LONDON, July 24, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am exceedingly obliged to you for your openness, and it is certain you have acted herein both according to justice and mercy. You need not be afraid of my taking any step that would occasion any reflection upon you. Your behavior in the whole affair has been so exactly right, that it has exceedingly endeared you to me and made me doubly fearful of giving you the least pain; but perhaps it may occasion some trouble to me. I had no intention, when I left it last, of visiting Inverness any more; but I think I must, if my life and strength be prolonged: for I would willingly see you once more. With tender regard, I am, my dear sister, Yours very affectionately. To Mrs. Woodhouse LONDON, July 29, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - Nay, you call me your friend; and you have not lost me yet, and probably never will. Perhaps when I am in the country you will like as well to go in my chaise as in his. An hundred little oddities one may account for by the disorder in his head. He is often considerably better; but I doubt whether he is ever quite well. So the estate which old Mr. Hutton piled up with so much care does not descend even unto the third generation! May it not be so with Mr. Robert Maw [See Journal, iii. 135, 200, 280; iv. 67.] too O let us be rich to Godward! I am glad Mr. Gerv. W. is come so far. And God is able to bring him farther. It strengthens the sight much to wet the eyes several times a day with forge-water, that which the smiths quench their irons in. Bear all, and conquer all. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Min. Woodhouse, At Mr. Hutton’s, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To Alexander Knox LONDON, July 31, 1779. DEAR ALLECK, - Come when they will, whether I am more or less busy, your letters are always welcome.... If you had firm and constant health, I do not see how you could have been saved; you would have been so admired, caressed, and applauded by your well-meaning relations, and perhaps by others, that it would have been next to impossible for you to have escaped the depths of pride and the height of vanity. But God was merciful to you, and sent this affliction to humble and prove you and show you what was in your heart. In the meantime nothing is more sure than that all these things will work together for some good. Far, far beyond thy thought His counsel shall appear, When fully He the work has wrought Which caused thy needless fear! Doubtless He may give you an earnest of it now. Does not a beam of hope break into your soul Can you help saying, God is love I I know, I feel! Jesus weeps, but loves me still Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To William Church [LONDON, August 3, 1779.] DEAR BILLY, - The week after next I hope to see you at Brecon. [Church had been appointed Assistant at Glamorgan at the Conference of 1779. Wesley visited Brecon on Aug. 13.] Pray tell Sister Williams I have her letter. If you can, reconcile the angry ones with each other. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Duncan McAllum LONDON, August 4, 1779. DEAR DUNCAN, - Two preachers are allotted for Inverness and Keith, two for Aberdeen and the country places adjoining. I desire the former two will change with the latter every eight weeks. And I desire Brother Dufton and Sanderson [Joseph Sanderson and William Dufton were appointed to Aberdeen.] will without delay go up to Inverness and Keith. Each may stay either two or four weeks in or near Inverness while the other works the southern part of the circuit. I trust there will be such a work in Scotland this year as never was seen there yet. - I am, dear Duncan, Yours affectionately. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, August 5, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - In order to obviate the mischief of those lying tracts you may give away as many of our political tracts as you please; as likewise the Letter to a Roman Catholic [See letter of July 18, 1749.] and The Advantage of the Members of the Church of England over those of the Church of Rome. [See Works, x. 133-40.] In one thing you will be disappointed. T. Rutherford must needs go to Londonderry [See letter of July 24 to John Bredin as to the importance Londonderry of the appointment. Rutherford had been in Belfast, and Bradburn evidently wanted him as his colleague at Cork.] and John Bredin come to Cork. He is a good preacher and a serious man, and I hope will behave well. I think he loves the King. You did well in lending the preaching-house to the Army. I would show them all the respect that is in my power. Jo. Bredin and you will not fail to change monthly. Do all you can at Kinsale and everywhere. - I am, with love to Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Wride OXON, August 10, 1779. DEAR TOMMY, - George Story gives me a pleasing account of your behavior last year. Yet I am afraid there is something wanting still. As you know, love is full of fears. I am afraid your soul is not alive to God and that you are not deeply and steadily serious. I am afraid your common conversation is not weighty and meet to minister grace to the hearers. O Tommy, stir yourself up before the Lord! Pray that you may be all alive! Labor to be serious, earnest, edifying in your daily conversations! And one thing never forget! At least, be serious in the pulpit! Let nothing queer, odd, or ludicrous pass your lips there! Then the work of the Lord will prosper in our hands, and you will be a comfort to, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Kitty Warren COWBRIDGE, August 26, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - Your conversation was exceedingly agreeable to me when I was last with you in Pembrokeshire. I think you was never so free with me before: therefore I never knew or loved you so well. You have reason to be thankful to God on many accounts, particularly for the desire He has given you of being useful to those that are round about you in as high a degree as you can. Indeed, this will expose you to many temptations. Sometimes you will be in danger of dejection: when you have labored long in any instance, and see no fruit of your labor. But remember l you will be rewarded according to your labor, not according to your success. At other times you will be in danger of pride, which will steal upon you in a thousand shapes. But you know in whom you have believed. He has never faded them that seek Him. In every temptation He will make a way to escape that you may be able to bear it. I have one thing to desire of you: that Sister Jones, Sister Moon, and you will take a leisure hour together, and after prayer read calmly and impartially over the Advice to the Methodists with regard to Dress. [See letter of Sept. 15, 1770; and for Rules of the Bands, Works, viii. 272-3.] Then read over the Rules of the Bands, which are punctually observed by our sisters that meet in band in London and Bristol. If only you three had the resolution to follow their steps, the example would spread to the bands through all Wales. Wishing that patience may have its perfect work in you till you are perfect and entire, lacking nothing, I remain, my dear Kitty, Yours in tender affection. To Miss Kitty Warren, In Haverfordwest. To William Ferguson BRISTOL, September 7, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The proposal you sent me from the Hague I like well. Pray talk with John Atlay about it; and if he and you are agreed, the sooner it is put in execution the better. Certainly all unsaleable books that are undamaged I will take again. But if any sermon be translated into Dutch, it should first be The Almost Christian. This is far more suitable to unawakened readers than The Lord our Righteousness. - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Johnston, Annandale, Lisleen BRISTOL, September 24, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - I heard not one word of those accusations against John Howe, only that some time since he made a race on a Sunday. I ordered Mr. Watkinson to write to him concerning it. He did so, but could not gain a line in answer. This was utterly wrong. He ought at all hazards to have answered immediately. But of the things you mention I know nothing; I have not heard one tittle. My judgment is, John Howe should order a lawyer to write to the man that struck him and to each of them that held his hands, that he has ’orders to bring an action for assault and battery against them unless they ask his pardon for the error of illegal violence.’ I believe you have preachers now who truly fear God and have their hearts in His work. Wishing you may experience all His promises, I remain, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. I have received no other letter from you but that of the 9th instant. To Robert Cart Brackenbury BRISTOL, September 27, 1779. DEAR SIR, - I hope your stay at -- will be of use to many. But do not hurt yourself in order to help others. Mr. S -- is an upright, valuable man. His wife is a jewel indeed. I wish we had many like her. Your being at -- during this critical time is a singular providence. Both parties have a regard for you, and will hear you when they will not hear each other. I am glad you think of spending the winter in town, and doubt not but it will be for the glory of God. Go to my house. What is mine is yours; you are my brother, my friend: let neither life nor death divide us! Your visit to N-- will, I am persuaded, be of considerable use, the more because you love and recommend discipline. But I must beg of you to spend a night or two at Y--. and at L--. The sooner you come the more welcome you will be. Wrap yourself up warm, particularly your head and breast. - I am Your very affectionate friend and brother. To William Church BRISTOL, September 28, 1779. DEAR BILLY, - I entirely agree with Mr. Thomas [See letter of April 29, 1776.] in his judgment concerning that house: nothing can be more convenient for the purpose. You would do well to move all our friends to contribute towards it. I hope Brother Moorhouse [Michael Moorhouse is on the Minutes for Taunton, but may have been sent to Glamorgan. Cardiff was the head of that circuit. See letter of July 7, 1786.] and you are of one heart and go on hand in hand. - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Will. Church, At Mr. Colley’s, Cardiff, near Gloucester. To James Creighton BRISTOL, September 29, 1779. DEAR SIR, - If you are inclined to remove to England, I think you have a very fair opportunity. A curate is wanted for Madeley, Mr. Fletcher’s parish, who has desired me to procure him one that can be depended on. For a change Dr. Coke would go down to Madeley at any time, and you might be a while with us in Bristol or London. You would have a large convenient house with a pleasant and fruitful garden. What the salary is I do not exactly know; but you shall not have less than sixty guineas a year. If you are inclined to accept of this, be pleased to send a line to, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. Pray direct to London. To Thomas Carlill [October 1779.] MY DEAR BROTHER, - An Assistant at the last Conference said, ’I will do as my predecessor has done. I will leave those as members that never met; they are as good members as I found them.’ Whoever does this for the time to come I will exclude from our Connection without delay. To prevent this vile practice I desire you will (I) Take an exact plan of your circuit at Christmas, and send it me in January; and do the same every quarter. (2) If you live till August, leave for your successor an exact list of the Societies in your circuit. I desire likewise that at the next Quarterly Meeting you would change at least one of the stewards in every Society where there are two. One thing more I desire, that you would read the proposals for the General Hymn-Book in every Society and procure as many subscribers as you can. By your diligence and exactness in these particulars I shall judge whether you are qualified to act as an Assistant or not. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Pray send me word in January how many subscribers you have procured in your circuit. Mr. Carlill, At Mr. Roberts’, Tiverton, Devon. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, October 9, 1779. DEAR ZACHARY, - Wherever you are be ready to acknowledge what God has done for your soul, and earnestly exhort all the believers to expect full salvation. You would do well to read every morning a chapter in the New Testament with the Notes, and to spend the greatest part of the morning in reading, meditation, and prayer. In the afternoon you might visit the Society from house to house in the manner laid down in the Minutes of the Conference. The more labor the more blessing! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, October 10, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - The alarm has been general in England as well as Ireland, particularly in the maritime parts. But it has done abundantly more good than harm to the work of God. The children of God have been greatly stirred up and have been more [instant] in prayer. And many men of the world have been greatly awakened, and continue so to this day. Most of those who have the fullest intercourse with God believe our enemies will never be permitted to land in England. And, indeed, God has already given abundant proof of His hearing prayer: first, in their not landing at Plymouth, where they stayed gaping and staring for eight-and-forty hours while they might with all ease have destroyed both the dock and the town; secondly, in the malignant fever which has broken out in their fleet, and already destroyed several thousands of men. Is there any truth in the report that John Humpson has converted you to Arianism ’If you think it best, I will name two or three new stewards now. - I am, with tender love to dear Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Kitty Warren ROBERTSBRIDGE, October 19, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - The accusations against Mr. Edwards were wonderful. So were the whole proceedings against him. But the thing is done; and, indeed, so long ago that it is now past remedy. That jewel who told you he was a rabbi I fear is little better than a cheat. You did well to give me some information about him. I have wrote a line to the Assistant at Bristol; so that if he makes his appearance there our people will be aware of him. I hope Mr. Booth, your third preacher, is now come. He is an Israelite indeed. He is peculiarly blest in encouraging believers to go on to perfection. In this respect I hope he will be particularly to you and all that hunger and thirst after righteousness. It was never designed that Henry Floyd should be stationed in any one place. He is only permitted to preach up and down, chiefly in Welsh, at the discretion of the Assistant. I believed your labor with the children would not be in vain. But in all things we have need of patience; and then, after we have done the will of God, we shall receive the promise. If you love me, deal freely with me. And whenever anything material occurs send an account of it to, my dear Kitty, Yours very affectionately. To Hannah Ball LONDON, October 23, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - To-morrow night I am to set out for Norwich [] and this little tour will take me up a fortnight. At my return I have appointed to visit the classes, which requires a fortnight more. I see no possibility, then, of my opening the house, unless I steal away from them for a few hours. I care not for labor; but I want time. This, then, with God’s help I will do. On Tuesday noon, November 9, I will steal away to Wycombe, preach at five in the evening, and then return to London. So I can go on with the classes at six on Wednesday morning. If the preachers and leaders strongly exhort the believers to go on to perfection, then the entire work of God will prosper among you; otherwise it will languish. - I am, my dear Hannah, Your affectionate brother. To the Methodist Societies TO ALL OUR BRETHREN WHOM IT MAY CONCERN CITY ROAD, LONDON, October 24, 1779. I cannot but highly approve of Captain Webb’s design of assisting His Majesty in case of an actual invasion. The particulars he will himself explain to you. This may be of more consequence than yet appears. I recommend the design and all that promote it to the blessing of God; and am, my dear brethren, [See Methodist Recorder, Oct. 31, 1884, for particulars of the scheme, signed ’L. Webb’; and letter of May 25, 1782, to Captain Webb.] Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride LYNN, November 1, 1779. DEAR TOMMY, - You will never disoblige me by telling me anything that you think or fear. No preacher in our Connection ever dealt more plainly with me than Thomas Walsh did. And there never was any that I loved better or put more confidence in. So that it is a mere groundless imagination which some of our friends have entertained that 1 love persons less for their plain-dealing. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at London on Friday. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, November 9, 1779. MY DEAR SISTER, - I have always loved you from the time I knew you first; and never more than now, because you now speak freely to me, which I Sometimes feared you did not. If you continue earnest to save your souls, both of you must expect temptations, and those of various sorts. Sometimes you will be tried by friends or enemies; sometimes by one another; at some times perhaps you will be quite out of conceit with each other, and all things will appear wrong. Then beware of anger, of fretfulness, or peevishness, which makes the grasshopper a burthen. But from all this the God whom you serve is able to deliver you; yea, and He will deliver you. Trust Him, and praise Him. - I am, my dear Jenny, Yours affectionately. To John Bredin LONDON, November 9, I779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - As long as you act in full concert with Sammy Bradburn you will both see the fruit of your labor. [See letter of Feb. 26, 1780, to Bradburn.] I hope the morning preaching will never be neglected more, either at Cork or Bandon. That is the glory of the Methodists. If only thirty children continue to meet at each place, it will be worth all the pains. At every new place you may give the Earnest Appeal to the chief man in the town. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Bredin, At the New Room, In Cork. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, November 9, 1779. DEAR TOMMY, - I shall write to Henry Brown [Compare Feb. 22, 1777.] this post and tell him how to cure his leg. He writes that he will not marry till I come over; and I think it is a wise resolution. He is certainly a devoted young man; and it is a great pity that anything should hinder him. It is exceeding well that Brother Barber came in the place of Brother Blair. Let him also preach sometimes at Londonderry. God chooses the foolish things to confound the wise. I do not know but God may bless him there more than either you or me. You do well in holding the prayer-meetings and visiting the Poorhouse. But do not forget the children and visiting all the Society from house to house. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Society in Margate DOVER, November 30, 1779. MY DEAR BRETHERN, - I have no connection at all with Thomas Coleman. I am not satisfied with his behavior. I desire Mr. Wrigley, [Francis Wrigley, James Perfect were preachers in Kent.] Booth, and Perfect to act as if there was no such person in the world. [Coleman opened a school at Margate about 1767, and used the room for preaching. See Journal, vii. 128; W.H.S. xvii. 73] As many of our Society in Margate as [choose] to remain under my care I desire to receive these as they would myself. Commending you all to the God of peace and love, I am, my dear brothers and sisters, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. -- LONDON, December 4, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The information you have procured concerning the widow of Thomas Young I believe will be quite satisfactory. I know no reason why your little boy should not be admitted into Kingswod School if we live till autumn. Sammy Wells died last Saturday! [See heading to letter of Feb. 24 to Hannah Ball.] ’Live to-day! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Abraham Brames LONDON, December 12, 1779. MY DEAR BROTHER, - In the late Conference it was agreed that one steward (at least) in every Society should be changed. And when I lately heard it was not yet done, I wrote to every Assistant on the head. I heard no objection to you; and in your case there is something peculiar, because of the debt lying upon the house. Do all the good you can! Work your work betimes; and in due time He will give you a full reward! - I am, with kind love to your wife, dear Abraham, Your affectionate brother. I seldom complain that your letters are too long. To Alexander Knox LONDON, December 23, 1779. DEAR ALLECK, - The whole account of yourself which you still give convinces me more and more of what I have once and again observed concerning the nature of your disorder. It is undeniable (1) That you have a bodily complaint. Your nerves are greatly disordered; and although it is only now and then that this rises so high as to occasion a fit, yet it has a constant influence upon you so as to cause a dejection of spirits. This dejection is no more imputed to you as a sin than the flowing of the blood in your veins. (2) Although I will not say you have no faith, yet it is certain your faith is small; and you are fearful, because you are of little faith: this is another source of your uneasiness. (3) You want to have the love of God fully shed abroad in your heart: you have only now and then a little touch of thankfulness, a small spark of that divine fire; and hence anger, or at least fretfulness and peevishness, more or less, will naturally arise. Add to these (4) the main cause - diabolical agency. Satan will surely take occasion, from the situation you are in, to inject a thousand thoughts; and will then accuse you for them: but he, not you, shall answer for them to God. God is on your side: He knows whereof you are made; and Jesus careth for you. He keeps you and my dear Mrs. Knox as the apple of an eye; His Spirit helps your infirmities; He is purifying you in that furnace; and when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold. Expect the blessing: is it not at hand - I am, my dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To Robert Cart LONDON, December 28, 1779. DEAR ROBERT, - As God has once more given you your life for a prey, see that all be directed to Him I Let no sin have any more dominion over you. Watch and pray, and you shall not enter into temptation. I make no doubt but a collection made in the circuit will supply what is wanting with regard to that little preaching-house, especially as there are no others building in that circuit. By this time both our preachers and people should be well aware of the warm Predestinarians. They will do us no good. And they can do us no harm if we love them - at a distance. Peace be with you and yours! - I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Robert Cart, Of Leicester. To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 29, 1779. DEAR JOSEPH, - There are few persons on whose judgment I can more confide than Sister Clapham, Sister Dowries, and Betsy Ritchie. I know little of Miss Thompson; but if they approve of her I shall have no objection. Take every step with much prayer; and I trust God will give you His blessing. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Sarnuel Bradburn LONDON, December 29, 1779. DEAR SAMMY, - Joseph Benson has explained himself at large, and in a very satisfactory manner. Dr. Coke wrote also to John Hampson; but I believe he has received no answer. All the real lovers of Ireland will now love King George for removing those vile restraints upon the Irish trade. But still incendiaries will not be wanting who will do all the mischief they can. I am not sure that the loudest bawlers are not in French pay. If one class does not suit Mrs. Bruce, let her meet in another. But I understand there is one whole class (Brother Brewer’s) which contributes nothing weekly. If so, give no ticket either to him or any of them. They break a fundamental rule of the Society. You may read in the Society that part of the Large Minutes relating to my power. I find by your last you have done it. In our last Conference it was agreed that a change of stewards should be made directly throughout England and Ireland. I do not thoroughly approve myself of G. Dobbyn remaining i~ the house. I do not forget his base treatment of Sister Malenoir, whom none had authority to put out of the house without my consent. I refer that to you. If you judge that Brother Laffan and Howe would be more unexceptionable, let them be stewards for the ensuing year. Were there no other objection, that behavior of Brother Large and Sweeny in the Society would be a sufficient reason why they could bear no office among the Methodists. Beware of heat! Beware of returning railing for railing! - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. Pray give my kind love to Sister Bruce, and tell her I will consider her letter. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wesley directed this letter ’To Miss Sparrow, No. 2,’ and told her, ’You should take a copy of it’; and this is her copy. Theodore Tonchin (1709-81) was Voltaire’s favorite doctor, with whom he pleaded to accord him some days of life. Tonchin had dieted that, for all his boasting, Voltaire would be un plus mourant; and the moral and Christian doctor refused to be the dupe or accomplice of one whose impiety and odious proceedings he had proved openly. Voltaire died on May 30, 1778. It was James Ireland who showed Fletcher’s letter of July 13 to Wesley. Dr. Bealey was the chaplain. See Journal, vi. 211; Benson’s Life of Fletcher, p. 237 and letter of February 11 to Charles Delamotte. [2] William Shent, the Methodist barber, was in financial straits, forsaken by old friends. Wesley stood by him nobly, as this letter shows. Charles Wesley writes to his brother on April 23, ’I shall be happy to hear you have saved poor William Shent.’ See letter of December 28, 1751. [3] Wesley dined with Elizabeth Morgan on September 20, 1783; and on March 12, 1784, she appears to have gone with him in his chaise to Bradford-on-Avon. On March 4, 1786, he had tea with her. She married Eli Bates, who was well known in the literary and philosophic world and published Chinese Fragments, Observations on Some Important Points in Divinity, extracted from an Author of the Last Century (1793), Christian Politics (four vols. 1802-6), Rural Philosophy (1805), and other works. See Journal, Diary, vi. 449, 484, vii. 144; W.T. Lowndes’s Bibliographer’s Manual; and letter of February 20, 1780. [4] The Rev. Nutcombe Quick, Chancellor of the Diocese of Exeter 1757-1809, had given the Methodists some trouble and anxiety as to the licensing of the new chapel. See next letter, and those of July 4, 1778, and April 11, 1779. [5] Charles Delamotte, Wesley’s friend and companion in Georgia, was now a Moravian. He wrote from Barrow, near Barton, Lincolnshire, on February 2, rejoicing in Wesley’s letter in the papers on January 4 about Voltaire. Delamotte died at Barrow in 1796. See letter of January 4. [6] John and Anna Knapp lived at the old-fashioned White House, Lowesmoor, outside Worcester. A large room was set apart for services, and the one over it was called ’Mr. Wesley’s room.’ See Life of Susanna Knapp, p. 2. [7] Mrs. Ball died on January 23, 2779, at the age of seventy-nine. ’It was an unspeakable consolation to her surviving children, when standing around her bed, to hear her utter Jacob’s dying confession of faith, "I have waited for Thy salvation, O Lord." ’Miss Ball tells Samuel Wells in April: ’Shortly before her death she repeatedly expressed a longing desire to depart and be with Christ; crying out, with the Apostle, "O death, where is thy sting O grave, whero is thy victory &c."... Some of her last words were, "When good old Jacob had blessed his children, he gathered up his feet into the bed and died: so, Lord, let me die! for Jacob’s God is my God"; and then said, "A few more groans," and died.... Her funeral sermon was preached from Simeon’s Song, and, I trust, blessed to many.’ On December 5 Miss Bali received a letter telling her of the death of Samuel Wells (then in the Sussex Circuit), ’a man for whom I had the highest esteem and regard. His public labors and private conversation were rendered exceedingly useful to many, and much owned of God to my furtherance in the divine life. He was near to me as my own soul.’ Wells traveled in the Oxford Circuit in 1771-2. The Minutes for 1780 say he ’put forth all his strength in every part of his work. He was particularly zealous in observing discipline and exhorting believers to go on unto perfection.’ See Memoir, pp. 142-5, I48; and letter of December 4. [8] Tyerman says this was written to Samuel Bradburn; but it was to Samuel Bardsley in Nottingham. See next letter. [9] Lecky, in his England in the Eighteenth Century, iv. 453-4, says: ’The moment was one of the most terrible in English history.... England, already exhausted by a war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. Her Navy was but half prepared; her troops were barely sufficient to protect her shores from invasion; her ministers and her generals were utterly discredited.’ It was an ’hour of panic and consternation.’ On June 4, while Bradburn was dining at one end of Bandon, he heard the drums of the army and the independent companies beat to arms. He found the whole town thrown into a panic by a report that the French had landed and were within a few miles of the people. ’ I went home, secured a few valuable articles, and committed myself and family to God in prayer. In the evening I opened my Bible on Isa. xxxvii. 5-7; and as there were very few people, I encouraged them as much as possible. In the morning it proved a false alarm.’ Wesley had an hour of intercession for King and country at Haverfordwest on August 20. See letters of October 31, 1778 (to Christopher Hopper), and October 10, 1779. [10] Bredin was appointed to Cork and William Myles to Lisburn at the Conference of 1779. Myles was born at Limerick, became an itinerant in 1777, and died in 1828. Sound judgment, humility, and love were blended in him. His Chronological History of the People called Methodists is a work of the greatest value. [11] Miss Livingston belonged to a good family in Inverness. They attended the Established Kirk; but when Methodism was introduced to the town in 1766, she attended the services, and Wesley was often her mother’s guest. She married Duncan McAllum in 1784, and died in November 1812. See Methodist Magazine, 1814, pp. 207-12. [12] George Story had been Assistant at Yarm in 1778, with Wride as one of his colleagues. Wride was now appointed to Scarborough. He replied: ’I received yours of August 10. Your advice, sir, I hope conscientiously to regard. But as to the "pleasing account you received of my behavior last year," I shall tell you that it was not the fruit of my better behavior, but of your hearing it from an honest man. But as the particulars will more than fill the paper, I must defer until you (or some other season) call for it.’ He refers to a statement Wesley had made that Wride had told him that his ’wife would not be burthen-some to a circuit’; and adds, ’If you had said that John Floyd told you that I said so, I had not wondered in the least. But, sir, I do wonder at your mistake.’ [13] Ferguson was a London local preacher who traded with Holland, and generally spent his summer there. He was the means of Wesley’s visiting Holland in June 1783. See Journal, vi. 415n; Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 292; and letters of July 26, 1774, and June 12, 1783. [14] Richard Watkinson was then Assistant in Dublin, and had to write to Howe about his Sunday racing. Peter Mill was Assistant at Armagh, and gained a high reputation for his bearing in a public discussion with four ministers opposed to Methodism; at one place he wrenched a sword out of the hand of a man who rushed upon him while he was preaching. Jonathan Hem was the second preacher, See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 335-6. [15] Brackenbury, the Lincolnshire squire, held a unique position in Methodism. He acted as one of Wesley’s lay preachers, and had been with him in Scotland in June. In November he helped Charles Wesley to deal with the disputes caused by Alexander M’Nab at Bath, where Charles told his brother on the 28th of that month: ’Mr. Brackenbury’s eyes were opened, he saw all things clearly: the whole Society were, I trust, much confirmed in their earnestness and in their love for you.’ [16] Creighton, now a curate in Ireland, did not accept the suggestion about Madeley; but in 1783 Wesley persuaded him to come to London as his clerical helper, and he was connected with City Road Chapel till his death in 1819. See letter of July 12, 1778. [17] This letter is unrated; but the address fixes it to the autumn of 1779, when Carlill was Assistant at Tiverton. He had evidently gone to Bristol to see his old friends, among whom he had been stationed in 1777. The General Hymn-Book appeared in 1780. The Preface is dated October 20, 1779. The proposals are printed on the cover of the Arminian Magazine for May 1779. The same letter was also sense to William Church at Mr. Colley’s in Cardiff on November 12, 1779, and to John Mason. The body of the letter is in Dr. Coke’s writing, the signature alone is Wesley’s. [18] Yewdall (1751-1830) was brought up as a Quaker, but joined the Methodist Society in 1771. He was admitted as a preacher on trial in 1779, and was now at Pembroke. ’His ministry was made useful, chiefly to the truly pious, or to those who earnestly desired to be so.’ See Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1913, p. 803. [19] The combined French and Spanish fleets, sixty ships of tho line at least, with a proportionate number of frigates, entered the English Channel in August, and for several weeks cruised about our coast, lying especially in front of Plymouth. Its defenses were wretchedly inefficient, and a landing was hourly expected. The French fleet was feebly commanded, and retired to Brest early in September. Wesley says: ’I preached on David’s prayer, "Lord, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness." And how remarkably has He heard this prayer with regard to the French Ahithophels!’ See Journal, vi. 253; Lecky’s England in the Eighteenth Century, v. 9; and letter of July 10 to him. [20] John Booth’s obituary in 1820 refers to his great simplicity of manners and sincerity of heart. He was more than forty years a traveling preacher. Wesley met fifty children at Haverfordwest on April 30, 1781, ’such a company as I have not seen for many years. Miss Warren loves them, and they love her.’ See Journal, vi. 315. [21] This visit is not mentioned in the Journal; but Miss Ball writes on November 11: ’The Rev. John Wesley opened our new chapel by preaching on "We preach Christ crucified; unto the Jews a stumbling-block, &c. &c." On this occasion we had a crowded and genteel audience. My heart’s desire and prayer to God is that this neat and convenient house, erected to Jehovah’s glory, may be an everlasting blessing to the town of Wycombe.’ See Memoir, pp. 147-8; and letter of February 24 to her. [22] Wride wrote a long letter to Wesley dated from Darlington on May 1, 1779; but he adds this note: ’Scarborough, October 23, 1779. The greater part of the above was written (though not on the same paper) according as it is dated and designed to be left for you as above.’ He says that Wesley at the last Conference had stated that ’we should be considered as a band.’ ’ Now, sir, could I be secured in this liberty, half my work would be done to my hand; for I need only so write as to convey my ideas without seeming to give offence by what I designed for the furthering of the usefulness and supporting of the reputation of one to whom I am under many obligations. But, sir, do not think me self-conceited for this attempt. It is not a supposition of superior abilities that sets my pen to work; but I confess I claim more honesty than some appear possessed of. For, sir, excuse me if I say I know there are some who (at least) appear to love you, and yet have said behind your back what I suppose they have never said to your face. Now, sir, will you suppose yourself to be a band-leader and that I meet in band with you And will you allow me to tell you what I have in ’my heart, what I know, what I believe, what I fear If you will, I shall be as plain as you require me; but if you will not, burn these lines before you read any further, and then you cannot be displeased at me for my honest interest.’ Then follows a puzzling copy, to which James Everett adds a note which suggests that it must be read by beginning at the middle of the lines. Wride says: ’I lay my thoughts before you under the following heads: (1) Your conduct with respect to women as women; (2) with respect to some women as governesses; (3) with regard to things on the account of which I think I have just cause for to complain of very unfair treatment from various persons, and wherein I think you cannot defend or even excuse yourself being only too ready to believe the most improbable, absurd lies of one of the most horrid liars I ever knew.’ See letter of March 9, 1780. [23] Bredin wrote on October 27 that he had begun morning preaching at Bandon and had a congregation four times larger than that at Cork. He formed the children into three classes, and introduced Methodism to Skibbereen, where he preached in the court-house, and had been invited to return as soon as possible. They promised also to pay his expenses. Bradburn, his superintendent, intended to visit them, and they were acting ’in the closest union.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1789, p. 611; and letter of July 24. [24] Thomas Barber, now the preacher at Sligo, began his work as a missionary in the country parts of the Londonderry Circuit early in 1779, and through his instrumentality Adam Clarke was converted. Andrew Blair was received on trial at the Irish Conference in 1778, and became one of the most acceptable Irish preachers. He was now the third preacher at Londonderry. [25] The ancestors of Abraham Brames fled from Fluriders on account of religion. He was born in Canterbury in 1742, and was leader and steward at Rochester and Brompton. He died in 1812. See Methodist Magazine, 1816, pp. 201-10; and letter of January 16, 1780, to him. [26] Thomas Hanby, as a youth of eighteen, stayed a few months In Newcastle-upon-Tyne about 1751. He boarded with ’Mr. Robert Cart, whose tenderness for my youth, and truly Christian behavior, were of singular use to me; for which I shall ever love and esteem him.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, ii. 56. [27] Benson was about to marry. He told Miss Ritchie on December 16 (manuscript Life, ii. 918): ’I have just wrote Mr. Wesley about this affair, and expect his answer next week at Manchester; after which I think we shall soon make a finish of it, and you must be the bridesmaid.’ Sarah Thompson was the youngest daughter of Thomas Thompson, of Knottingley, near Ferry Bridge. She and her two sisters were called ’The Three Graces.’ Her father was dead, and her mother had married S. Dawson, of Leeds, at whose house Miss Thompson lived. Benson married her on January 28, 1780. Miss Ritchie was bridesmaid, and went with them to Halifax and Manchester; Mrs. Clapham was present. [28] Benson had been unjustly suspected by Dr. Coke and others of. Arianism (manuscript Life, ii. 915). Andrew Laffan in 1751 heard Whitefield preach in the open air at Cork, and joined the Methodists. In 1785 Wesley appointed him and George Howe and James Johnson stewards at Cork. Howe, who was very useful among the sick and prisoners, led the party of thirty horsemen who met Wesley at Middleton, and escorted him to Cork. Wesley stayed with Laffan in May 1787. He died in 1790. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 83, 153, 399, 429. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 74: 72. 1778 ======================================================================== 1778 THREE CROWDED YEARS JANUARY 6, 1780, To MARCH 12, 1780 To Mr. -- [1780.] DEAR BROTHER, - -You are indeed out of your place, for you are reasoning when you ought to be praying. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Rose MY DEAR SISTER, - It has pleased God to prove you for many years in the furnace of affliction. But He has always been with you in the fire, that you might be purified, not consumed. You have therefore good reason to trust Him. Do not reason, but believe! Hang upon Him as a little child, and your eyes shall see His full salvation. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Eliz. Rose, in Sheffield. To Thomas Carlill LONDON, January 6, 1780. DEAR TOMMY, - I have received a very good letter from William Gill, [Gill had been received on trial in 1778. His name does not appear on the Minutes for 1780. See letter of March 2, 1782.] who does not seem to have been much to blame. I therefore leave him entirely to you. You may employ him either as a local or a traveling preacher. I hope he will be useful; and am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Carlill, At Mrs. Cumberland’s, Near Lisburn, Ireland. To William Church LONDON, January 6, 1780. DEAR BILLY, - Every quarter you are to send me a plan of your circuits. Then we can see whether we increase or decrease. Be watchful! Be zealous! Then you will save both your own soul and them that hear you. I send you a draught on Mr. Pawson. [Mrs. Church received her maintenance from the Society at Bristol, of which Pawson was Assistant in 1780. The rest of the letter was cut off and given away as an autograph.] . . . To Mr. Will. Church, at Mr. John Church’s, In Brecon. To the Printer of the ’Public Advertiser’ CITY ROAD, January 12, 1780. SIR, - Some time ago a pamphlet was sent me entitled An Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great Britain. A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hand, which pronounces ’its style contemptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious.’ On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavor to confirm the substance of that tract by a few plain arguments. With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let there be ’as boundless a freedom in religion’ as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore away with all your commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius’s Creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have been infallible; yet I insist upon it that no Government not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a plain argument (let him answer it that can). That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable behavior I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men but by a public council, that ’no faith is to be kept with heretics.’ This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain than that the members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any Government of their allegiance or peaceable behavior. Therefore they ought not to be tolerated by any Government, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan. You may say, ’Nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance.’ True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim ’No faith is to be kept with heretics’ sweeps them all away as a spider’s web. So that still, no Governors that are not Roman Catholics can have any security of their allegiance. Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope can give no .security of their allegiance to any Government: but all Roman Catholics acknowledge this; therefore they can give no security for their allegiance. The power of granting pardons for all sins, past, present, and to come, is, and has been for many centuries, one branch of his spiritual power. But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no security for their allegiance; since they believe the Pope can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins whatsoever. The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow is another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope. And all who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope can give no security for his allegiance to any Government. Oaths and promises are none; they are light as air; a dispensation makes them all null and void. Nay, not only the Pope, but even a priest has power to pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any security for their allegiance to any Government. Oaths are no security at all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting, then, religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, no Government ought to tolerate men who cannot give any security to that Government for their allegiance and peaceable behavior. But this no Romanist can do, not only while he holds that ’no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ but so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution or the spiritual power of the Pope. ’But the late Act,’ you say, ’does not either tolerate or encourage Roman Catholics.’ I appeal to matter of fact. Do not the Romanists themselves understand it as a toleration You know they do. And does it not already (let alone what it may do by-and-by) encourage them to preach openly, to build chapels (at Bath and elsewhere), to raise seminaries, and to make numerous converts day by day to their intolerant, persecuting principles I can point out, if need be, several of the persons. And they are increasing daily. But ’nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended from them.’ I am not certain of that. Some time since, a Romish priest came to one I knew [Elizabeth Duchesne. See letter of Oct. 27, 1758.]; and, after talking with her largely, broke out, ’You are no heretic! You have the experience of a real Christian!’ ’And would you,’ she asked, ’burn me alive’ He said, ’God forbid! unless it were for the good of the Church!’ Now, what security could she have had for her life, if it had depended on that man The good of the Church would have burst all the ties of truth, justice, and mercy; especially when seconded by the absolution of a priest, or (if need were) a papal pardon. If any one please to answer this, and to set his name, I shall probably reply; but the productions of anonymous writers I do not promise to take any notice of. - I am, sir, Your humble servant. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 14, 1780. If I could be angry at my dear Nancy for anything, I should be so for your not using me as a friend. If you believe me to be so, why do you not tell me without reserve when there is anything in which I can serve you You may judge by yourself whether this must not give me a particular satisfaction. So it always will if you suffer me to give you any assistance that is in my power. What you speak of feeling the peace of God in the midst of the most exquisite sufferings does not surprise me at all. [See letter of Feb. 26 to her.] ’I feel my pains,’ says Mr. De Renty, ’in all their extremity. But by the grace of God I give myself up to Him and not to them.’ And again: ’I cannot say but my soul is deeply grieved at the sense of so great a loss; yet I feel such joy in that the will of the Lord is done, not that of a poor sinner, that, were it not for giving offence, I could dance and sing.’ I saw a stranger instance than either of these a few years ago. I saw exactly such distress in an human countenance as appears in the waxwork taken from the face of Cartouche [Louis Dominique Cartouche, head of a Paris band of robbers, broken on the wheel in 1721.] while he was breaking upon the wheel. In the morning I asked her, ’Was not you in great distress when I saw you last night’ She answered, ’I was in such distress as was ready to tear my soul and body asunder; and yet at that very time I was as happy as I could well be out of heaven.’ I do not wonder, therefore, that all the trials you feel do not interrupt the peace of God. They never need. His grace is sufficient to keep you in and to deliver you out of all temptations. And the unction of the Holy One which abideth with you shall guide you from time to time and enable you to east back upon his own head all the fiery darts of the wicked one. Love me still, my dear Nancy, and know me to be Yours invariably. To Abraham Brames LONDON, January 16, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You have done exceeding well in setting that little collection on foot. [See letter of Dec. 12, 1779.] I trust it will be productive of much good. On February 6 you may expect a preacher from hence. Tell the traveling preachers whatever you think or hear concerning them, if you love either them or Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Abr. Brames, At the Preaching. house, In Rochester. To Lancelot Harrison LONDON, January 16, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I perceive many in your circuit do not know our Rules. You should immediately read them in every Society, and receive no new member till he has read them. Let all know what they are about. A Plan of a Circuit should contain (1) the several Societies, (2) the number of members in each, (3) the new members, (4) the backsliders, (5) the persons in band. Then the conversions, deaths, marriages, removes, with the total number at the foot of each column. Let me have such a plan next quarter. [See letter of Feb. 16.] You did well to recommend the Hymn-Books, and you will do still better in taking every opportunity of recommending the Magazine. [See letter of Jan. 29.] Be zealous! Be active! Stir up the gift of God that is in you! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. L. Harrison, At Dr. Kershaw’s, In Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. To Thomas Taylor () LONDON, January [18], 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You seem to me not to have well considered the Rules of an Helper or the rise of Methodism. It pleased God by me to awaken, first my brother, and then a few others; who severally desired of me as a favor that I would direct them in all things. After my return from Georgia many were both awakened and converted to God. One and another and another of these desired to join with me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a few plain rules (observe, there was no Conference in being!), and permitted them to join me on these conditions. Whoever, therefore, violates the conditions, particularly that of being directed by me in the work, does ipso facto disjoin himself from me. This Brother M’Nab has done (but he cannot see that he has done amiss); and he would have it a common cause-that is, he would have all the preachers do the same. He thinks ’they have a right so to do.’ So they have. They have a right to disjoin themselves from me whenever they please. But they cannot, in the nature of the thing, join with me any longer than they are directed by me. And what if fifty of the present preachers disjoined themselves! What should I lose thereby Only a great deal of labor and care, which I do not seek, but endure, because no one else either can or will. You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a Conference. For above six years after my return to England there was no such thing. I then desired some of our preachers to meet me, in order to advise, not control me. And you may observe they had no power at all but what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation and gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken from their head. But as long as I remain with them the fundamental rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As long as any preacher joins with me he is to be directed by me in his work. Do not you see, then, that Brother M’Nab, whatever his intentions might be, acted as wrong as wrong could be and that the representing of this as the common cause of the preachers was the way to common destruction, the way to turn all their heads and to set them in arms It was a blow at the very root of Methodism. I could not therefore do less than I did; it was the very least that could be done, for fear that evil should spread. I do not willingly speak of these things at all; but I do it now out of necessity, because I perceive the mind of you and some others is a little hurt by not seeing them in a true light. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Crosby LONDON, January 20, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER,-I should really imagine that the having more exercise than usual would increase rather than impair your health. This is the effect which it has had on all that traveled with me through north Britain. The very richest of our brethren here do not conform to the world in dress. Our sisters do, and their daughters much more. I am often in doubt whether I should suffer them to remain in our Society Well meaning S[ister] Ryan greatly labored to pull you down when you first went to Latonstone. It would not have been strange if that had thrown you into many doubts and fears, as you believed her to be holier than yourself, and a better judge of spiritual things. I know she by this means unsettled several, who had tasted of the pure Love of God. [See letters of Dec. 3, 1769, June 28 and Sept. 12, 1766.] It is my design, if God continues my health and strength, tc go over to Ireland this spring. You will probably see me in autumn if I live. - I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Crosby. At Mrs. Haigh’s, In Halifax, Yorkshire. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, January 23, 1780. DEAR SIR,-I am glad that it has pleased God to restore your health, and that you have been employing it to the best of purposes. It is worth living for this (and scarcely for anything else), to testify the gospel of the grace of God. You will find many in these parts who have ears and hearts to receive even the deep things of God. I believe a journey to Ireland will be of use to your soul and body. Meet me at --, and we can settle our journeys. - I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and brother. To Alexander Knox NEAR LONDON, January 28, 1780. DEAR ALLECK, - It will certainly be worth your while to make a trial of that mineral water; it is highly probable God will make it a means of lessening if not removing your bodily disorder. That this is in a considerable degree scorbutic I cannot make any question; as one almost constant symptom of the scurvy is a great depression of the spirits.... I cannot advise you in the meantime to shut yourself up at home; it is neither good for your body nor your mind. You cannot possibly have bodily health without daily exercise in the open air; and you have no reason to expect the spirit of an healthful mind unless you use the means that God has ordained. You well know faith cometh by hearing; I should therefore advise you to lose no opportunity of hearing, and trust God with the event. You are not likely to be in a more uncomfortable state than you are already. And which is the greater evil of the two, even supposing the worst Certainly your having two fits is a less evil than your losing fifty precious opportunities. O break through that fear, which is a mere snare of the devil. I commend you and yours to Him that is ready to save you in soul and body; and am, dear Alleck, Yours affectionately. To William Tunney LONDON, January 29, 1780. DEAR BILLY, - You have done well with regard to the Hymn-Book. But in the meantime do not forget the Magazine. [See letter of Jan. 16 to Lancelot Harrison.] Take every opportunity of strongly recommending this both in public and in private. All we can do is, we will have no smugglers in our Societies [See letter of March 21, 1784.]; and I think Brother Condy will convince many of them of the advantage of meeting in band. [William Tunney (who desisted from traveling in 1781) and Richard Condy were colleagues in Cornwall East.] O watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation! - I am, dear Billy, Yours affectionately. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, January 30, 1780. DEAR SAMMY, - I am glad to hear that your people love one another: then neither Mr. -- nor Mr. -- can hurt them. They may make a bustle and a noise for a season; but it will be only a nine days’ wonder. If you take up your cross, and visit all the Societies, whenever you have time, from house to house, their profiting will appear to all men; and none will be able to stand against you. Take a little pains likewise, both Brother Shadford [George Shadford, his superintendent at Norwich.] and you, in recommending the Magazine. Urge it from love to me and to the preachers; and whatever you do do it with your might. - I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. PS.-Everywhere exhort the believers to expect full salvation now by simple faith. To Penelope Newman LONDON, February 2, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER, - Honest Richard Condy was frightened out of his senses; and it is no wonder that he frightened others. There was just as much danger of our clergymen overbearing the laymen as of their eating them up. But all this hurry sprang from Alexander M’Nab. He let out the water; and who shall gather it up Take care you do not kill John Valton [Valton was at Bristol. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 78; and for M’Nab, letter of Jan. 18.] I You know he is continually striving to do more than he can do. I suppose he is somewhere in your circuit; but he did not tell me where: so that I do not know how to direct to him. I am a letter in his debt. You forgot I do not visit our Societies this year. I only touch here and there on my way to Ireland. On Monday, March 13, I hope to be at Stroud, and afterwards to call at Tewkesbury, Worcester, Evesham, and Broadmarston. This is all I can do at present. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss P. Newman, Cheltenham, Gloucester. To John Valton LONDON, February 9, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER, - From that ill-advised step of poor Brother M’Nab a smoke had issued from the bottomless pit, which darkened and has bled the minds of many as well as yours, and filled them with needless doubts and fears. I am glad you are now emerged out of that darkness, and hope you will feel it no more. I am in hope likewise that those at Bath who deeply sinned on the occasion have now humbled themselves before God; and I trust He will enable you to do far more good than you have done yet at Bath as well as at Bristol. I hope to be at Bath on Tuesday the 29th instant and at Bristol a day or two after. But I cannot and dare not suffer them to be leaders any longer who will not deign to attend the preaching. On Monday, March 13, I expect to be at Stroud; on Tuesday noon at Tewkesbury, Tuesday evening Worcester. Take care you do not preach more than your health allows. You must not offer murder for sacrifice. Pray give my kind love to Sister Newman, whom I thank for her letter, and hope to see at Stroud or Tewkesbury if it be convenient for her. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Why should you not give me a short account of the life of John Valton [See letter of April 21.]! To Mr. Valton, At Mr. Lewty’s, In Leech Street, Worcester. To Christopher Hopper NEAR LONDON, February 16, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I do not know that there is any matter of dispute between us, unless it be whether you should do what I desire or no. You are Assistant in Colne Circuit. I desire you to send me a plan of the circuit: you send me an answer, but without the plan. I write again: you send a second answer, telling me you have been very diligent for many years; and that you was the very person who introduced plans among us. Very good; but you send me no plan still, and till this comes everything else is wide of the mark. [See letters of Jan. 16 (to Lancelot Harrison) and Dec. 31.] - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Why should not you write an account of your life [Hopper lost no time. His autobiography appeared in the Arminian Mag. for Jan.-March 1781. See Wesley’s Veterans, i. 107-74.] Isaac Waldron, T. Lee, W. Brammah, &c. &c., were not ’strong and able men.’ When any such obtrude themselves for easy circuits, speak at that time, and you do something. Mr. Hopper, At the Preaching-house, In Colne, Lancashire. To Hannah Ball DORKING, February 17, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER, - There is nothing strange in a particular union of spirit between two persons who truly fear God. [She had lost her old friend Samuel Wells. See heading to letter of Feb. 24, 1779, to her.] It is not at all uncommon: within few years I have known many instances of the kind. And I see not any reason why this union should be destroyed by death: I cannot conceive it is. I have myself, since her death, found a wonderful union of spirit with Fanny Cooper [Miss Cooper, whom Wesley went to see at Donnington Park in 1742. See letter of May 17 of that year.]; and have sometimes suddenly looked on one or the other side, not knowing whether I should not see her. So you may remember Mr. De Renty says to his friends, ’To die is not to be lost: our union with each other shall hereafter be more complete than it can be here.’ And I have heard my mother say that she had many times been ’as sensible of the presence of the spirit of my grandfather as she could have been if she had seen him standing before her face.’ So Mr. Hawes is gone: I hope in peace! Let us also be ready! - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Morgan LONDON, February 20, 1780. MY DEAR MISS MORGAN, - As I know not when you have been so much upon my mind as for a day or two past, I was agreeably surprised last night at opening a letter and seeing your name. [See letters of Jan. x7, 1779, and March 13, 1781.] It is on Monday the 28th instant I purpose, if God permit, to set out from here. One day I expect to spend at Bath; and on Thursday, March z, to be at Bristol. The next morning, at eleven, if it be convenient for you, I will wait upon you. On Monday, March 13, I am to set out for Ireland. Before that time, as you are a ready learner, I may probably be able to give you all the assistance you will want in order to the understanding that little tract. And I am persuaded, whatever knowledge you acquire, you will endeavor to apply it to the noblest purposes. O let this be your continual care, to grow in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and to recover that whole image of God wherein you was created! If I can in any degree assist you in this, it will be an unspeakable pleasure to, my dear Miss Morgan, Yours most affectionately. Miss Morgan, At Waiter King’s, Esq., At Marsh, near Bristol. To William Strahan CITY ROAD, February 21, 1780. DEAR SIR, - I want to disperse among the French prisoners fifteen hundred of the tract which I send by Mr. Olivers. Shall I beg it may be printed as soon as convenient I must likewise desire of you to advise Mr. Olivers in a little affair which he is engaged in. - I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Mr. William Strahan. To Ann Bolton LONDON, February 26, 1780. MY DEAR NANCY, - Have you forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children,-Despise not the chastening of the Lord, neither faint when thou art rebuked of Him Can anything possibly occur wherein we may not say, ’This is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good’ In every circumstance we may adopt our Lord’s words, ’The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it’ In your patience possess your soul. Watch against all unprofitable reasonings. Hold that fast, whatever instruments are employed, - Sufferings are the gift of God to you! [See letters of Jan. 14 and June 22.] And they are all intended for your profit, that you may be a partaker of His holiness. I believe volatile tincture of guaiacum would ease the pain in your face. I do not remember if I mentioned it before or no. Drop a teaspoonful on a lump of sugar, and take this in a glass of fair water four times a day. But it would be likewise well to steep your feet in warm water for some minutes before you go to bed. On Monday next I am to set out for Bristol. On Monday fortnight, March 13, I hope to be at Stroud. If it be possible, let me see you there. No person will be more welcome to, dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, February 26, 1780. DEAR SAMMY, - I think you have reason to be exceeding thankful for an honest and sensible fellow laborer. [John Bredin was his colleague at Cork. See letter of Nov. 9, 1779, to him.] The good fruit of it appears already in your deliverance from that troublesome man. If your opponents cannot provoke you to return evil for evil, they can do you no harm. In patience possess ye your soul, and all those things shall work together for good. I hope to be in Dublin about the end of March, [He did not get there till April 13, I783.] and probably in Cork before the middle of May. If you are at Bristol by-and-by (to which I have no great objection), we must hire a lodging for you near the room. [See letter of April 2.] Peace be with your spirits! - I am, with kind love to Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Crosby BRISTOL, March 3, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER, - You did well to stay with Mrs. Swaine in her distress, and you certainly cannot leave her till she returns to her father. I wish Mr. Mather would immediately appoint a Women’s Class at Halifax. Many persons would meet with a woman leader, who will not meet with a man. Here and in London I have visited the Classes myself, and I do not know that I have given a band-ticket to any one who does not observe the rules of the band. That respecting Raffles in particular, I wish Mr. Mather would do just as I do herein. Sister Briscoe is a good leader, either for a band or a class. On Monday s’ennight I am to set out hence for Ireland. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride BRISTOL, March 9, 1780. DEAR TOMMY, - I take nothing ill that is meant well. Therefore I take nothing amiss in your letter, because I am fully persuaded you mean well even where you judge ill. Part of what you say I believe, part I do not. But I know you patently believe it. Still, however, you must think and let think. I must act by my own conscience, not yours. And I really have a conscience. And I labor to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man. - I am Your affectionate brother. To William Church BRISTOL, March 12, 1780. DEAR BILLY, - You should be thoroughly satisfied that the person at Neath whom you speak of lives in no known sin. If you are, you may safely readmit him into the Society. Probably I shall cross over to Dublin from Liverpool about the end of this month. [See letter of Feb. 26.] You may send the plan of the next quarter to Bristol. - I am, dear Billy, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Will. Church, At Mr. John Evans’, In Cowbridge, Glamorganshire: To William Sagar BRISTOL, March 12, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER,-To-morrow morning I am to set [forth] from hence. I expect to be in Manchester on Good Friday, at Bolton on Easter Eve, at Warrington on Easter Day, at Liverpool on Easter Monday. If I go to Ireland (concerning which I am not fully determined), I shall then set sail as soon as possible. If I do not, I shall have time to visit our friends at Colne, which would give me a particular satisfaction. If we are zealous and active, our Societies will increase; otherwise they will molder away. - I am Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] The following letter appeared in the Methodist Magazine for November 1811 with this introductory note: ’During the station of the late venerable Mr. Pawson at Bristol in 1803 and 1804 he frequently interspersed his subjects with anecdotes both pleasing and edifying, of which he had a large assortment. One Sunday afternoon, when meeting classes in the vestry of King Street Chapel, he introduced the following (which I think should be preserved) by way of encouragement to one of the members. He said a traveling preacher some years ago, while laboring under considerable dejection of mind, arising from the insinuations of the grand adversary respecting his call to the ministry, wrote to Mr. Wesley, requesting him to send a preacher to the circuit in his stead, as he believed he was out of his place. Mr. Wesley in reply immediately wrote him as follows.’ [2] John Rose was Society, Chapel, and Circuit Steward of the Sheffield Circuit from 1773 to 1805. Extracts from his account-book are given in Seed’s History of Norfolk Street Chapel, pp. 306-13. 1780. [3] The Relief Act had been passed in 1778. Wesley wrote because he had received ’more and more accounts of the increase of Popery.’ Many were grievously offended by his letter; ’but I cannot help it,’ he says: ’I must follow my own conscience.’ The Protestant Association gave him its unanimous thanks on February 17; and the Gospel Magazine says the letter was ’almost unanimously approved of’ and was ’a production of real merit.’ Father O’Leary replied to Wesley in a pamphlet of 101 pages. Wesley’s letter was afterwards published as a broadsheet. He took breakfast with O’Leary at Cork on May 1787. ’He is not the stiff, queer man that I expected, but of an easy, genteel carriage, and seems not to be wanting either in sense or learning.’ See Journal, vi. 267, vii. 274; Green’s Bibliography, No. 539; and letter of March 23. [4] Harrison died on November 17, 1806, after thirty-nine years’ itinerancy. ’To the last his zeal in the pulpit was uncommon.’ His name appears in the Deed of Declaration in 1784. [5] This letter was probably written to Thomas Taylor, then Assistant at Birstall. He says in his manuscript Journal that he learnt on January 14 that Alexander M’Nab was excluded the Connection; and ’being very uneasy on account of the expulsion, I wrote Mr. Wesley respecting it.’ M’Nab, the Assistant at Bath, objected to the Rev. Edward Smyth preaching every Sunday evening in the Methodist chapel at Bath, as Wesley had directed. There was considerable unrest, and Wesley ’informed M’Nab that as he did not agree to our fundamental rule’ (’You are to preach when and where I appoint’), he could not receive him as one of his preachers till he was of another mind. M’Nab was appointed to Sheffield in 1780. See Journal, vi. 262-3; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 304-13. [6] On June 15 Wesley visited Raithby, where Brackenbury had built a house for himself and a chapel for his family and tenants. [7] Wride in his outspoken letter had said: ’ I do not desire to be your judge, but am content for to leave you to act as in conscience you shall think yourself bound before God.’ See letter of November 1, 1779. [8] Colne was mainly indebted to William Sagar for its chapel. He was born in 1751, the son of a well-to-do cloth merchant. Whilst traveling for the business he was converted in Edinburgh. In December 1781 he married Elizabeth Halstead, of Cockdene, a lady of kindred spirit. They were faithful and earnest Methodists. He died in his fifty-ninth year. See Journal, vi. 154; B. Moore’s Wesleyan Methodism in Burnley, p. 35. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 75: 73. VOLUME 7 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 7 Events METHODISM SET ON A PERMANENT BASIS JANUARY 1, 1783, TO DECEMBER 31, 1785 This period of Wesley’s life is one of vital importance. His Ordinations for America in 1784 prepared the way for the vast extension of Methodism in the New World, whilst his execution of the Deed of Declaration secured to the Conference a legal status after his death. His letters to Asbury, to William Black, Freeborn Garrettson, and other workers show how deeply he was concerned in the transatlantic developments of Methodism. The correspondence with Charles Wesley throws light on the process by which he had been led to set apart Coke and A sbury as General Superintendents for America. The letters to Thomas Wride and Mrs. Christian in July 1785 reveal the unrest among the preachers due to the Deed of Declaration. He tells Wride: ’No contentious persons shall for the future meet in any Conference. They may dispute elsewhere if they please.’ Wride was an awkward person; but Wesley dealt with him with wonderful kindness. His letter to Henry Brooke and the correspondence with William Robarts show how ready the veteran was to acknowledge any hasty judgment of the conduct of others. His letter to his nephew Samuel is singularly tender; and so are those to Alexander Knox. The correspondence with Ann Bolton and Mary Cooke reveals his solicitude for their highest interests, and that with his preachers shows how vigilantly he fulfilled his office as the Methodist leader. The important letter to William Pitt, the young Prime Minister, exhibits his lively concern for the public well-being in critical times. PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1783 June. Visit to Holland. Aug. Illness at Bristol. Sep. The Bitstall Chapel Case. 1784 Feb. 28. Deed of Declaration executed. Sep. 1-2. Ordinations for America. Dec. 25-7. Francis Asbury ordained and set apart as General Superintendent for America. 1785 May 9. Death of Vincent Perronet. Aug. 14. Death of John Fletcher. A DELIGHTFUL OLD AGE JANUARY 2, 1786, To DECEMBER 27, 1787 In one of the early letters of this period Wesley writes, ’My business is continually increasing, so that I am obliged to hasten along.’ He found time to visit Holland and the Channel Islands, which he described as ’abundantly the pleasantest part of His Majesty’s Dominions.’ He trusted much to his tried preachers, who relieved him of many burdens, and to whom he gave the soundest advice. His chief literary work at this time was The Life of John Fletcher, which brought him into frequent correspondence with Mrs. Fletcher, ’one of the most faithful friends I have in the world.’ His own experience is given in a beautiful letter to Elizabeth Ritchie on February 24, 1786: ’I go on in an even line, being very little roused at one time or depressed at another.’ His kindness to Adam Clarke and Zachariah Yewdall was a constant source of encouragement to them. The letter to Thomas Wride in December 1786 is not less notable. Wesley had a high regard for this strange preacher, though he was keenly alive to his faults. The letters to Arthur Keene, to Ann Bolton, and others reveal his sympathy and tenderness in personal and family affliction. The correspondence with his brother deals with the relations of Methodism to the Church of England, and proves how deeply Wesley loved it. Other letters bring out his desire to cultivate happy relations with the clergy. The letter to Granville Sharp on October 11, 1787, shows how deeply he felt the disgrace and wrong of the Slave Trade; and he tells Thomas Wride that the abuse of distilled liquors was such that, ’were it in my power, I would banish them out of the world.’ Best of all, the Revival was spreading: ’There is a wonderful work of God in several parts of this kingdom; and it increases more and more.’ PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1786 Jan. 24. Hears George III’s speech in House of Lords. Mark. 26. Preaches at Madely about Fletcher. July 25. Conference begins at Bristol. Aug 8. Visits Holland; returns Sept 4. Sep. 24. Dr. Coke sails with three missionaries. Sep.-Nov. Writing John Fletcher’s Life. 1787 Jan. 8-12. Begs 200 for London poor. Mark. 2. Tea with Rev. Robert Hawker at Plymouth. Apr. 6- July 11. In Ireland. July 27. Breakfast with thirty-six of his preachers at Mr. Robert Peel’s. Hears Bolton Sunday scholars sing. July 31- Aug. 4. Confrence in Manchester. Aug 14. Visits Channel Islands; returns Sept. 6. Oct. 30. Meets Charles Simeon at Hinxworth. Dec. 10. Visits ’the celebrated waxwork’ in Spring Gardens. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 76: 74. 1780 ======================================================================== 1780 To the Editors of the ’Freeman’s Journal’ MANCHESTER, March 23, 1780. GENTLEMEN,--1. Mr. O’Leary does well to entitle his paper Remarks, as that word may mean anything or nothing; but it is no more an answer to my letter than to the Bull Uni-genitus. He likewise does wisely in prefacing his Remarks with so handsome a compliment. This may naturally incline you to think well of his judgment, which is no small point gained. 2. His manner of writing is easy and pleasant; but might it not as well be more serious The subject we are treating of is not a light one: it moves me to tears rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country-yea, for the children that are yet unborn. ’ But cannot your country be safe unless the Roman Catholics are persecuted for their religion’ Hold! Religion is out of the question. But I would not have them persecuted at all; I would only have them hindered from doing hurt. I would not put it in their power (and I do not wish that others should) to cut the throats of their quiet neighbours. ’But they will give security for their peaceable behavior.’ They cannot while they continue Roman Catholics; they cannot while they are members of that Church which receives the decrees of the Council of Constance, which maintains the spiritual power of the Bishop of Rome or the doctrine of priestly absolution. 3. This I observed in my late letter. Whoever, therefore, would remark upon it to any purpose must prove these three things: (1) that the decree of the Council of Constance, publicly made, has been publicly disclaimed; (2) that the Pope has not power to pardon sins, or to dispense with oaths, vows, and promises; and (3) that no priest has power to pardon sins. But has Mr. O’Leary proved these three points Has he proved any one of them He has, indeed, said something upon the first. He denies such a decree was ever made. 4. I am persuaded Mr. O’Leary is the first man that ever made the important discovery. But, before he is quite sure, let him look again into Father L’Abbe’s Concilia Maxima, printed at Paris in the year 1672. The last volume contains a particular account of the Council of Constance; one of whose decrees (page 169) is, ’ That heretics ought to be put to death, non obstantibus salvis conductibus Imperatoris, Regum, &c., notwithstanding the public faith engaged to them in the most solemn manner.’ Who, then, can affirm that no such doctrine or violation of faith with heretics is authorized by this Council Without putting on spectacles (which, blessed be God, I do not wear) I can read a little Latin still. And while I can I must fix this horrid doctrine on the Council of Constance. 5. But, supposing the Council of Constance had never advanced this doctrine or the Church of Rome had publicly disclaimed it, my conclusion stands good till it is proved (1) that no priest has a power of pardoning sins; and (2) that the Pope has neither a power of pardoning sins, nor of dispensing with oaths, vows, promises, &c. Mr. O’Leary has proved neither of these. And what has he proved It is hard to say. But if he proves nothing, he either directly or indirectly asserts many things. In particular, he asserts:-- (1) ’Mr. Wesley has arraigned in the jargon of the Schools.’ Heigh-day! What has this to do here There is no more of the jargon of the Schools in my letter than there is of Arabic. ’The Catholics all over the world are liars, perjurers, &c.’ Nay, I have not arraigned one of them. This is a capital mistake. I arraign the doctrines, not the men. Either defend them or renounce them. ’I do renounce them,’ says Mr. O’Leary. Perhaps you do. But the Church of Rome has never renounced them. ’He asperses our communion in a cruel manner.’ I do not asperse it at all in saying these are the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Who can prove the contrary (2) ’Mr. O’Leary did not even attempt to seduce the English soldiery.’ I believe it; but does this prove any of these three points ’ But Queen Elizabeth and King James roasted heretics in Smithfield ’ I In what year I doubt the fact. (3) ’Mr. Wesley is become an apologist of those who burned the chapel in Edinburgh.’ Is not this said purely ad movendam invidiam ’ to inflame the minds of the people’ For it has no shadow of truth. I never yet wrote nor spoke one word in their defence. ’He urged the rabble to light that fire.’ No more than he urged them to dethrone the King. (4) ’Does Mr. Wesley intend to sound Alecto’s [Alecto was one of the Furies, whose head was covered with snakes.] horn or the war-shell of the Mexicans’ All this is cruel aspersion indeed, designed merely to inflame! What I intend is neither more nor less than this--to contribute my mite to preserve our constitution both in Church and State. (5) ’They were the Scotch and English regicides who gave rise to the Irish massacre.’ ’The Irish massacre’! Was there ever any such thing Was not the whole account a mere Protestant lie Oh no! it was a melancholy truth, wrote in the blood of many thousands. But the regicides no more gave rise to that massacre than the Hottentots. The whole matter was planned several years, and executed before the King’s death was thought of. ’But Mr. Wesley is sowing the seeds of another massacre’! Such another as the massacre of Paris 6. ’Was he the trumpeter of persecution when he was persecuted himself’ Just as much as now. Cruel aspersions still! designed and calculated only to inflamed he then abet persecution on the score of conscience No, nor now Conscience is out of the question. ’His letter contains all the horrors invented by blind ’misguided zeal, set forth in the most bitter language.’ Is this gentleman in his senses I hope not. Else I know not what excuse to make for him. Not one bitter word is in my letter. I have learned to put away all bitterness, with all malice, But still this is wide of the mark; which of these three points does it prove 7. ’In his second letter he promises to put out the fire which he has already kindled in England.’ ’ Second letter’ What is that I know nothing of it. ’The fire which he has kindled in England’! When Where I have kindled no fire in England any more than in Jamaica. I have done and will do all that is in my power to put out that which others have kindled. 8. ’He strikes out a creed of his own for Roman Catholics. This fictitious creed he forces upon them.’ My words are these: ’ Suppose every word of Pope Pius’s Creed to be true.’ I say not a word more of the matter. Now, I appeal to every reasonable man, Is this striking out a creed of my own for Roman Catholics Is this forcing a fictitious creed on them, ’ like the Frenchman and the blunderer in the Comedy’ What have I to do with one or the other Is not this dull jest quite out of season And is the creed composed by the Council of Trent and the Bull of Pope Pius IV a fictitious one Before Mr. O’Leary asserts this again, let him look into the Concilia Maxima once more, and read there, Bulla Pii Quarti super forma juramenti professionis fidei [The Bull of Pius IV concerning the form of the oath on the profession of Faith]. This forma professionis fidei I call Pope Pius’s Creed, If his ’stomach revolts from it,’ who can help it 9. Whether the account given by Philip Melanchthon of the words spoken (not in Hebrew, but in Latin) be true or false, it does not at all affect the account of Miss Duchesne, which I gave in her own words [See letter of Jan. 12.]. And I cannot but observe that, after all the witticisms which he has bestowed upon it, Mr. O’Leary does not deny that the priest might have burnt her, ’had it been for the good of the Church.’ 10. ’Remark a missionary inflaming the rabble and propagating black slander.’ Remark a San Benito cap, painted with devils; but let him put it on whom it fits. It does not fit me: I inflame no rabble; I propagate no slander at all. But Mr. O’Leary does. He propagates an heap of slander in these his Remarks. I say too, ’Let the appeal be made to the public and their impartial reason.’ I have nothing to do with the ’jargon or rubbish of the Schools,’ lugged in like ’the jargon of the Schools’ before. But I would be glad if Mr. O’Leary would tell us what these two pretty phrases mean. The whole matter is this. I have without the least bitterness advanced three reasons why I conceive it is not safe to tolerate the Roman Catholics. But still, I would not have them persecuted; I wish them to enjoy the same liberty, civil and religious, which they enjoyed in England before the late Act was repealed. Meantime I would not have a sword put into their hands; I would not give them liberty to hurt others. Mr. O’Leary, with much archness and pleasantry, has nibbled at one of these three reasons, leaving the other two untouched. If he chooses to attack them in his next, I will endeavor to give him a calm and serious answer.--I am, gentlemen, Your obedient servant. To George Robinson MANCHESTER, March 25, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I do not see why Brother Norris should not have a part of what is collected on the account of sickness. I am glad to hear so good an account of poor Robert Empringham. As they desire a supernumerary preacher about Whitby, he may go into that circuit directly. I desire Mr. Peacock to put a final stop to the preaching of women in his circuit. If it were suffered, it would grow, and we know not where it would end. I hope to see you and our brethren at Boston before the summer is over. Peace be with you and yours!--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Robinson, At Langham Row, Near Alford, Lincolnshire. p class="Section1" style=" text-autospace:none"Your obedient servant./p div align="center" style="text-align:center;text-autospace:none" span class="MsoNormal"span style="MS Mincho""> To Samuel Bradburn CHESTER, April 2, 1780. DEAR SAMMY,--You stand alone. Not only all our friends in England, but all our friends in Ireland too, dissuade me from ’adventuring myself into the theatre’ [Acts xix. 29.] during the present tumult. I cannot yet determine. I wait the farther call of Providence; and am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. I doubt whether you had not better be at Liverpool than Bristol, because little children cannot be in Bristol house [See letter of Feb. 26 to him.]. In Liverpool house there is room enough. To John Valton PARKGATE, April 21, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER,-I send you herewith one of our Lord’s jewels, my dear Miss Ritchie; such an one as you have hardly seen before. But, alas! it seems she has but a short time to stay here, unless the journey should remove her consumption. Miss Marshall, her friend, is an Israelite indeed. You will assist them all you can; and so, I doubt not, will Sister Maddern. Indeed, they are worthy. I hope you are writing for me an extract from your Journal. [See letters of Feb. 9 and Oct. 1 to him.] I wish you would take another burthen upon you. Interleave one of the Primitive Physicks, and insert into it as many cheap and simple medicines as you pIease.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, At the New Room, In Bristol. e lived and sent him to paradise before his time. I do not know that this is your case. But I tell you whatever rises in my mind. I only want you to attain ia full reward.--I /ialways am, my dear Nancy,/p p class="Section1" style=" text-autospace:none"Yours most affectionately./p div align="center" style="text-align:center; text-autospace:none" span class="MsoNormal"span style="MS Mincho""> To Mrs. Crosby NEWCASTLE, May 11, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER,--Before you mentioned it, that was my purpose, not to let any one know of your writing. Therefore I do transcribe what I choose to keep and burn the originals [His wife’s conduct made Wesley anxious to afford no opportunity for misunderstanding.]. Neither must the witness supersede the fruits, nor the fruits the witness of the Spirit. Let other men talk this way or that, the word of the Lord shall stand. I believe your spending a little time at P--may be of use. Probably it will remove their prejudice against Christian perfection. But if Mr. T[aylor] has a mind to marry our friend, I think neither you nor I shall forward it. She is far happier, since she is free, so to abide. Do you find any tendency to pride Do you find nothing like anger Is your mind never ruffled, put out of tune Do you never feel any useless desire any desire of pleasure, of ease, of approbation, or increase of fortune Do you find no stubbornness, sloth, or self-will, no unbelief Certainly the more freely you speak to me the better. I found what you said in your last helpful. It is of great use to have our minds stirred up by way of remembrance, even of the things we know already. I speak of myself very little to any one, were it only for fear of hurting them. I have found exceeding few that could bear it; so I am constrained to repress my natural openness. I find scarce any temptation from any thing in the world; my danger is from persons. Oh for an heart to praise my God, An heart from sin set free! Dear Sally, adieu. To Thomas Rankin NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 29, 1780. DEAR TOMMY,--I hope the affair of Brother M’Nab need not be mentioned any more. But I should be sorry if there be any ground for that report that John Bristol is gone to the Calvinists. Betsy must be a Christian, or be in pain and weakness all her days; our Lord will not let her go. I am endeavoring to shorten all my journeys, that I may have a little time to spend in London before the Conference. My route lies: Mond. June 5, York; Mond. 12, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire; Mond. 19, Louth; Mond. 26, Doncaster, Yorkshire; Mond. July 3, Derby; Frid. 7, London.--I am, with love to Sister Rankin, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Rankin, In Artillery Court, Near Moor fields, London. To Brian Bury Collins LONDON, June 14, 1780. DEAR SIR,--Your coming to town now and then, if it were only for a day, I believe would be much for the advantage of your health, and I doubt not but that God would make it a blessing to the people, many of whom are truly alive to God, and many others are just emerging into light, being deeply sensible of their wants. If you at any time let me know two or three days beforehand, we will give notice to the congregation. But I am not half pleased with your being so far from me when you are in town. You may almost as well be at Everton as Flower-de-Lute Street; you are almost as much out of my reach, but there is no manner of necessity for it. We have rooms enough and to spare in my house [Flower-de-Lute Court was a turning off Fetter Lane. Wesley had his house by the side of City Road Chapel.] and you may be as private as you please. You need see no human creature but at meals. Besides, I do not think it has a good appearance; for a preacher to lodge anywhere but in my house seems to show some dislike or prejudice. And I am not assured that there is not a little of this in the case. I doubt you have heard strange things of the preachers; and although you could not cordially receive them, yet they made some impression upon you. But come and see, and that impression will vanish away. You will see as quiet a family as any in England, and a family every individual of which fears God and works righteousness. A few years ago the people at and around Everton were deeply alive to God and as simple as little children. It is well if you find them so now. Perhaps you may by the help of God make them so now. Mr. Hicks [William Hicks, Vicar of Wrestlingworth, four miles from Everton.] in particular was a burning and a shining light, full of love and zeal for God. I hope you will see him as often as you can, and (if need be) lift up the hands that hang down, and encourage him to set out anew in the great work and to spend and be spent therein. You have seen very little of the choicest part of London society: I mean the poor. Go with me into their cellars and garrets, and then you will taste their spirits.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Rev. Mr. Collins, At Everton, Near Biggleswade. To Ann Bolton EPWORTH, June 22, 1780. MY DEAR NANCY,--Your letters are always welcome to me. But none more welcome than your last. It gives me very much pleasure to hear both that God has delivered you from that torturing pain [See letters of Feb. 26, 1780, and Jan. 2, 1781, to her.] and that He has established your soul in His pure love and given you the abiding witness of it. I doubt you have not many in Oxford Circuit whom you can converse with on that subject. I believe the two that have the same deep experience are Hannah Ball (of High Wycombe) and Patty Chapman. I wish you could converse with them, either by writing or speaking; I think each might be profited by the other. I have been a little uneasy since I saw you for fear you should want anything. If you conceal any difficulty you are under from me, you do not use me as your friend. Would you not give me all the pleasure you can I cannot tell you how unspeakably near you are to, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Zachariah Yewdall BRISTOL, July 24, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Next year you will be in the Glamorganshire Circuit and with a fellow labourer who has the work of God at heart. If Billy Moore mentions it in time, your temporal wants will easily be supplied. Trials are only blessings in disguise. Whenever anything bears hard upon your mind, you should write freely to Your affectionate brother. To Penelope Newman BRISTOL, July 31, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER,--A letter directed to me in London will find me at any time. I trust you will never sink into Quietism (or Quakerism, which is only one mode of it). For then you would soon sink into lukewarmness; and what would come next who can tell I have not known ten Quakers in my life whose experience went so far as justification. I never knew one who clearly experienced what we term ’sanctification.’ But, indeed, their language is so dark and equivocal that one scarce knows what they do experience and what they do not. If it may be a probable means of doing good either to others or to your own soul, I think you need not scruple making an excursion of a few days for fear of giving offence. Our Conference this year will last till Friday, the 11th instant. And for the time to come (at least while I live) will always continue ten days. [Conference began in Bristol on Aug. 1. Wesley says that it was resolved to ’allow nine or ten days for each Conference’ (Journal, vi. 290).] No less time will suffice for sifting to the bottom the various points of importance that are to be considered. The hand of the Lord is not shortened either in Great Britain or Ireland. He still carries on His own work and shows Himself mighty to save.--I am, my dear Penny, Yours affectionately. To Brian Bury Collins BRISTOL, August 5, 1780. DEAR SIR,--It is not at all surprising that the Bishop, though a good man, should scruple to ordain a field-preacher; and I apprehend his brethren will neither endeavor or desire to remove his scruple, unless it should please God to touch some of their hearts and employ them to soften the rest. Perhaps that humane man may aim at a middle way--namely, to ordain you upon conditions. And if such conditions were proposed as would not entangle your conscience, I should have no objection. But in this case you will have need of all the wisdom from above, that you may yield far enough and not too far. I do not think that Presbyterian ordination would add anything to what you have already. And it seems we need not consider the matter farther till we know the Bishop’s final determination. This we know already, that He who rules over all will order all things well. To His wise disposal I commit you; and I am, dear sir, Your most affectionate brother. The Rev. Mr. Collins, At Mr. Stevens’s, High Street, Margate, Kent. To Dr. Lowth, Bishop of London August 10, 1780. MY LORD,--Some time since, I received your Lordship’s favour; for which I return your Lordship my sincere thanks. Those persons did not apply to the Society (For the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.). because they had nothing to ask of them. They wanted no salary for their minister; they were themselves able and willing to maintain him. They therefore applied by me to your Lordship, as members of the Church of England, and desirous so to continue, begging the favour of your Lordship, after your Lordship had examined him, to ordain a pious man who might officiate as their minister. But your Lordship observes, ’There are three ministers in that country already.’ True, my Lord; but what are three to watch over all the souls in that extensive country Will your Lordship permit me to speak freely I dare not do otherwise. I am on the verge of the grave, and know not the hour when I shall drop into it. Suppose there were threescore of those missionaries in the country, could I in conscience recommend these souls to their care Do they take any care of their own souls If they do (I speak it with concern!), I fear they are almost the only missionaries in America that do. My Lord, I do not speak rashly: I have been in America; and so have several with whom I have lately conversed. And both I and they know what manner of men the far greater part of these are. They are men who have neither the power of religion nor the form--men that lay no claim to piety nor even decency. Give me leave, my Lord, to speak more freely still: perhaps it is the last time I shall trouble your Lordship. I know your Lordship’s abilities and extensive learning; I believe, what is far more, that your Lordship fears God. I have heard that your Lordship is unfashionably diligent in examining the candidates for Holy Orders--yea, that your Lordship is generally at the pains of examining them yourself. Examining them! In what respects Why, whether they understand a little Latin and Greek and can answer a few trite questions in the science of divinity l Alas, how little does this avail! Does your Lordship examine whether they serve Christ or Belial whether they love God or the world whether they ever had any serious thoughts about heaven or hell whether they have any real desire to save their own souls or the souls of others If not, what have they to do with Holy Orders and what will become of the souls committed to their care My Lord, I do by no means despise learning; I know the value of it too well. But what is this, particularly in a Christian minister, compared to piety What is it in a man that has no religion ’ As a jewel in a swine’s snout.’ Some time since, I recommended to your Lordship a plain man, whom I had known above twenty years as a person of deep, genuine piety and of unblameable conversation. But he neither understood Greek nor Latin; and he affirmed in so many words that he believed it was his duty to preach whether he was ordained or no. I believe so too. What became of him since, I know not; but I suppose he received Presbyterian ordination, and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think any ordination better than none. I do not know that Mr. Hoskins had any favour to ask of the Society. He asked the favour of your Lordship to ordain him that he might minister to a little flock in America. But your Lordship did not see good to ordain him; but your Lordship did see good to ordain and send into America other persons who knew something of Greek and Latin, but who knew no more of saving souls than of catching whales. In this respect also I mourn for poor America, for the sheep scattered up and down therein. Part of them have no shepherds at all, particularly in the northern colonies; and the case of the rest is little better, for their own shepherds pity them not. They cannot1; for they have no pity on themselves. They take no thought or care about their own souls. Wishing your Lordship every blessing from the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, I remain, my Lord, Your Lordship’s dutiful son and servant. To Thomas Wride () BRISTOL, September 10, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER,--When a preacher travels without his wife, he is exposed to innumerable temptations. And you cannot travel with your wife till she is so changed as to adorn the gospel. It seems, therefore, all you can do at present is to act as a local preacher. If at any time you have reason to believe that the goods then offered to you are stolen, you cannot buy them with a safe conscience. When you have no particular reason to think so, you may proceed without scruple.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury BRISTOL, September 18, 1780. DEAR SIR, The Lord knoweth the way wherein you go; and when you have been tried you shah come forth as gold. It is true you have now full exercise for all your faith and patience; but by-and-by you will find good brought out of evil, and will bless God for the severe but wholesome medicine. I had all along a persuasion that God would deliver you, although I could not see which way it would be done (He had been ill and ’ under some severe spiritual exercises.’ See letter of Oct. 1 to Mr. Carne.); as I knew it was your desire not to do your own will, but the will of Him whose you are and whom you serve. May He still guide you in the way you should go and enable you to give Him your whole heart I You must not set the great blessing afar off because you find much war within. Perhaps tiffs will not abate but rather increase till the moment your heart is set at liberty. The war will not cease before you attain but by your attaining the promise. And if you look for it by naked faith, why may you not receive it now The cheerfulness of faith you should aim at in and above all things. Wishing you a continual supply of righteousness, peace, and joy, I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Thom NEAR BRISTOL, September 30, 1780. DEAR BILLY,--I think your reasons are good. Therefore I would not have you go to the island [The Isle of Man. Thom was Wesley’s Assistant in Whitehaven.]--at least, not till winter is over. Do all the good you can. Be exact in every point of discipline.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Mr. William Thom, Whitehaven. To John Valton BRISTOL, October 1, 1780, MY DEAR BROTHER,-I expected the state of Manchester Circuit to be just such as you have found it. But the power of the Lord is able to heal them. I fear Sister Mayer was left unemployed because she loved perfection. If you find a few more of the same spirit, I believe you will find them employment. The accommodations everywhere will mend if the preachers lovingly exert themselves. I am glad you take some pains for the new chapel. Our brother Brocklehurst will do anything that is reasonable. In one thing only you and I do not agree; but perhaps we shall when we have prayed over it: I mean the giving me an extract of your Life [See letters of April 21 and Dec. 19]. I cannot see the weight of your reasons against it. ’ Some are superficial.’ What then All are not; Brother Mather’s and Haime’s in particular. Add one to these; a more weighty one if you can. You know what to omit and what to insert. I really think you owe it (in spite of shame and natural timidity) to God and me and your brethren. Pray for light in this matter.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, At the Preaching-house, In Manchester. To Mrs. Colbeck [See Note, vol. IV. 161.] NEAR LONDON, October 12, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER,--I congratulate you, and all our friends in Keighley Circuit, on having one of the most amiable couples in our Connexion, I mean Mr. Bradburn and his wife, who after many hindrances, are I hope now in England, and will be with you as soon as possible. Perhaps before you receive this. I beg the Stewards will make every thing as convenient as they can. As he is the Assistant he is to have the upper rooms in the Preaching-house, and I am persuaded John Oliver will cordially agree with them.--I am, my dear Sister, Affectionately yours. To Mrs. Colbeck, In Keighley, Yorkshire. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, October 28, 1780. DEAR SAMMY,--I am glad you are safe landed at Keighley, and trust you will there find a port of ease From the rough rage of stormy seas, There are many amiable and gracious souls in Cork and in Dublin; but there are few in the whole kingdom of Ireland to be named, either for depth of sense or of grace, with many, very many persons in Yorkshire, particularly in the West Riding. Go to Betsy Ritchie at Otley, and then point me out such a young woman as she in Ireland. I think lemonade would cure any child of the flux. Now be exact in every branch of discipline; and you will soon find what a people you are among.--I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To William— LONDON, November 3, 1780. DEAR BILLY,--Never imagine you can be ’faithful to your trust’ without offending anybody. Regard not that; follow your own conscience without fear or favour. Do the best you can, and you do enough! ’ Angels can do no more.’--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley CITY ROAD, November 15, 1780. MY DEAR SALLY,--Some years ago, while you was at Bristol, you had a clear call from God; and you was not disobedient to the heavenly calling. But in a few months that happy impression died away, I know not how. It seems as if God was now calling you again. But you have many hindrances. This is just the dangerous time of life. If you wish not to be almost but altogether a Christian, you will have need of much courage and much patience. Then you will be able to do all things through Christ strengthening you. You want exceedingly a pious, sensible female friend. I scarce know any fit for you at your end of the town, unless it were that open, noble-spirited creature, Nancy Sharland, ’in whom is no guile.’ For the present your best helps will be prayer and reading; perhaps much in the method laid down in one of the Magazines [The Arminian Magazine.]. But you cannot pursue this without cutting off, as it were, a right hand--giving up trifling company. To give you any assistance that is in my power will always be a pleasure to Your affectionate Uncle. To Alexander Knox LONDON, November 18, 1780. MY DEAR ALLECK,--My mind is exactly the same towards you as it has been for several years; with this only difference (which is very natural), that the longer I know you the more I love you. I am not soon tired of my friends. My brother laughs at me, and says, ’ Nay, it signifies nothing to tell you anything; for whomsoever you once love you will love on through thick and thin.’... As I have frequently observed to you, I am still persuaded it is chiefly your body which presses down your soul; and if it please God to heal your body, I doubt not your mind will be far easier. I do not at all despair of seeing you an happy man, full of joy and peace in believing. Look up, and expect Him that is mighty to save.--I am, dear Alleck, Yours most affectionately. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, December 9, 1780. My DEAR SISTER,-God knoweth the way wherein you go; and when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold. I believe, if you drank nettle-tea (five or six leaves) instead of common tea, it would swiftly restore your strength. If a proper application be made to the magistrates, undoubtedly they will secure the peace. Persecution is more and more out of fashion since King George came to the throne [See letter of Dec. 20, 1777.]. But in the meantime let prayer be made continually.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mary Bosanquet LONDON, December 18, 1780. MY DEAR SISTER,--I am glad to hear that the work of God is going on in your own soul and in those about you. That young woman’s dream is very remarkable, and gives us good encouragement to press on to the mark. I believe Mr. D was the better for his journey; but he has very little fellowship with the Methodists. We have many here who have the same experience with honest George Clark, and far more clear ideas of the life of faith than he has. Such are George Hufflet in the chapel at Spiralfields, Mary Landers in the Tower, Sister Calcut in Bishopsgate Street, Sister Cayley at G. Clark’s, Jenny Thornton [See letters of April 14, 1771 (to Miss March), and Feb. 4, 1787.] and some others in the City, Sister Peters in the Curtain, Molly Monk in Moorfields, Sister Garston and Charles Wheeler in Old Street. Joseph Bradford would introduce any one you sent, to these, or to our select society. It will be well to advertise the tracts now. I remember you daily; and am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Alexander Knox LONDON, December 23, 1780. DEAR ALLECK,--You are very ingenious in finding out arguments against yourself; and if you set your wit to it, they will never be wanting. Besides, there is an old sophister, who has been puzzling causes for these six thousand years, that will always be ready to supply you with reasons for every kind of unbelief. But ’God will not give faith to the double-minded, to him who asks what he does not desire to receive. ’No, not while he is double-minded; but He will first take away your double-mindedness (perhaps while you are reading this!) and then give you the faith to which all things are possible. ’Yes, to-morrow, or at some other time.’ No time like the time present! ’ To-day, if you will hear His voice,’ He says, ’I am thy salvation.’ Why not today Is not one day with Him as a thousand years And whatever He could do in a thousand years can He not do in one day That this cannot be done without a miracle is absolutely certain. But why should not you expect that miracle This is no presumption: it is an expectation that the God of truth will not be worse than His word. He will not, Alleck! He will not! Do not imagine He will. He knows your simpleness. All your faults are before Him; and it may be the word is just now gone forth, ’ I will heal him, for My own name’s sake.’ Do not reason, but look up! Let your heart (dull and cold as it is) cry out, ’ Be it unto me according to Thy word! ’--I am Ever yours. To John Valton LONDON, December 31, 1780, MY DEAR BROTHER,--The third preacher was added for that very purpose, to give you the liberty of spending a little time wherever the work of God should call for it [The appointment in the Minutes is, ‘John Valton, George Snowden’; in 1781 Alexander M’Nab is third preacher.] You have wholly omitted one article in the plan (See letter of Feb. 16,)--the new members: of these, I suppose, you will give me an account by-and-by I doubt not but you will be able to give me a good account of all but--the rich members: perhaps of some of these too; for it is on this occasion particularly that our Lord says, ’ With God all things are possible.’--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. If you can spread the Magazines, it will do good. The letters therein contain the marrow of Christianity. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 77: 75. 1781 ======================================================================== 1781 To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 2, 1781. MY DEAR NANCY, -- It is a great step toward Christian resignation to be thoroughly convinced of that great truth that there is no such thing as chance in the world; that fortune is only another name for Providence, only it is covered Providence. An event the cause of which does not appear we commonly say ‘comes by chance.’ Oh no: it is guided by an unerring hand; it is the result of infinite wisdom and goodness. Such are all the afflictive circumstances that have followed you in a constant succession almost from your childhood. He that made the Captain of your salvation perfect through sufferings has called you to walk in the same path, and for the same end -- namely, that you may ‘learn obedience’ (more full, inward obedience, a more perfect conformity to His death) ‘by the things that you suffer.’ [See letter of June 22, 1780.] I have no objection at all to your spending a little time with our dear friends at Caerleon. [See letters of Nov. 29, 1774 (to Sarah James) and March 8, 1782.] I believe it might be a means of confirming your bodily health as well as of refreshing your spirit. And I doubt not God would by you invigorate their resolution to devote themselves wholly to Him. A little while, and He will wipe all tears from your eyes; and there shall be no more sorrow or crying; neither shall there be any more pain! but you shall hear the great voice out of heaven saying, ‘The tabernacle of God is with men; and God Himself shall be with them and be their God!’ Still love and pray for, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Brian Bury Collins LONDON, January 3, 1781. DEAR SIR, -- I had no great desire to see Lord George Gordon, [Wesley visited him at the Tower on Dec. 19, 1780. See Journal, vi. 301, for another account of their conversation.] fearing he wanted to talk to me about political matters; but when he sent a second and a third time, I wrote a line to Lord North, asking whether he had any objection to my seeing him. He answered immediately, ‘None in the world; but it lies properly with the Secretary of State.’ I then enclosed Lord North’s letter in a line to Lord Stormont, who the next day sent me a warrant to see him. In our whole conversation I did not observe that he had the least anger or resentment to any one. He appeared to be in a very desirable spirit, entirely calm and composed. He seemed to be much acquainted with the Scripture both as to the letter and the sense of it. Our conversation turned first upon Popery, and then upon experimental religion. I am in great hopes this affliction will be sanctified to him as a means of bringing him nearer to God. The theory of religion he certainly has. May God give him the living experience of it! I hope you do not drop your correspondence with Mr. Brackenbury, Perhaps he never had greater need of you. I did not expect he would receive any more good from me. I can only commend him to God. I am glad you are so agreeably situated at Macclesfield. Mr. Simpson is indeed an agreeable man. [See letter of Aug. 1, 1780.] And I know very few young women in England who are equal to Hetty Roe. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate servant. To the Rev. Mr. Collins, At the Rev. Mr. Simpson’s, In Macclesfield, Cheshire. To Edward Jackson LONDON, January 6, 1781. DEAR NEDDY, -- That is a doubt with me too whether you do right in preaching to twelve or fifteen persons. [Jackson was Assistant in the Dales in 1780-1.] I fear it is making the gospel too cheap, and will not therefore blame any Assistant for removing the meeting from any place where the congregation does not usually amount to twenty persons. You cannot be too diligent in restoring the bands. No Society will continue lively without them. But they will again fly in pieces if you do not attend to them continually. [See letter of Oct. 24, 1788.] I go to Ireland in spring. I shall not . . . otherwise I shall. Your friend and brother. To Edwal. Jackson, In Barnard Castle, County Durham. To a Friend CITY ROAD, January 25, 1781. DEAR SIR, -- Yesterday, looking over the Monthly Review for last October, at page 307, I read the following words: Sir William’s vindication [Lieut-General Sir William Howe had criticized Galloway’s Letters to a Nobleman, and cast serious reflections upon him. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 352; and letters of June 8, 1780, and Aug. 18, 1790.] (of his own conduct) is not a feeble attempt to rescue his reputation from the obloquy thrown upon it. Mr. Galloway’s book is here answered paragraph by paragraph, and several misrepresentations of important facts and circumstances proved. I cannot quite agree with this. I think (1) no unjust obloquy has been thrown upon it; (2) that his vindication is a very feeble attempt to justify his conduct; (3) that he has not answered in a satisfactory manner any one paragraph of Mr. Galloway’s book; and (4) that he has not proved any misrepresentation of any one important fact or circumstance. I think also that the account he gives of Mr. Galloway is a very feeble attempt to blacken his character; for a full confutation whereof I refer the candid reader to his own answer. As to the scurrility Sir William speaks of, I see not the least trace of it in anything Mr. G. has published. He is above it. He is no ‘venal instrument of calumny’; he abhors calumny as he does rebellion. But let him answer for himself; read only the tracts here referred to, and then condemn him if you can. -- I am, dear sir, Yours, &c. PS. -- I have been frequently attacked by the Monthly Reviewers, but did not answer because we were not on even ground; but that difficulty is now over: whatever they object in their Monthly Review I can answer in my monthly Magazine; and I shall think it my duty so to do when the objection is of any importance. To Samuel Bardsley NEAR LONDON, February 10, 1781. DEAR SAMMY, -- I did not doubt but you would agree with the people of Sheffield. [Rogers was Assistant at Sheffield, with Bardsley as third preacher.] They are a lively and affectionate people. I am glad you were so successful in your labor of love for them. That assistance was very seasonable. That misunderstanding, which was troublesome for a season, may now be buried for ever. I am perfectly well satisfied, both of the honesty and affection, both of Brother Woodcroft and Brother Birks. [Samuel Birks, of Thorpe. See for portrait of him, aged ninety-five, Methodist Mug. 1825, p. 718; and Everett’s Methodism in Sheffield.] So Satan’s devices are brought to naught. I doubt not but James Rogers and you recommend our books in every place, and the Magazines in particular, which will be a testimony for me when I am no more seen. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Zachariah Yewdull LONDON, February 10, 1781. My DEAR BROTHER, -- Brother Johns has been with me this morning. I believe you will have peace long before he gets his estate. You have now a fair prospect. It really seems as if God had inclined the hearts of the magistrates to do you justice. I know no attorney to be depended on like Mr. Bold, of Brecon. The Conference will consider the expense. Continue instant in prayer, and God will give you quietness. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON. February 20, 1781. MY DEAR NANCY, -- Yesterday I returned from a little tour through Norfolk, and had the pleasure of finding your letter. You know I feel with you and for you. But I am almost at a loss to understand what trials can sit so heavy upon you! You are with those whom you love and who love you. You have in general tolerable health. You have no husband, no children to perplex you. How came you to be so weighted down with care Think aloud, my dear, my much-loved friend. Explain yourself. Be as particular as you please. You need not fear my telling others. You have known me since you were little more than a child. Has Neddy [Her brother. See letters of May 8, 1774, and Sept. 9, 1781, to her.] no hope of getting out of his trouble Is his farm rented above its value Is it on his sake only that you grieve Or are other trials added to this By all means accept the providential invitation to Bristol. My dear Nancy, adieu. On Monday se’nnight I set out for Bath and Bristol. On Monday, March 8 [5], I hope to be at Newbury; on Monday, 15th, [Monday was March 19, and that evening he preached at Stroud, and on the 20th at Worcester. See next letter.] at Stroud; on Tuesday the x6th at Worcester. You will contrive to be with me where you can. I do not find any fault with you at present. Only I am afraid you are not careful enough of your health. Otherwise I rejoice that I have confidence in you in all things. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, February 20, 1781. DEAR TOMMY, -- I am glad to hear so good an account of Mr. Abraham. [See letters of Nov. 4, 1780, and May 8, 1781.] I hope to be at Dublin in April; and if he goes on well till then, it is not improbable he and you and I may return to England together. A few days in March (till Monday the 19th) I purpose to spend in and about Bristol. I then go slowly through Gloucestershire and Staffordshire to Manchester, which I hope to reach on March the 29th. Do all the good you can to our poor brethren in Ireland while you stay among them.~I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, March 11, 1781. MY DEAR NANCY, -- As it is not convenient for you to meet me here, I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you at Stroud on the 19th instant. I expect to be there between one and two in the afternoon. May God give us an happy meeting! -- I am, my dear friend, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Elizabeth Morgan BRISTOL, March 13, 1781. MY DEAR MISS MORGAN, -- I wonder at you; I am surprised at your steadiness. How is it possible that you should retain any regard for me when your lot is so frequently cast among them who think they do God service by saying all manner of evil of me I do not impute this to natural generosity (little good is owing to nature), but to His grace who has kept you from your infancy, and who now upholds you in the slippery paths of youth. I trust He will still enable you to be Against example singularly good. [Paradise Lost, xi. 809: ‘against example good.’] By a prudent mixture of reading, meditation, prayer, and conversation you may improve your present retirement. But you must add every day more or less exercise (as your strength permits) in the open air. And why should you not add that truly Christian diversion, visiting the poor, whether sick or well Who knows but our Lord sent you to Wotton on purpose to save some souls alive A letter which I lately received from Yorkshire informs me, ‘Our friends think Miss Ritchie is in a dying condition.’ If she continue so till I come to Manchester, I shall step over to see her. I should never think much of going an hundred miles to see either her or you. A line from you will always be acceptable to, my dear Miss Morgan, Your affectionate servant. To Miss Morgan, Rev. Rowland Hill, Wotton-under-Edge. To Mrs. Knapp BIRMINGHAM, March 25, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER,--I always loved you since I knew you; but lately more than ever, because I believe you are more devoted to God and more athirst for His whole image. [He had been at Worcester on the 20th and 21st.] I have been seriously considering your case, and I will tell you my thoughts freely. Your body frequently presses down your spirit by reason of your nervous disorder. What, then, can be done, in order to lessen at least, if not to remove it Perhaps it may be entirely removed if you can take advice. And I think you can by God’s assistance. I advise you: (1) Sleep early: never sit up later than ten o’clock for any business whatever--no, not for reading or prayer; do not offer murder for sacrifice. (2) Rise early: never lie more than seven hours, unless when you lie-in. (3) Beware of Satan transformed into an angel of light: he can hurt you no other way, as your heart is upright toward God and you desire to please Him in all things. (4) Take advice, as far as you possibly can, of Brother Knapp; two are better than one: he loves you tenderly, and God will often give him light for you! I wish you to be always full of faith and love and a pattern to all that are round about you. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Loxdale [March 27, 1781.] MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- You remind me of my dear Miss Ritchie, and seem to breathe the same spirit. Both Miss Eden and our friends at Broadmarston have spoken to me concerning you, so that I promised myself a great deal of satisfaction in conversing with you; but I find it cannot be. To-morrow we are appointed to preach at Burslem, then Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport, and Manchester, where I am to stop till Tuesday; when I go forward, God permit, to Chester, Liverpool, and Ireland. As we cannot yet have an opportunity of being together, I wish you would write freely. Your heart is toward me as mine is toward thee: there need be no reserve between us. I hope you will always ‘think aloud’ whenever you speak or write to me. -- My dear Miss Loxdale, Yours in tender affection. To Lancelot Harrison MANCHESTER, March 31, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- That should be always upon your mind, to carry the gospel into new places. There is room still for enlarging our borders, particularly in Holderness. I am in doubt whether anything will much avail Sister Harrison till she takes the quicksilver and aqua sulphurata. But John Floyd [Floyd, then preacher at Birstall. See letter of March 15, 1777.] tells me elixir of vitriol does just as well as the aqua sulphurata. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley MANCHESTER, March 31, 1781. MY DEAR SALLY, -- The expression of ‘eating and drinking unworthily’ has one, and only one, meaning affixed to it by St. Paul, who is the only inspired writer that uses that expression. He means by it that particular sin of which the Corinthians were then guilty -- the snatching one before another his own supper, so that one was hungry and another was drunken. Now, it is certain you are in no danger of this any more than of committing murder. Deadness, coldness, wandering thoughts of various kinds are totally distinct from it. And now, when the worst of these occur, you may answer with pious Kempis, ‘Go, go, thou unclean spirit. These are not my thoughts but thine, and thou shalt answer for them to God.’ [Imitation, 111. vi.] God is now aiming, in all His dealings with you, to bring you to a knowledge of yourself as one in whom by nature dwells no good thing. And this He is particularly pursuing when you approach His Table. Were He to give you at that time remarkable joy or sweetness, it would not answer His design; neither were He to give you much contrition and brokenness of heart. Therefore He leaves you in great measure to your own dull, unfeeling heart, that you may know yourself in order to know Him. But nevertheless this is the way; walk thou in it, and in due time you shall reap if you faint not. But you must needs have some companions in the way; for how can one be warm alone [See letter of Nov. 15, 1780.] I wish you to be acquainted with Miss Johnson, [ Mary Johnson. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 504; and letter of April 12.]’ who lodges in Oxford Street at No. 368, and meets in Mrs. Thackeray’s class. She is deeply mourning after God, whom she once knew and loved. She is of a tender, sensible temper; and I am certain your spirits would quickly take acquaintance with each other. You want a friend of your own sex and nearly your own age, and I know not one in London that would fit you better. I pray God that you may resolutely choose Him for your portion; and am, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Joseph Benson MANCHESTER. April 2, 1781. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Although our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience that we walk in simplicity and godly sincerity, this no way contradicts, ‘God forbid that we should glory save in the cross of Christ.’ In all, and after all, His passion alone, the foundation we own; And pardon we claim, And eternal redemption, in Jesus’s name. How admirably pardon and holiness are comprised in that one word ‘grace’! Mercy and strength! So are our justification and sanctification woven together. I hope your sermons will do good. But why do not you publish your poems I think you can make verses as fast as John Murlin [Murlin was his colleague at Leeds, and published this year his Sacred Hymns on Various Subjects.]; yea, indeed, if need were, stans pede in uno. [Standing on one foot, or standing at ease. See Horace’s Satires, iv. 10.] I commend Sister Benson for her care of her mother. One can never do too much for a parent. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Clarkson NEAR CHESTER, April 5, 1781. MY DEAR MISS CLARKSON, -- Mr. Floyd [John Floyd. See letter of March 31.] informs me that you had sent me a letter, and wondered that I did not answer. You might well wonder, for it is a rule with me to answer every letter I receive. It would be particularly strange if I had not answered you, because I have so peculiar a regard for you. I love you because I believe you are upright of heart and because you are a child of affliction. I felt a near union of [heart] with you when I saw you last. I love to hear of you and to hear from you. Mr. Floyd tells me you have finished. the Six Letters; if you have, I shall be glad to see them. He tells me, too (if I understand him right), that you are attempting to turn the Death of Abel into verse. This will be an heavy work, such as will require a deal of time and patience. Yet if you begin, I trust our Lord will give you resolution to bring it to a conclusion. If I live to return to England, [He was not able to go to Ireland. See letter of Feb. 20.] I shall hope for the pleasure of a farther acquaintance with you. Wishing you an heart wholly devoted to God, I remain, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Miss Clarkson, At Mr. Francis Scot’s, In Wakefield, Yorkshire. To Samuel Bradburn CHESTER, April 7, 1781. DEAR SAMMY, -- I advise Betsy every morning to swallow very gently a spoonful or two of warm water as soon as she rises. I believe this will ease her morning cough. And I advise her every night, when she lies down, to put a little stick licorice (scraped like horse-radish) between her gum and the cheek that lies uppermost. This will suspend the evening cough for half an hour or more. Then she may spit it out. But she must needs add daily exercise, which (till she is stronger) should be that of a wooden horse -- that is, a long plank suspended on two tressels. Now, Sammy, for almighty faith! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Valton WARRINGTON, April 9, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As I have. made a beginning, as the men and women are already separated in the chapel at Manchester, I beg that Brother Brocklehurst [See letter of Oct. 1, 1780, to Valton.] and you will resolutely continue that separation. This is a Methodist rule, not grounded on caprice, but on plain, solid reason; and it has been observed at Manchester for several years: neither upon the whole have we lost anything thereby. By admitting the contrary practice, by jumbling men and women together, you would shut me out of the house; for if I should come into a Methodist preaching when this is the case, I must immediately go out again. But I hope this will never be the case; I think you have more regard for Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, at the Preaching-house, Manchester. In his absence to be given to Mr. Brocklehurst. To Hester Ann Roe LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1781. MY DEAR HETTY, -- Many of our brethren and sisters in London, during that great outpouring of the Spirit, [In 1762. See Works, xi. 406.] spoke of several new blessings which they had attained. But after all, they could find nothing higher than pure love, on which the full assurance of hope generally attends. This the inspired writings always represent as the highest point; only there are innumerable degrees of it. The plerophory (or full assurance) of faith is such a clear conviction that I am now in the favor of God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning it. The full assurance of hope is such clear confidence that I shall enjoy the glory of God as excludes all doubt and fear concerning this. And this confidence is totally different from an opinion that ’no saint shall fall from grace.’ It has no relation to it. Bold, presumptuous men often substitute this base counter in the room of that precious confidence. But it is observable the opinion remains just as strong while men are sinning and serving the devil as while they are serving God. Holiness or unholiness does not affect it in the least degree. Whereas, the giving way to anything unholy, either in life or heart, clouds the full assurance of hope; which cannot subsist any longer than the heart cleaves steadfastly to God. I am persuaded the storm which met us in the teeth and drove us back was not a casual but a providential thing; therefore I lay aside the thought of seeing Ireland at present. [See letters of Feb. 20 (to Thomas Rutherford) and April 12.] -- I am, my dear Hetty, Always yours in tender affection. To his Niece Sarah Wesley LIVERPOOL, April 12, 1781. DEAR SALLY, -- In an hour or two I expect to embark, the wind being just come fair [See previous letter and that of May 8.]; so I snatch time to write two or three lines, whether I should live to write to you again or no. Almost every one that begins to observe that strange truth, ‘The whole world lieth in the wicked one,’ feels the natural wish, Oh that I had the wings of a dove, that I might flee away from it and be at rest! But it is not a wilderness that can give rest any more than a populous city. ‘God hath made our heart for Himself, and it cannot rest till it resteth in Him.’ [St. Augustine’s Confessions, i.] You want only that one point, love--to love Him because He first loved us. And who knows how soon you may find this For the kingdom of God is at hand! What if it should be opened in your heart to-day, while you are reading this Miss Johnson [Mrs. Edwards had a famous school in Lambeth. See Journal, vi. 218, vii. 344; and letter of March 31 to his niece.] writes me word that she is flown away. She is removed to Westminster. She is now one of the teachers in Mrs. Edwards’s boarding-school; but if I see London again, I shall bring you acquainted. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am, dear Sally, Affectionately yours. To Ann Loxdale CHESTER, April 15, 1781. I snatch a few moments to write to my dear Miss Loxdale, although I have not time to write as I would. [See letter of March 27.] The trials which you have lately undergone were all instances of the goodness of God, who permitted them merely for your profit, that you might be the more largely the partaker of His holiness. You know our blessed Lord Himself as man ‘learned obedience by the things that He suffered’; and the last lesson which He learned upon earth was that ‘Father, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ Never imagine, my dear friend, that your letters to me can be too frequent or too long -- I may add, or too free. Nothing endears you to me so much as your artless simplicity. I beg you would always write just what you feel without disguise, without reserve. Your heart seems to be just as my heart. I cannot tell that I ever before felt so close an attachment to a person I had never seen. Surely it is the will of our gracious Lord that there should be a closer union between you and Yours in tender affection. To Thomas Rutherford CARMARTHEN, May 8, 1781. DEAR TOMMY, -- You do well to break up fresh ground. We are ‘sent to disciple all mankind.’ If Mr. Abraham continues as he is, I shall be glad after a while to have him nearer me. [See letters of Feb. 20, 1781 (to Rutherford), and Feb. 20, 1782.] After tossing up and down two days and two nights in a violent storm, finding it impossible to proceed, our captain was glad to take shelter in Holyhead harbor. I believed it to be the hand of God, and was content. So I give over the hope of seeing Dublin for the present; but I do not despair of seeing Londonderry within this month, if I should find an opportunity of getting over to the Isle of Man two or three weeks hence.--I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. I expect to be at Whitehaven before the end of this month. To John Bredin MANCHESTER, May 17, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Two days and two nights we were buffering the waves, with the furious wind right ahead. We then with difficulty got into Holyhead harbor; and finding the wind continued as it was, we saw Providence was against us, and turned back to England. I am now going to the Isle of Man, and may very possibly step over from thence to Ulster. [See previous letter.] You should continue electricity as often as you have opportunity, and use as frequently as possible the diet drink [The drink was made of half a pound of fresh shaved lignum vitae with half an ounce of senna. See Primitive Physick, No. 178; and for electrical treatment, letter of July 13, 1774, to Ann Bolton.] in the Primitive Physick under that title ‘For Scorbutic Sores’; I believe it will dry up that humor gently and very safely. If Providence brings me to Ireland, I shall not fail to let you know as soon as I am landed. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. Bredin, At Mr. Danl. Keeling’s, In Athlone, Ireland. To Joseph Benson WARRINGTON, May 21, 1781. DEAR JOSEPH. -- As I have not leisure myself, I am exceeding glad that you have entered into the lists with Mr. Atkinson. And I am in hopes you will ’ reply at large’ to all his cavils and objections. If he cites anything from me, you should answer simply, ‘I never undertook to defend every sentiment of Mr. Wesley’s. He does not expect or desire it. He wishes me and every man to think for himself.’ If you remember, I do not insist on the term ‘impression.’ I say again, I will thank any one that will find a better; be it ‘discovery,’ ‘manifestation,’ ‘deep sense,’ or whatever it may. That some consciousness of our being in favor with God is joined with Christian faith I cannot doubt; but it is not the essence of it. A consciousness of pardon cannot be the condition of pardon. But I am still more glad that you have some thoughts of answering that pernicious book of poor Mr. Madan. Analyse it first with the postscript; then overturn it thoroughly from the beginning to the end. You may steer between the extremes of too much roughness and too much smoothness. And see that you are plain enough for women and pretty gentlemen. I allow you an hundred pages. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Benson WARRINGTON, May 21, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER,--As you are now one of my family, and indeed by a nearer tie than when you were only a member of the Society, I rejoice in doing you any service or giving you any satisfaction that I can. I therefore take the first opportunity of acquainting you that I will appoint Mr. Benson for Leeds the ensuing year. [That means for a second year.] I trust he will be more useful there than ever, and I doubt not but you will strengthen his hands in God. If you desire anything of me that is in my power, you may be assured it will not be refused by, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. PS. -- I am now going to Whitehaven. To Mary Bishop WARRINGTON, May 21, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I have wrote to Mr. Pawson, [The Assistant at Bristol.] and am in hopes that Keynsham will be neglected no more. I did not expect you would meet with any trial of this kind; but it is well to be prepared for all. When Molly Maddern taught a few children at Kingswood, [John Maddern was English master at Kingswood School in 1760.] I saw a truly Christian school. To make the children Christians was her first care; afterwards they were taught what women need to learn. I saw another Christian school at Leytonstone, under the care of Miss Bosanquet. I do not remember I discovered any defect either in the former or the latter; I observed nothing done which I wished to be omitted, nothing omitted which I wished to have done. May I speak without reserve I verily think I may. I hoped to see a third Christian school at Publow [The Owens’ School. See Journal, vi. 335-6; and letter of July 17 to Miss Bishop.]; and I did so for a season. But I cannot say that for some years it has quite answered my expectations. ‘What, then, was the matter’ I can hardly tell. I do not know how to express it. I did not see the simplicity which I saw at first. More of the world seemed to be crept in. Good breeding I love; but how difficult is it to keep it quite clear of affectation and of a something which does not well agree with that mind which was in Christ! I want your children to be trained up quite in the manner that Miss Bosanquet’s were. Although they were very genteel, yet there was something in their whole manner which told you they belonged to another world. Mrs. Castleman [See letter of Aug. 4, 1775.] was one of Molly Maddern’s scholars. You see, she is genteel; yet she is a Christian. Make Christians, my dear Miss Bishop, make Christians! Let this be your leading view. Make such Christians as Miranda, [Law’s Serious Call, chap. viii.: ‘A sober, reasonable Christian.’ ‘She thinks that the trying herself every day by the doctrines of Scripture is the only possible way to be ready for her trial at the last day.’] as Miss Ritchie; such as Miss March was l Let everything else which you teach be subordinate to this. Mind one thing in all! Let it be said of the young women you educate, Grace was in all her steps, heaven in her eye, In all her gestures sanctity and love. [Milton’s Eve, Paradise Lost, viii. 488-9: ‘In every gesture dignity and love.’] But what power do you want to execute this! Ask, and it shall be given you! May you not have the earnest of it this moment -- I am, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss Bishop, At her Boarding School, In Keynsham, Near Bristol. To John Atlay WHITHAVEN, May 26, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I prepared the new edition of the Primitive Physick for the press before I left London. It lies in the corner of the upper drawer of my bureau. I have placed all the additions exactly. See that they be not displaced. If I do not step over to Ireland from the Isle of Man, I call at York; otherwise not. You see, God will work if we do not struggle out of His embrace; and the more labor the more blessing. I think the ’Instructions for comforting Afflicted Consciences’ in the eighth volume of the [Christian] Library are excellent. I believe Robert Bolton [See letter of Oct. 14, 1757.] there answers all your questions: (1) None have a right to say their sins are forgiven if they have not faith in Christ; and (2) None that has faith in Christ need doubt of this. But they will doubt if they have but little faith. In these faith is but a glimmering light; yet we must not discourage them. Perhaps it is to them especially St. John says, ‘These things have I written unto you, that ye may know (most assuredly) that ye have eternal life,’ without all doubt and fear. (3) Faith may subsist for a time with very little joy, especially if there was little sorrow before. (4) It is very possible to mistake joy for faith, and then certainly we shall trust in joy instead of Christ. (5) The promises are the most strengthening and comforting truths in all the oracles of God; particularly (to believers in Christ) the promises of full sanctification. They are designed for this very thing, to strengthen the weak and to comfort the feeble-minded. -- I am Your affectionate brother. You may direct your next hither. To Mr. Atlay, In the City Road, London. To Zachariah Yewdull WHITEHAVEN, May 26, 1781. DEAR ZACHARY, -- You should always write to me without reserve. I observe nothing much amiss in your behavior. Truth and love you may hold fast, and courtesy will increase insensibly. Godfathers promise only that they ‘will see the child be taught, as soon as he is able to learn, what he ought to do in order to this soul’s health.’ And this it is certain they may perform. You did not read that little tract [Serious Thoughts concerning Godfathers and Godmothers. See Works, x. 506-9; Green’s Bibliography, No. 157.] with sufficient care, otherwise you could not but have seen this. I commend you for being exceeding wary with respect to marriage. St. Paul’s direction is full and clear: ‘If thou mayest be free, use it rather.’ ‘Art thou loosed from a wife Seek not a wife.’ [See letter of Dec. 7, 1782.] Two of our small tracts you should read with much prayer -- Thoughts on a Single Life and A Word to Whom it may Concern. You need not be backward to write when you have opportunity. There is no fear of my thinking your letters troublesome. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Hall WHITEHAVEN, May 28, 1781. DEAR MATTY, -- There is hardly a father in England that can furnish three persons who after so many years are so young as my brother and you and me. Line out our lives to His glory. [Haliburton. See Journal, vi. 318n.] To his Niece Sarah Wesley WHITEHAVEN, May 28, 1781. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Here I am, waiting for a passage to the Isle of Man. Which way I shall steer from thence I know not. But I believe Providence will direct me either to the North of Ireland or to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In taking away your expectation of worldly happiness God has been exceeding gracious to you. It is good for you that you have seen affliction and been disappointed of your hope. The removal of Mr. Waller into a better world may be another blessing to you: as is everything which disengages us from transient things and teaches us to five in eternity. If we were first to resign our will to God in order to be in favor with Him, our case would be desperate: nay, but you shall first be conscious of His favor, and then be resigned to Him. First, believe! Christ died for you. He bore your sins. He loves you freely. Come, take Him! His favor! His peace! His love! But without money, without price! Leave all you have and are behind I Then all things are ready. Why not now -- I am, my dear Sally, Yours in tender affection. To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London. To Ann Loxdale DOUGLAS, ISLE OF MAN, June 10, 1781. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- I had much hope that at my last return to Shrewsbury [Where Miss Loxdale’s father, Joseph Loxdale, lived.0] I should have seen you. But we are in the hands of Him who knows what is best for every one that trusts in Him; and if our meeting be hindered for a season, when those hindrances are removed it will be the more blessed to us. That man of God, Gregory Lopez, observes of himself that the large manifestations of God with which he was favored at first overpowered his body and nearly suspended his under-standing--nay, took away the use of his senses; but that after a time they neither interrupted the one nor the other, nor disturbed the operation of any of his faculties. I think, if those manifestations which you had had been continued, the case would have been the same with you; they would no longer have overwhelmed you as they did at first, but have flowed with a calm, even stream. Many years since, Madame Bourignon’s Works were put into my hands, particularly the treatises you mention, and her Exterior and Interior Life, written by herself. It was easy to see that she was a person dead to the world and much devoted to God; yet I take her to have been very many degrees beneath both Mr. De Renty and Gregory Lopez; nay, I do not believe she had so much Christian experience as either David Brainerd or Thomas Walsh. What makes many passages, both in her life and writings, so striking is that they are so peculiar; they are so entirely her own, so different from everything which we have seen or read elsewhere. But this is in reality not an excellence, but a capital defect. I avoid, I am afraid of, whatever is peculiar, either in the experience or the language of any one. I desire nothing, I will accept of nothing, but the common faith and common salvation; and I want you, my dear sister, to be only just such a common Christian as Jenny Cooper was. [See letter of June 25, 1782; and for Jane Cooper, that of Sept. 1765.] The new expressions of Madame Bourignon [Antoinette Bourignon (1616-80), the French Mystic. For Wesley’s translation of ‘Come, Saviour, Jesus, from above,’ see Telford’s Methodist Hymn-Book Illustrated, pp. 311-12.] naturally tended to give you a new set of ideas. They would surely set your imagination at work, and make you fancy wonderful things; but they were only shadows. I cannot doubt in the least but either Mr. ----- or you or your sister has experienced more of the life of faith and deeper communion with the Father and the Son than ever she did in her life. As I apprehend your mind must be a little confused by reading those uncommon treatises, I wish you would give another deliberate reading to the Plain Account of Christian Perfection; and you may be assured there is no religion under heaven higher or deeper than that which is there described. But it is certainly possible to have your mind as well as your heart continually stayed upon God. This you did experience for some time, and you should be continually expecting to receive it again. ‘Ask, and it shall be given’: For all the promises are sure To persevering prayer. I wrote to Mr. Fletcher some time since, [Fletcher had written to Miss Bosanquet a letter about marriage, which she received on June 8. That accounts for the delay in his reply to Wesley; to whom he wrote, however, on June 24. Fletcher had begun a correspondence with Miss Loxdale in May. See Wesley’s Designated Successoro p. 463; and letter of June 27.] and wonder I have had no answer. I hope you will always write without reserve, my dear Miss Loxdale, to Your truly affectionate. To Samuel Bradburn NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 16, 1781. DEAR SAMMY, -- Brother Sharp’s proposal is reasonable; I have no objection at all to it. We have no supernumerary preachers: except John Furz, who is so from old age. If John Oliver lives till the Conference, and desires it, I suppose he may be upon the same footing. The more exercise he uses, winter or summer, the more health he will have. I can face the north wind at seventy-seven better than I could at seven-and-twenty. But if you moan over him, you will kill him outright. John Booth is fixed in his own circuit. A word in your ear! I am but half pleased with Christopher Hopper’s proceedings. I do not admire fair-weather preachers. You must stop local preachers who are loaded with debt. There are few healthier places in England than Keighley. Neither Dublin nor Cork is to compare to it. But have a care, or you will kill Betsy! Do not constrain God to take her away! -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Harper NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 16, 1781. DEAR JOSEPH, -- The contrary [winds continued] so long that I am [much behind] in my plan. I did [not reach this plaice till an hour or [two ago, and mus]t not leave it before [Sunday the 24th. In] consequence of this [I preach in York] on Wednesday the 27th and a[t Selby on Thur]sday 28. On Friday [the 29th (I hope to re]ach) Thorne, and preach [at noon, and Cro]wle evening, Epwor[th also; and if I] can, at Upperthorpe a[nd at Misterton]. Your affection[ate friend and brother]. To Ambrose Foley NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 19, 1781. DEAR SIR, -- I am glad Mrs. Foley and you join hand in hand, striving together for the hope of the gospel. Undoubtedly your way will lie through honor and dishonor, through evil report and good report. But I trust you will not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ, the power of God unto salvation. He that shall come will come, and will not tarry; and He will bruise Satan under your feet. It may be I shall be able about the middle of August to spend one night at Birmingham. Fight on and conquer! -- I am, with love to Mrs. Foley, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Ambrose Foley, At Quinton, Near Birmingham. To William Tunney LONDON, June 22, 1781. DEAR BILLY, -- I am glad Sister Webb found grace at the last. It was objected to the preaching (1) that few attended yet; (2) that it interfered with the church service. If so, it is best to let it drop. Talk with Brother Walker about building at Newport. There seems a probability of doing good in the Isle, if all of you set your shoulders to the work. Ask John Walker why he did not consult you concerning the building, which he ought to do in everything. Let no more, however, be bought than absolutely necessary. The more labor the more blessing! -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Tunney, At the Preaching-house, Sarum. To Jeremiah Brettell THIRSK, June 26, 1781. DEAR JERRY, -- Direct your answer to London. I agreed with William Redstone to finish the work for threescore pounds. I thought I had sent fifty of it, and have some thirty-five to remain. Beside the hundred pounds which I shall procure from the Conference, I purpose giving another hundred out of my own pocket. I think they would ride a free horse to death. Speak plain to Brother Ward and Foster, [Henry Foster, admitted on trial in 1780, was the fourth preacher in Cornwall East. See letter of June 22, 1785; and for Nathaniel Ward, that of Oct. 12, 1780.] and tell them from me, ‘Unless you can and will leave off preaching long, I shall think it my duty to prevent your preaching at all among the Methodists.’ -- I am, dear Jerry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Brettell, At Mr. Walter’s. Hatter, In Plymouth. To his Brother Charles THIRSK, June 27, 1781. DEAR BROTHER, -- This is the last day of my seventy-eighth year; and (such is the power of God) I feel as if it were my twenty-eighth. [The original is endorsed by Charles, ‘B[rother], July 27, 1781. Young as at 28.’] My Journal is ready for Joseph [Joseph Bradford, his traveling companion.] to transcribe. I wonder why it is that we hear nothing from Madeley. [See letter of June 10.] Sure, prejudice has not stepped in, or Calvinism! I find no fault with your answer to the gentlemen. But you must expect they will reply (at least in their hearts), Hic nigrae succus loliginis! [Horace’s Satires, I. iv. 100: ‘the juice of the black cuttlefish.’] Nay, perhaps they will find, ‘You are .inclined to Popery!’ Next Saturday I expect to be at Epworth, the second at Boston, the third at Sheffield. I take the opportunity of a broken year to visit those parts of Lincolnshire which I have not seen before but once these twenty years. From several I have lately heard that God has blessed your preaching. See your calling! Cease at once to work and live! Peace be with all your spirits! To Hannah Ball THORNE, June 28, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Is it not a true saying (though in an Apocryphal writer) that ‘a friend is made for adversity’ If, then, you found ‘troublesome times,’ [Her journal for 1781 speaks of ‘painful trials’ and ‘many bitters.’ See letter of Nov. 17.] were not those the very times when you should have wrote to me Perhaps the troubles then would have soon been over, which for want of this lasted so much longer. If you do not love all the children of God, you are wrong; but it is also wrong to love them all equally. We ought to love with a far more endeared affection those to whom we are united in Christian fellowship, even though ten to fifty of these walk unworthy their profession or even draw back as a dog to his vomit. Let each of these bear his own burden. But do not love the rest ever the less, for His sake. If you judge it would be a means of easing or strengthening your mind, you may tell me what has tried you. You know I love you and put the best construction upon every word you say. See that you be not weary of well doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not! -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Hall THORNE, NEAR EPWORTH, June 29, 1781. DEAR PATTY,--I should have been at Epworth to-night, but our friends here interrupted me. Now, if you was but with me, I could show you Crowle and Belton and the great sycamore-tree and my father’s tomb. But since an hundred and fifty miles lie between us, we must be content. It is well if Robert Lee [Boswell mentions Mrs. Hall as one of the company at dinner at Dr. Johnson’s on Easter Sunday, April 15, 1781. Robert Lee told Wesley on Feb. 5, 1763, that he should stay in the London Society no longer. See Journal, v. 5.] does not turn poor Mrs. Sherriff’s head! It is no wonder she wears an high cap now. To be sure he tells her how well she looks! and how pretty she is! And how can she be so uncivil as not to believe him However, you did well to take her out of his hands. I am surprised that you could not find a lodging near the City Road. A little while, and we shall need none of these lodgings. I do not expect to see London before my usual time. -- I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate friend and Brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Yewdall was now in Swansea, and had a difficult task in hand. Hugh Bold, the first Methodist Steward at Brecon, was four times bailiff of the town. Lady Huntingdon proposed that the chapel in Free Street on the left side of the road leading to Watton should be reserved for the use of her students at Trevecca; but Bold at once secured it for the Methodists. Wesley had given 48o towards building it, and for nearly twenty years he and his preachers supplied it. See Wesley’s Veterans, iii. 229-30; Young’s Methodism in Wales, pp. 135-6. [2] Wesley on March 30 opened Oldham Street Chapel, Manchester, on the site now occupied by the Central Hall. He set sail for Ireland on April x2, but was driven into Holyhead by storms. [3] While staying with Rowland Hill at Wotton-under-Edge, Miss Morgan wrote to Miss Ritchie in April: ‘Mr. Wesley writes me word that he wishes you to husband the little strength you have more than you do.’ Miss Ritchie had returned from the Hot Wells, Bristol, still infirm in health. See Bulmer’s Memoirs, pp. 84-5; and letter of February 20, 1780. [4] Wesley had preached at Pebworth on March 22. The Edens of Broadmarston lived a mile away, and were Wesley’s intimate friends. Henry Eden’s son, the Rev. Thomas Eden, Vicar of Ilminster, had married the eldest sister of Miss Ann Loxdale. Ann married Dr. Thomas Coke in i8ix, but died a year afterwards. She belonged to a good family in Shrewsbury, and was zealous in good works. She had been a Methodist upwards of thirty years. See W.H.S. v. 96. [5] At the Bristol Conference in August 1780 a committee was appointed to consider charges made by Dr. Coke that Benson held Arian views. The members were clearly of opinion that the charge was not proved. Coke offered to ask Benson’s pardon before all the preachers, and they shook hands together. Benson wrote to thank Wesley ‘for the manner in which you behaved to me at the last Conference; and I am also indebted to many of my brethren for the favorable construction they put upon my sentiments and the Christian moderation they manifested towards me.’ He spoke of the opportunity to preach ‘on the Lord’s Day, often, to thousands. If I did not labor to improve such happy occasions for advancing the kingdom of Christ, I should expect to see my candlestick removed out of its place, and myself cut off from the true vine as an unfruitful branch and cast into the fire of endless torments -- punishment I should richly deserve.’ In his Journal for April 5 Benson refers to Luther’s works, and adds: ‘It is, by the grace of God, more than ever my intention to direct my preaching this way; fearing in time past I have insisted, not indeed too much upon holiness, but too little upon that faith which alone produceth holiness.’ See manuscript Life, pp. 1072, 1122. [6] Miss Clarkson married Mr. Tapp, an Independent minister, and died a few months later, on October 6, 1781, aged twenty-six. ‘She was always delicate.’ The Death of Abel (1758), an idyllic heroic prose poem then popular, was by Solomon Gessner (1730-88), the Zurich bookseller, poet, engraver, and painter. Wesley read it on November 6, 1762. Gessner also published a series of letters on landscape painting. See Journal, iv. 538; W.H.S. iv. 16, 136. [7] Bradburn’s Journal for February 28, 1781, shows how anxious he was about his wife: ‘I am confounded and miserable to see her so weak; but what can helpless love do I would lay down my life to rescue hers. O Lord, if ever Thou didst hear me, hear me now, and spare her to me, for Christ’s sake.’ He writes cheerfully on March 31 about her restoration. See Memoirs, p. 80. [8] Wesley sailed for Ireland from Liverpool on April 12; but the vessel was driven into Holyhead by a violent storm. He took the opportunity to visit those parts of Wales which he could not see in the ordinary course, and on May 30 crossed over to Douglas. He did not get to Ireland till 1783. See Journal, vi. 312-22; and letter of April 12. [9] On February 1 Benson began a letter to Myles Atkinson, a clergyman at Leeds, on Justifying Faith. They had discussed the subject at Benson’s house. Atkinson regarded this faith as a complex principle including a measure at least of love and holiness. The assurance of pardon he thought lay rather in the new character and blessed fruits wrought by the Spirit’s operations than in that direct witness of the Spirit followed by His fruits, for which Benson contended. See manuscript Lifr, p. 1116; and for Atkinson, Journal, vi. 233n. Benson’s Journal shows that between May 12 and 31 he had been reading Madan on Polygamy. He thought ‘his reasoning very fallacious.’ ‘Upon the whole, I fear it is a pernicious book, and will do much hurt.’ Benson’s criticisms appeared in the Arrninian Magazine for 1783-4, in twenty-four parts. For Wesley’s approval of his reply, see letter of March 30, 1782. [10] She had married one of Wesley’s ablest and most trusted preachers, and this welcome into the family must have given her much pleasure. See letter of December 29, 1779. [11] Atlay was the Book Steward. The twentieth edition of Primitive Physick was published by Paramore in 1781. The little chapel at Lonan, near Laxey, Isle of Man, has a memorial tablet over the door stating that Wesley preached there in 1781. [12] Elizabeth Gwynne, Mrs. Charles Wesley’s sister, married James Wailer, lace merchant, of London, on December 4, 1750. Their son, Thomas Waller, died on May 11, 1781, in his thirtieth year. See Charles Wesley’s memorial verses in his Journal, ii. 403-6: A daily death through life he died, In weakness, weariness, and pain, By many a sharp affliction tried, His faith did every cross sustain. [13] Hopper was at Colne, and Booth in Cornwall West. Oliver was at Epworth, and at the Conference of 1781 became Bradburn’s colleague at Bradford. Furz (born in 1717) was a supernumerary at Leicester, and Jacob Rowell at Yarm. [14] This fragment of a letter was sent by Dr. J. A. Faulkner, of Drew Theological Seminary. The words enclosed in brackets are an attempt to supply the missing portion, the right-hand side of the original having been torn away. Harper at the time was Assistant at Epworth. [15] On March 18, 1778, Foley had invited Wesley to preach at Quinton, where he had for some years frequently read Wesley’s Sermons to a considerable company. Wesley preached there on March 24, 1781. See Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, April I9o2; W.H.S. v. 92-3; and letters of February 26, 1782, and February 24, 1783. [16] Tunney was the Assistant at Salisbury, and Walker the third of the four preachers. Wesley opened the chapel in Town Lane, Newport, on October 10, 1781. The site cost 107 11s. 6d.; the building, 465 1s. 10d. Wesley gave 10; and other contributions, &c., raised the total to 129 15s. 2d. There had been a Methodist Society in Newport for thirty years, which met in a loft that had been used as an auction-room. See Journal, vi. 337; Dyson’s Methodism in the Isle of Wight, pp. 108-11. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 78: 76. 1781 ======================================================================== 1781 To Thomas Rutherford LOUTH, July 4, 1781. DEAR TOMMY, -- I got half-way again, as far as the Isle of Man; but I could get no farther. What He doth we know not now, but we shall know hereafter. I wish Isabella and you much happiness, which you cannot fail of if you have much holiness. Therefore the certain way to make each other happy is to strengthen each other’s hands in God. Some time since, I desired Brother Moore [Henry Moore was his colleague at Lisburn, and their wives were sisters. He had just removed from Tanderagee. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 345; and letter of Feb. 23, 1783.] to procure and send me as particular account as possible of that odd affair near Tanderagee; I mean with regard to the house which was so strangely disturbed. I wish he would do it without delay. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Hannah Ball SHEFFIELD, July 12, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER,--I cannot at all understand George Story’s [George Story was Assistant in Oxfordshire. The new preachers were Richard Rodda and Thomas Warwick. See letter of Nov. 17.] behavior. He seems prejudiced against you; and I cannot devise for what. But your business is to go straight forward. And let both Nancy and you do all the good you can. Surely you should take an opportunity to warn Jo. Accutt [John Accutt was the second preacher. He desisted from work in 1785.] of his danger. I shall appoint two new preachers for the Oxford Circuit next year. Jasper Winscom [See letter of Oct. 20, 1775, to him.] is a good man and a local preacher. But I am glad you are not minded to leave Wycombe. The longer your letters are the more welcome they are to, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Loxdale NOTTINGHAM, July 14, 1781. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- As it has pleased God to restore you in a measure to what you enjoyed once, I make no doubt but He will restore all which you then had, and will add to it what you never had yet. There is no end of His mercies. He will give ‘exceeding abundantly beyond all that you are able to ask or think.’ If that sickness you mention came (as is the case with some) only at the time of private prayer, I should incline to think it was preternatural, a messenger of Satan permitted to buffet you. But as you find it likewise at other times, when you feel any vehement emotion of mind, it seems to be (partly at least) a natural effect of What is called weakness of nerves. But even in this case the prayer of faith will not fail to the ground. You may ask with resignation; and if it be best, this cup will be removed from you. You have, indeed, reason to rejoice over your sister. Is she not given you in answer to prayer And have you not encouragement even from this very thing to expect that more of your family will be given you Those are true words, when in His own strength you wrestle with God, -- My powerful groans Thou canst not bear, Nor stand the violence of my prayer, My prayer omnipotent. You remind me of what occurred when my dear Hetty Roe first mentioned you to me. I almost wondered I should feel so much regard for one I had never seen! But I can taste your spirit, and rejoice to find that you are so near, my dear Miss Loxdale, to Yours in tender affection. To Mary Bishop NEAR LEEDS, July 17, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- When the school began at Publow, [See letter of May 21 to her.] it was in all respects a school after my own heart, conducted exactly on the same principles as that of Miss Bosanquet at Leytonstone. But it declined from its original simplicity, I know not how, by slow and insensible degrees indeed, so insensible that I hardly know what to blame, and so know not how to cure it. If I have to meet the Society at Bristol again, I shall kill or cure those unwise and unkind parents who make their children finer than themselves. I believe I shall make their ears tingle. As to you, I advise you, first, to be a Bible Christian yourself inwardly and outwardly. Be not an hair’s breadth more conformable to the fashions of the world than you was when I last saw you. Then train up your children in the selfsame way. Say to them with all mildness and firmness, ‘Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ.’ Whoever is pleased or displeased, keep to this -- to Christian, primitive simplicity. Perhaps at first you will lose some scholars thereby; but regard not that: God will provide you more. And be assured nothing shall be wanting that is in the power of, my dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss Bishop, At the Boarding School, In Keynsham, Somersetshire. To his Niece Sarah Wesley NEAR LEEDS, July 17, 1781. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Although I did not know what your reason was, I took it for granted you had a reason for not writing. Therefore I did not blame you or love you the less, believing you would write when it was convenient. Without an endeavor to please God and to give up our own will, we never shall attain His favor. But till we have attained it, till we have the Spirit of adoption, we cannot actually give up our own will to Him. Shall I tell you freely what I judge to be the grand hindrance to your attaining it -- yea, to your attaining more health both of body and mind than you have ever had, or at least for a long season I believe it is (what very few people are aware of) intemperance in sleep. All are intemperate in sleep who sleep more than nature requires; and how much it does require is easily known. There is, indeed, no universal rule, none that will suit all constitutions. But after all the observations and experience I have been able to make for upwards of fifty years, I am fully persuaded that men in general need between six and seven hours’ sleep in four-and-twenty; and women in general a little more--namely, between seven and eight. But what ill consequence is there of lying longer in bed -- suppose nine hours in four-and-twenty 1. It hurts the body. Whether you sleep or no (and, indeed, it commonly prevents sound sleep), it as it were soddens and parboils the flesh, and sows the seeds of numerous diseases; of all nervous diseases in particular, as weakness, faintness, lowness of spirits, nervous headaches, and consequently weakness of sight, sometimes terminating in total blindness. 2. It hurts the mind, it weakens the understanding. It blunts the imagination. It weakens the memory. It dulls all the nobler affections. It takes off the edge of the soul, impairs its vigour and firmness, and infuses a wrong softness, quite inconsistent with the character of a good soldier of Jesus Christ. It grieves the Holy Spirit of God, and prevents, or at least lessens, those blessed influences which tend to make you not almost but altogether a Christian. I advise you, therefore, from this day forward, not trusting in yourself, but in Him that raiseth the dead, to take exactly so much sleep as nature requires, and no more. If you need between seven and eight hours, then, in the name of God, begin! This very night, in spite of all temptation to the contrary, lie down at ten o’clock, and rise between five and six, whether you sleep or no. If your head aches in the day, bear it. In a week you will sleep sound. If you can take this advice, you may receive more from, my dear Sally, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone. To Robert Hopkins NEAR LEEDS, July 25, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As long as you give yourself up to God without reserve you may be assured He will give you His blessing. Indeed, you have already received a thousand blessings: but the greatest of all is yet behind--Christ in a pure and sinless heart, reigning the Lord of every motion there. It is good for you to hold fast what you have attained, and to be continually aspiring after this; and you will never find more life in your own soul than when you are earnestly exhorting others to go on unto perfection. Many will blame you for doing it; but regard not that: go on through honor and dishonor. ‘This one thing I do,’ is your motto. I save my own soul and them that hear me.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Francis Wolfe YORK, July 30, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- To allow money for the keeping of children is not the business of the Conference, but of the circuit wherein a preacher labors. So it is expressly appointed in the Minutes. I do not judge it is expedient for you to remain any longer in the West of England. [Now at Redruth, Cornwall West. He was reappointed there the following month.] I am glad to hear that your spirit revives. You need not ‘let Him go except He bless you.’ -- I am, dear Franky, Your affectionate brother. To George Fettes YORK, August 3, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Prove these two points---first that pawnbroking is necessary, secondly that it is lawful (in England) --and you will satisfy Your affectionate brother. To his Nephew Charles Wesley NEAR LEEDS, August 4, 1781. DEAR CHARLES, -- It has been much upon my mind to-day that I am still indebted to you; there is a debt of love which I should have paid before now, but I must not delay it any longer. I have long observed you with a curious eye; not as a musician, but as an immortal spirit, that is come forth from God the Father of spirits, and is returning to Him in a few moments. But have you well considered this Metkinks, if you had, it would be ever uppermost in your thoughts. For what trifles in comparison of this are all the shining baubles of the world! Wise is the man that labors to secure The mighty, the important stake, And by all methods strives to make His passage safe and his reception sure. God has favored you with many advantages. You have health, strength, and a thousand outward blessings. And why should not you have all the inward blessings which God hath prepared for those that love Him You are good-humored, mild, and harmless; but unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of God! But ask, and you shall receive; for it is nigh at hand. -- I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate Uncle. To his Niece Sarah Wesley. NEAR LEEDS, August 4, 1781. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Your last gave me much satisfaction, convincing me that I had not labored in vain. O trust in Him that is stronger than you l Then shall you be enabled to persevere in your resolution. Otherwise you will soon grow weary and relapse into the same dull way. Whenever it depends upon yourself, go to bed soon after ten. [See letter of July 17 to her.] But you will need, in order to do this steadily, more firmness than nature can boast; nothing less will keep you steady herein than the mighty power of God. I have been considering whether there be anything else that is an hindrance to your receiving the blessing that awaits you; and I am persuaded it will not offend you to tell you all that passes through my mind. When any young gentleman came to me at Oxford, I told him plain and downright, ‘Sir, I cannot undertake to make you either a scholar or a Christian unless you will promise me (1) to read those books which I advise, and (2) while you are my pupil read no others.’ Now, my Sally, was not this an hard condition But they soon found the advantage of it. And so would you, if you had the courage to read those books only which were recommended either by my brother or me. [See letter of Sept. 8 to her.] I want you, not to be an half but an whole Christian! Let all that mind be in you that was in Christ! And present your soul and your body a living sacrifice acceptable unto God through Him! -- I am, my dear Sally, Your most affectionate Uncle. To Members and Friends August [7], 1781. FRIENDS AND BROTHER, -- As several of the preachers in our Connection, who have spent their time and strength in calling sinners to repentance, are now so superannuated that they can no longer keep a circuit, [Three names of supernumeraries appear in the Minutes for 1781: Joseph Bradford, Richard Seed, and John Furz.] and as others of them (who are gone to their reward) have left destitute widows and children behind them; -- in order to make some small provision for these, it has been agreed on in Conference that every traveling preacher shall out of his little allowance subscribe a guinea yearly. But, as this sum is no wise sufficient to answer the growing demands, several of our friends have offered their assistance by subscribing something yearly; and if others of you shall see good to follow their laudable example, it will no doubt be pleasing to God, a comfort to His worn-out servants, and a great encouragement to those who are still laboring in our Lord’s vineyard; and, of consequence, give great satisfaction to your affectionate brethren and servants in the gospel. JOHN WESLEY. A.B } CD } Stewards. To Robert Cart Brackenbury LEEDS, August 12, 1781. DEAR SIR, -- I shah not soon forget the agreeable conversation I had with dear Mrs. Brackenbury at Raithby. The sweetness of her temper, and the open, artless account she gave of her experience, increased my love for her. I trust you shall not die, but live to strengthen each other’s hands in God and provoke one another to love and to good works. Who is so great a God as our God To His care I commit Mrs. Brackenbury and you. Peace be with your spirits! I commend myself to your prayers; and am, dear Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Loxdale SHEFFIELD, August 15, 1781. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- Your letter gave much satisfaction. Whereunto you have attained hold fast, and ‘press on toward the mark, the prize of your high calling of God in Christ Jesus.’ I do not see any reason to doubt but that you have tasted of the pure love of God. But you seem to be only a babe in that state, and have therefore need to go forward continually. It is by doing and suffering the whole will of our Lord that we grow up in Him that is our Head; and if you diligently hearken to His voice, He will show you the way wherein you should go. But you have need to be exceeding faithful to the light He gives you. ‘While you have the light walk in the light,’ and it will continually increase. Do not regard the judgment of the world, even of those called the religious world. You are not to conform to the judgment of others, but to follow your own light; that which the blessed Spirit gives you from time to time, which is truth and is no lie. That He may guide you and your sister into all truth and all holiness is the prayer of, my dear Miss Loxdale, Yours most affectionately. To Mrs. Malenoir LONDON, August 19, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Indeed, I began to be a little jealous over you lest your love was growing cold. Only I frequently heard something of you from our dear friend Sister Ward, who has been a sharer with you in all your afflictions. It has pleased God to try you as silver is tried; but you will lose nothing beside your dross. In every temptation hitherto He has made a way to escape, that you might be able to bear it. If your temptations have been of an uncommon and delicate nature, this was all permitted in tender mercy that you might receive the greater profit thereby, and by so much the more conform to the image of our Lord. I must inquire of my friends what is the most practicable way of doing something for your son. [Samuel Malenoir.] If I can find any one that is acquainted with the captain of the Grafton, this will be the easiest way. But I am this evening setting out for Bristol. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Nephew Charles Wesley BRISTOL, September 8, 1781. DEAR CHARLES, -- Your letter gave me a good deal of satisfaction. You received my advice just as I hoped you would. [See letter of Aug. 4 to him. ] You are now, as it were, on the crisis of your fate: just launching into life, and ready to fix your choice, whether you will have God or the world for your happiness. Scripture and reason tell you now, what experience will confirm, if it pleases God to prolong your life--that He made your heart for Himself, and it cannot rest till it rests in Him. You will be in danger of being diverted from this thought by’ the fashion of the world. The example of those that are round about us is apt to get within our guard. And, indeed, their spirit steals upon us in an unaccountable manner and inclines us to think as they think. Yet you cannot avoid being very frequently among elegant men and women that are without God in the world. And as your business rather than your choice calls you into the fire, I trust that you will not be burnt: seeing He whom you desire to serve is able to deliver you even out of the burning fiery furnace. -- I am, dear Charles, Your very affectionate Uncle. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, September 8, 1781. MY DEAR SALLY, -- It is certain the Author of our nature designed that we should not destroy but regulate our desire for knowledge. What course you may take in order to this I will now briefly point out. [See letter in June 1764 to Margaret Lewen.] 1. You want to know God, in order to enjoy Him in time and eternity. 2. All you want to know of Him is contained in one book, the Bible. And all you learn is to be referred to this, either directly or remotely. 3. Would it not be well, then, to spend at least an hour a day in reading and meditating on the Bible reading every morning and evening a portion of the Old and New Testament with the Explanatory Notes 4. Might you not read two or three hours in the morning and one or two in the afternoon When you are tired of severer studies, you may relax your mind by history or poetry. 5. The first thing you should understand a little of is Grammar. You may read first the Kingswood English Grammar, and then Bishop Lowth’s Introduction. 6. You should acquire (if you have not already) some knowledge of Arithmetic. Dilworth’s Arithmetic would suffice. 7. For Geography I think you need only read over Randal’s or Guthrie’s Geographical Grammar. 8. Watts’s Logic is not a very good one; but I believe you cannot find a better. 9. In Natural Philosophy you have all that you need to know in the Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation. But you may add the Glasgow [Edinburgh] abridgement of Mr. Hutchinson’s Works. 10. With any or all of the foregoing studies you may intermix that of History. You may begin with Rollin’s Ancient History; and afterwards read in order the Concise History of the Church, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, the Concise History of England, Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion, Neal’s History of the Puritans, his History of New England, and Robertson’s History of America. 11. In Metaphysics you may read Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding and Malebranche’s Search after Truth. 12. For Poetry you may read Spenser’s Fairy Queen, select parts of Shakspeare, Fairfax’s or Hoole’s Godfrey of Bouillon, Paradise Lost, the Night Thoughts, and Young’s Moral and Sacred Poems. 13. You may begin and end with Divinity; in which I will only add, to the books mentioned before, Bishop Pearson On the Creed and the Christian Library. By this course of study you may gain all the knowledge which any reasonable Christian needs. But remember, before all, in all, and above all, your great point is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. -- I am, my dear Sally, Your affectionate Uncle. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, September 9, 1781. MY DEAR NANCY, -- One thing we are absolutely assured of -- that good is the will of the Lord! But I should be glad to know, How do Neddy’s [See letters of Feb. 20, 1781, and Aug. 3, 1782, to her.] affairs stand now Has he any prospects of getting out of his troubles Is there a probability that he will be able to extricate himself from the present difficulties How far are you concerned therein Are you perplexed on any other account Where do you spend your time, and how are you employed When you have any leisure, certainly you cannot bestow it better than in visiting as many as you can of your poor neighbors. How is your health now I should be afraid these pressures upon your mind would increase your bodily disorders. I do not believe you murmur or fret at anything. But you cannot avoid grieving (unless when the power of the Highest overshadows you in an extraordinary manner). And even this will shake the tenement of clay. My dear Nancy, share all your griefs with Your real friend. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. X Post. To Elijah Bush COLEFORD, September 11, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I was much concerned yesterday when I heard you were likely to marry a woman against the consent of your parents. I have never in an observation of fifty years known such a marriage attended with a blessing. I know not how it should be, since it is flatly contrary to the fifth commandment. I told my own mother, when pressing me to marry, ‘I dare not allow you a positive voice herein; I dare not marry a person because you bid me. But I must allow you a negative voice: I will marry no person if you forbid. I know it would be a sin against God.’ Take care what you do. Mr. S----- is not a proper judge; he hopes to separate you from the Methodists; and I expect, if you take this step, that will be the end. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Hall BATH, September 15, 1781. DEAR PATTY, -- But when will the hundred pounds come I hear nothing about that. But fifty pounds of it were bespoke by him that sent me the first notice, and what could be done less For, you know, the messenger of good news should always be rewarded. However, if we live to meet again, probably something may be done without waiting for the legacy; and it is not impossible that you should procure half an hour’s very private conversation into the bargain. I say still, you are one of the youngest women of your years that I know, [See letter of May 28 to her.] and perhaps it is your fervor that keeps you alive as well as keeps you from the gout and stone, to which you know we have an hereditary right. God does all things well. -- I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate friend and Brother. To John Bredin NEAR BRISTOL, September 22, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I supposed you to be a dying man, and had therefore no thought of your being an Assistant or even a traveling preacher. [Bredin had been at Athlone, and was now in the Londonderry Circuit, though his name does not appear in the Minutes. See letters of May 17 and Oct.] But if you can undertake it, do. The more exercise you use the better. But the morning preaching must not be left off on any account. That is the glory of the Methodists. It is hardly worth while to keep an horse for the sake of three or four little places. We have need to save all possible expense. Several of our preachers in England now walk their circuits.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. John Bredin, In Coleraine, Ireland. To Robert Lindsay BRISTOL, October 7, 1781. DEAR ROBERT, -- The question is, ‘Is the chapel actually made over to Mr. Jacques and Egerton for that debt’ If not, they cannot sell it. Mr. Hunt will inform you how this is. I have no money; and Mr. Atlay writes me word that I am above two hundred pounds behindhand, that is, on my own account, over and above what I owe on account of the new chapel in London. Now and then, indeed, I have a legacy left me. Should such a thing occur, I would reserve it for Kilkenny. If I find a proper preacher that can be spared, I will send him to you. Be discouraged at nothing: God is on our side.--I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Robert Lindsay, At Mr. Frederick Hunt’s, In Kilkenny. To Martha Chapman LONDON, October 13, 1781. DEAR PATTY, -- I returned hither yesterday in the afternoon, and had the pleasure of yours. I hope to be at High Wycombe on Monday and Tuesday, at Oxford on Wednesday noon, and at Witney on Wednesday evening. If in all these trials your mind is unmoved and fixed upon Him that loves you, they will only help you forward on your way. [Wesley’s wife died on Oct. 8, and was buried on the 12th. ‘I was not informed of it till a day or two after.’ See Journal, vi. 337.] --I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate brother. To John Bredin LONDON, October 19, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Some time hence we may have room for Adam Clarke at Kingswood. At present the house is quite full. Meantime he should read a little Greek and Latin every day. You do well to meet the children constantly and to establish as many prayer-meetings as you can. Over and above the other advantages attending them, they are excellent nurseries for young preachers. You should without delay establish the Methodist discipline in all the country places. The spreading the books is always a means of increasing the awakening in any place. I do not know any remedy under heaven that is likely to do you so much good as the being constantly electrified. But it will not avail unless you persevere therein for some time. [See letters of Sept. 22, 1781, and July 9, 1782.] Would it not be of use for you and Brother Moore to change I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. Bredin, In Coleraine, Ireland. To Charles Armore October 20, 1881. DEAR CHARLES, -- I am glad to hear so good an account of the work of God in Glasgow. But you must not stay there too long at a time. That is not the Methodist plan. I expect, therefore, Brother Johnson and you constantly to change once a quarter. It does not appear that we have as yet any place in Greenock. But I am glad you have paid a visit to Air. Many things have hindered Brother Barber. [Thomas Barber was at Castlebar, Tiverton.] But I hope you will see him soon. It seems Brother Surer is in his place--I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Charles Armore, In Glasgow. To Mrs. Foley [LONDON, November 3, 1781 ().] Your occasions of fight [will lead you to] conquer. The danger is, lest that inflammation should turn to a cancer. Probably this may be prevented by an easy remedy. Make a strong decoction of Briar-leaves, and gargle your mouth with it eight or ten times a day. See neither of you grow weary in your mind! -- I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Foley, At Quinton, Near Birmingham. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, November 6, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am always well pleased to hear from you, especially when you tell me that God has dealt well with you. I trust He has yet greater blessings in store for you and for the little flock at Beverley. I was glad of the little time we had together, and hoped it would not be in vain. [He had been at Beverley in Alexander Suter at August.] I found love to your two little maidens. There is good seed sown in their hearts, which, if it be carefully watered, will probably bring forth fruit to your comfort and the glory of God. Let your husband and you go on hand in hand, stirring up the gift of God that is in you and running with resignation and patience the race that is set before you. You have met, and undoubtedly will meet, with manifold temptations; but. you have had full proof that God is faithful, who will never suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape that you may be able to bear it. O tarry, then, the Lord’s leisure I Be strong, and He shall comfort thy heart. And put thou thy trust in the Lord. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, November 6, 1781. DEAR SAMMY, -- The being concerned in that execrable bill trade [See letter of Dec. 11, 1787.] has ruined many honest men. Determine nothing concerning Brother Stocks yet. You have heard only the worst of the story. I have no objection to mortgaging the house. I do not see anything else that we can do in this matter, Do all things as mildly and smoothly as you can; but, whenever you have the rule on your side, the opposers must either bend or break. It would then be worth while to lose fifty members rather than not carry your point. If A. Mather had not been married, he might have done anything. In any wise you must clip the wings of those local preachers who do not punctually observe your directions. Either mend them or end them. On condition that one horse only be kept in each circuit, I consent to the dividing the circuit into two. Do all you can to procure subscribers for the History. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Bradbum, At the Preaching- house, In Bradford, Yorkshire. To Henry Fisher LONDON, November 7, 1781. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The case of Joan Bocher I remember well; and I believe God avenged her death on Archbishop Cranmer. But I do not remember that Queen Elizabeth or King James (bad as they were) burnt any heretics. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Fisher, At 187, Opposite Campbell’s Nursery, Hampstead. To Henry Brooke LONDON, November 15, 1781. DEAR HARRY, -- In general there is no great danger of our thinking too meanly of ourselves. Yet it is certain we may undervalue any of the talents which it has pleased God to entrust us with. And this is one of the few cases wherein it is wise to depend on the judgment of a friend rather than on our own. I doubt whether you do not undervalue some of the talents which God has lent you, and whether He will be pleased with your hiding them in the earth instead of employing them to His glory. It would be more pleasing to me to bury myself in silence and solitude. But I should not then be able to give a good account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. Be a follower of me (in your little way) even as I am of Christ. Yours affectionately. To Hannah Ball LONDON, November 17, 1781. ‘Suffered from those you loved most’ [See letter of June 28.] Nay, my dear Hannah, I thought you had loved me as well as any one. And I hope you never suffered from me -- at least, I never designed you should. I would not willingly give you any pain; but I would give you all the comfort that is in my power. I am in great hopes you will yet see an increase of the work of God this year, both in High Wycombe and the other parts of the circuit. You have two sound preachers, [See letters of July 12, 1781 and March 10, 1782.] and two plain, downright men, who speak the truth from their heart. Encourage them, whenever you have a fair occasion, to preach full salvation as now attain able by faith. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury TOWCESTER, November 19, 1781. DEAR SIR, -- I rejoice to hear that your health is so well re-established, and am in hopes it will continue. Your preaching frequently will be no hindrance, but rather a furtherance to it, provided you have the resolution always to observe the Methodist rule of concluding the service within the hour. The want of observing this has many times hurt you; and we must not offer murder for sacrifice. We are not at liberty to impair our own health in hopes of doing good to others. A gentleman whose leg had been ill for several years and had several running sores in it was advised by an old clergyman to discard his physicians and surgeons, and to follow this simple prescription, ‘Take a fillet of soft Welsh flannel four inches broad and four yards long, let it be rolled as tight as you can bear it over your leg from the knee to the sole of the foot, and keep it on day and night without any alteration.’ He wore this for a month, and has been perfectly well ever since. If she is not well already, I have little doubt but the same method would cure Mrs. Brackenbury. [See letters of Aug. 12, 1781, and March 9, 1782, to him.] I trust she and you are both pressing on to the mark and strengthening each other’s hands in God. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ellen Gretton LONDON, November 19, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- The affection which I have felt for you ever since I had the pleasure of your company at Mr. Dodwell’s [The Rev. William Dodwell. Wesley preached in his church at Welby on July 8, and next day at Grantham. He assisted Wesley on July 13, 1788, in administering the Lord’s Supper at Nottingham and was at the Conference of 1782. He died in 1824, leaving 10,000 to the Wesleyan Missionary Society and 10,000 to the Bible Society. See Journal, vi. 328, vii. 416.] will never suffer your letters to be troublesome to me any more than your conversation. I rejoice to hear that the consolations of the Holy One are not small with you. All these are given for that very end, to enlarge and strengthen your desires, and to quicken your hope of that perfect love which is nigh, even at the door! How soon may you find the fulfilling of that word, ‘All things are possible to him that believeth’! Now believe and enter in! ‘The promise is sure.’ He cannot deny Himself. In order to show you more of your own weakness and His power, He suffers you to be variously tempted. But still in every temptation he makes a way to escape that you may be able to bear it. As I was going through Grantham [After preaching at Sheffield on Aug. 15, he ‘took chaise with Dr. Coke; and, traveling day and night, the next evening came to London.’ See Journal, vi. 331.] I cast a wishful eye at the place where I spent a little time with my dear friend. But you were all, I suppose, fast asleep, and it was too early to wake you. I trust there shall never be wanting a little company of you to watch over one another in love. Peace be with all your spirits! My dear Nelly, I regard you much. Receive me as your friend. Perhaps there are not many that would be more glad to serve you in anything than Yours very affectionately. To Miss Gretton, At Mr. Derry’s, Shoemaker, Grantham. To Various Friends November 19, 1781. 1. For many years I have earnestly advised both in public and in private all in connection with me who have been brought up in the Established Church to continue therein, and of consequence to attend the public service of the Church at all opportunities; and my reasons for so doing I published to all the world more than twenty years ago. [Reasons against a Separation from the Ckurch of England, 1758. See Works, xiii. 224-32; Green’s Bibliography, No. 201; and letter of Jan. 9, 1782.] 2. But a few months ago I was favored with a letter which required me to review my sentiments. It is signed by several members of our Society, men of a loving spirit and of an unblameable conversation; and it is worthy of the greater regard, as they speak not only in their own name but in the name of many who wish to have a conscience void of offense both towards God and towards man. 3. Part of it runs thus: -- Having read many of your books and heard many of your preachers, and being in connection with you, we have from time to time been advised by them and you constantly to attend the church. But we find that neither you nor your preachers have given any countenance to the doctrines of Calvinism. This induces us humbly to ask the following questions: First. Whether you would have us to go to that church where the doctrines of Calvinism are continually inculcated, and where the doctrines taught by you, Christian Perfection in particular, are continually exploded. Secondly. Whether you think we shall be profited in any degree by hearing such preaching. Thirdly. Whether it is not a means of filling our hearts with prejudice either against those preachers or against the truth. Fourthly. Whether hearing them does not expose us to temptation from those who continually ask, ‘How did you like the sermon to-day’ We cannot dissemble; and if we do not, we offend them. If you please, you may give us your sentiments in the Arrninian Magazine. JOHN W-----, JOHN R-----, JOSEPH B-----, NATHAN O-----, FRANCIS B-----, BAILDON, NEAR BRADFORTH. July 24, 1781. 4. It is a delicate as well as important point, on which I hardly know how to answer. I cannot lay down any general rule. All I can say at present is, If it does not hurt you, hear them; if it does, refrain. Be determined by your own conscience. Let every man in particular act ‘as he is fully persuaded in his own mind.’ To John Fletcher LONDON, November 24, 1781. DEAR SIR, There is not a person to whom I would have wished Miss Bosanquet joined besides you. But this union, I am thoroughly persuaded, is of God; and so are all the children of God with whom I have spoken. Mr. Bosanquet’s being so agreeable to it I look upon as a token for good; and so was the ready disposing of the house and the stock, which otherwise would have been a great encumbrance. From the first day which you spend together in Madeley I hope you will lay down an exactly regular plan of living, something like that of the happy family at Leytonstone. Let your light shine to all that are round about you. And let Sister Fletcher do as much as she can for God and no more. To His care I commit you both; and am, my dear friends, Your very affectionate brother. To the Rev. Mr. Fletcher, Near Leeds. To Duncan Wright LONDON, November 24, 1781. DEAR DUNCAN, -- Surely you and I may speak freely to each other; for we love one another. If George Holder [George Holder and James Bogie were admitted on trial at the next Conference.] goes out, either you must keep his mother or she must go to the workhouse. You must not give an exhortation to the bands, but encourage them to speak. I would be much obliged to you if you would (1) accept the key of the book-room and immediately take the books into your own care; (2) clip the wings of the local preachers, stewards, and leaders, changing them as need requires; (3) fix bands where they are wanting; (4) if James Bogie is willing to remain single, let him travel; (5) do not receive the blind man hastily, let him be thoroughly tried first; (6) lastly, be of good courage, and conquer everything! -- I am, dear Duncan, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Rutherford [November 1781.] DEAR TOMMY, -- Write to Hugh Moore in my name, and tell him, ‘I desire he would change places with you for six weeks or two months.’ The being near her relations at the time of her lying in may be a means of saving your wife’s life. I doubt not of Brother Moore’s willingness to oblige either you or me in a matter of such importance. Probably more persons will buy the History of the Church [His Concise Ecclesiastical History. See letter of June 8, 1780.] when they see it. Peace be multiplied upon you both! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Downes LONDON, December 1, 1781. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Never be afraid that I should think your letters troublesome; I am never so busy as to forget my friends. Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher made an excellent beginning, and I trust they will increase with all the increase of God. Now let all of you that remain in the neighborhood arise up and supply her lack of service. Be instant in season, out of season, that all may know you have caught her mantle! [See letters of Nov. 24 and Dec. 9.] But pray do not suffer my poor Miss Ritchie to work herself to death. Let her do all she can, and not more than she can. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Davenport LONDON, December 2, 1781. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I have some remembrance of receiving such a letter as you mention above a year ago. But as there was no name subscribed I did not know how to direct an answer. Your case is plain. You are in the hands of a wise Physician, who is lancing your sores in order to heal them. He has given you now the spirit of fear. But it is in order to the spirit of love and of a sound mind. You have now received the spirit of bondage. Is it not the forerunner of the Spirit of adoption He is not afar off. Look up! And expect Him to cry in your heart, Abba, Father! He is nigh that justifieth! that justifieth the ungodly and him that worketh not! If you are fit for hell, you are just fit for Him! If you are a mere sinner, He cannot cast you out! This evening, when our Society meets, we will spread the case before the Lord. And I trust it will not be a long time before your eyes shall see His salvation! -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To the Rev. Mr. Davenport, At Allexton, Near Uppingham, Rutlandshire. To Hester Ann Roe LONDON, December 9, 1781. MY DEAR HETTY, -- We may easily account for those notices which we frequently receive, either sleeping or waking, upon the scriptural supposition that ‘He giveth His angels charge over us to keep us in all our ways.’ How easy is it for them, who have at all times so ready an access to our souls, to impart to us whatever may be a means of increasing our holiness or our happiness! So that we may well say with pious Bishop Ken, O may Thy angels, while we sleep, Around our beds their vigils keep, Their love angelical instill, Stop every avenue of ill! Without needing to use any other arguments, you have a clear proof in your own experience that our blessed Lord is both able and willing to give us always what He gives once; that there is no necessity of ever losing what we receive in the moment of justification or sanctification. But it is His will that all the light and love which we then receive should increase more and more unto the perfect day. If you are employed to assist the children that are brought to the birth, that groan either for the first or the pure love, happy are you l But this is not all your work. No, my Hetty; you are likewise to watch over the new-born babes. Although they have much love, they have not yet either much light or much strength; so that they never had more need of your assistance, that they may neither be turned out of the way nor hindered in running the race that is set before them. I should not have been willing that Miss Bosanquet should have been joined to any other person than Mr. Fletcher; but I trust she may be as useful with him as she was before. [See letter of Dec, 1.] I fear our dear Betsy Ritchie will not stay long with us. I have no answer to my last letter, and Mrs. Downes writes that she is far from well. Yet God is able to raise her up. As to Peggy Roe, [Her cousin. See letter of Sept. 16, 1776.] I have little hope of her life; but she seemed, when I saw her, to be quite simple of heart, de.siring nothing more but God. My dear Hetty, adieu! Remember in all your prayers Yours most affectionately. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Robert Hopkins was born at Devizes on April 24, 1758, and was awakened under a sermon by Rowland Hill. He worked so zealously that when Wesley visited the town he was told of him, and after a long conference engaged him as one of his preachers. He went at the end of October 1779 to Cornwall East Circuit, and died at Rotherhana on February 24, 1827. He was a useful preacher, greatly beloved in all places where he labored. This letter was sent when he was the second preacher at King’s Lynn. He is named in the Deed of Declaration in 1784. See the Life of Rev. Robert Hopkins, by his Son. [2] Wesley often stayed with Fettes in Lady Peckitt’s Yard. He was a leader and ‘President of the prayer leaders.’ When John Pawson was married to Mrs. Wren in 1785, ‘we all dined at Mr. Fettes’, whose great kindness I shall not soon forget.’ See Lyth’s Methodism in York, pp. 145, 155, 159, 173. [3] Charles Wesley (1757-1834), the elder son of the poet, was honored as an organist by George III. Thomas Jackson purchased his Wesley MSS. for Methodism. [4] At the Conference of 1781 the increasing claims for the support of the preachers’ families was making itself felt. Wesley began to draw money from the Preachers’ Fund to support their wives, and this appeal was sent out. See Myles’s Chronological History, pp. 144-5. [5] Brackenbury had married and settled at Raithby Hall, where on July 5 Wesley writes: ‘I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Brackenbury again, though still exceeding weak. His chapel was thoroughly filled in the evening, I trust with sincere hearers.’ See letter of November 19 to him. [6] Mrs. Christiana Malenoir was born in 1738. Her husband died in x762. Her Experience is given in Arminian Magazine, 1792, p. 470. Mrs. Ward was one of the leading Methodists at Cork. She says in 1784 that she had been a Methodist for twenty-one years. On December 22, 1782, she writes: ‘Sister Maleheir’s heart is healed; her soul rejoices in the perfect love of Jesus; she is now the active, zealous, faithful disciple she was some years ago.’ See her letters from ‘Passage near Cork’ in Arminian Magazine, 1788-91. [7] Bush was a local preacher, and had a large boarding school a Midsomer Norton. Wesley stayed with him on September 16, 1789, and reconciled two boys who were quarreling, one of whom became a magistrate in Berkshire. See Methodist Magazine, 1842, p. 136. [8] Lindsay was Assistant at Waterford. He had labored as a preacher in America. Some parties threatened to sell the chapel to defray the debt upon it. Wesley described it on April 22, 1771, as ‘a neat and commodious building.’ It had just been finished. [9] Bredin was supplying the place of one of the preachers in Londonderry Circuit, and had invited Adam Clarke to stay with him for eight or ten days in Londonderry. He got him to preach from a text for the first time at New Buildings, lent him books, and wrote strongly urging Wesley to receive him at Kingswood School. See Everett’s Clarke, i. 129; and letter of April 6, 1782, to Bredin. [10] Charles Armore, a native of Norfolk, entered the itinerancy in 1781 and died on June 30, 1826. Wesley ordained him for Scotlandin 1786. He was President of the Conference in 1811. His Methodist Memorial (1801) is of great historic value. [11] Fisher married Elizabeth Richardson in 1731 and died in 1785. Joan Boucher (or Butcher) was burned on May 2, 1547, ‘for the horrible heresy that Christ took no flesh of the Virgin Mary.’ Foxe says in Acts and Monuments that the Council got Dr. Cranmer to persuade the King to sign the warrant, and that he succeeded with great difficulty. Mr. Bruce, in the Preface to Hutchinson’s Works, has proved this to be a libel on Cranmer. There were only two martyrs in Edward’s reign, Joan of Kent and a Dutchman named George. Joan of Kent was in Lord Riche’s house for a week after the writ was out for her to be burned. The Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Ridley ‘resorted almost daily unto her. But she was so high in the spirit, that they could do nothing with her for all their learning; but she went willfully unto the fire and was burnt.’ See letter of March 31, 1780. [12] In January 1779 Brooke slipped in the street during a frost and broke his leg. It was a compound fracture, and he was not able to leave his bed for several months. A year passed before he could walk outside the house. His long illness led to the infirmity and nervous disorder in the head which brought his life to a close. He was humbled and chastened, and ‘became like a little child in the spiritual acceptation.’ [13] Miss Gretton, the daughter of a clergyman, went to live in Grantham about 1777. She consulted Mr. F. Derry about spiritual things, joined the Methodist Society, and gave addresses. She never went into the pulpit, but sat with her bonnet on. She married William Christian, of Skillington, in 1783, and died in 1793. See Cocking’s Methodism in Grantham, p. 180; and letter of January 5, 1782, to her. [14] This letter on the relation of Methodists to the Church of England is of special interest. The subject is dealt with in Dr. Rigg’s Churchmanship of John Wesley. [15] Fletcher was married on November 12. Both Miss Bosanquet’s brothers approved the marriage. She unexpectedly sold her Cross Hall estate for 1,620, and three days later another gentleman bought her stock. See Wesley’s Designated Successor, pp. 491-4; and letter of Dec. 1. [16] Rutherford married Isabella Young, of Coleraine, and moved from Londonderry to Lisburn, where he now was, at the Conference of 1781. The exchange with Hugh Moore, who was at Londonderry, would bring Mrs. Rutherford near her home. See Journal, vi. 195-6. [17] Thomas Davenport was in his sixtieth year, and had recently found the rest of faith through Wesley’s instrumentality. In a letter on January 4, 1782, he says: ‘In prayer and thanksgiving let me be still remembered by you and the Society, all of whom I can never forget in my poor intercessions so long as I am in the body.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1790, pp. 106-7, 163, 665. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 79: 77. 1782 ======================================================================== 1782 To Joseph Benson () LONDON, January 5, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, -- It gives me pleasure to hear that you are not weary in well doing, but are diligent in advancing the cause of religion. There is one means of doing this in which it will be worth your while to take some pains; I mean in recommending the Magazines. If you say of them in every Society what you may say with truth, and say it with an air of earnestness, you will produce several new subscribers. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ellen Gretton LONDON, January 5, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It is a true word, ‘Gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of affliction.’ But we know the exhortation, ‘Despise not thou the chastening of the Lord’; count it not an insignificant or accidental thing: ‘neither hint when thou art rebuked of Him,’ but receive it as a token of His love. I do not despair of seeing you again in Lincolnshire [See letter of Nov. 19, 1781, to her.] and taking another little journey with you. This will be if it is best, and it is not impossible that I shoed see you in London. Perhaps it may be (if we shoed live so long) at the time of the Conference. That might be of particular service to you if Providence should make a way for you. In the meantime let Brother Derry [A conspicuous Methodist in Grantham for many years. In his house the meetings were first held. For an account of the persecution of Methodists in Grantham, and especially of Mr. Derry, see Cocking’s Methodism in Grantham, pp. 153-62.] and Sister Fisher [See Conference Handbook for 1925.] and you do all the good you can. -- I am, dear Nelly, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Gretton, At Mr. Derry’s, In Grantham, Lincolnshire. To James ------ LONDON, January 6, 1782. DEAR JAMES, -- You may meet with Brother Alderman, Highland, or any other leader you choose. But I am willing to hear what objection you have to James Dewey and the two other leaders you refer to. You may know them better than I do. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Hester Anne Roe LONDON, January 7, 1782. My DEAR HETTY, -- You should always have in readiness that little tract The Plain Account of Christian Perfection. There is nothing that would so effectually stop the mouths of those who call this ‘a new doctrine.’ All who thus object are really (though they suspect nothing less) seeking sanctification by works. If it be by works, then certainly these will need time in order to the doing of these works. But if it is by faith, it is plain a moment is as a thousand years. Then God says (in the spiritual as in the outward world), Let there be light, and there is light. I am in great hopes, as John Sellars [See letter of Jan. 18.] got his own soul much quickened in Macdesfield, he will now be a blessing to many at Chester. A few witnesses of pure love remain there still; but several are gone to Abraham’s bosom. Encourage those in Macclesfield who enjoy it to speak explicitly what they do experience, and to go on till they know all that ‘love of God that pusseth knowledge.’ Give all the help you can, my dear Hetty, to them, and to Yours most affectionately. To Mr. ----- LEWISHAM, January 9, 1782. 1. Last summer I received a letter from Yorkshire [See letter of Nov. 19, 1781.] signed by several serious men, who proposed a difficulty they were under, wherein they knew not how to act. And, indeed, I did not well know how to advise them. So I delayed giving them a determinate answer till I could lay the matter before our brethren at the ensuing Conference. 2. Their difficulty was this: ‘You advise all the members of our Societies constantly to attend the service of the Church. We have done so for a considerable time. But very frequently Mr. R., our minister, preaches not only what we believe to be false, but dangerously false, doctrine. He asserts and endeavors to prove that we cannot be saved from our sins in this life, and that we must not hope to be perfected in love on this side eternity. Our nature is very willing to receive this; therefore it is very liable to hurt us. Hence we have a doubt whether it is our duty to hear this preaching, which experience shows to weaken our souls.’ 3. This letter I laid before the Conference, and we easily perceived the difficulty therein proposed concerned not only the Society at Baildon but many others in various parts of the kingdom. It was therefore considered at large, and all our brethren were desired to speak their sentiments freely. In the conclusion they unanimously agreed, first, that it was highly expedient all the Methodists (so called) who had been bred therein should attend the service of the Church as often as possible; but that, secondly, if the minister began either to preach the Absolute Decrees or to rail at and ridicule Christian Perfection, they should quietly and silently go out of the church, yet attend it again the next opportunity. 4. I have since that time revolved this matter over and over in my own mind; and the more I consider it, the more I am convinced this was the best answer that could be given. I still advise all our friends, when this case occurs, quietly and silently to go out. Only I must earnestly caution them not to be critical; not to make a man an offender for a word -- no, nor for a few sentences, which any who believe the decrees may drop without design. But if such a minister should at any time deliberately and of set purpose endeavor to establish Absolute Predestination or to confute Scriptural Perfection, then I advise all the Methodists in the congregation quietly to go away. To Hester Ann Roe LONDON, January 17, 1782. MY DEAR HETTY, -- In the success of Mr. Leach’s preaching we have one proof of a thousand that the blessing of God always attends the publishing of full salvation as attainable now by simple faith. But there is a danger here which is to be carefully guarded against--namely, lest the other preachers should be jealous of his success. This has been a very common case. And you can hardly conceive what a grievous hindrance it has always been to the work of God. Both he himself, therefore, and all that love him should do everything that is in their power to prevent it; he especially, by an humble, condescending, obliging behavior to his fellow laborers. And it will be prudent for you all not to speak too strongly in commendation of him in their hearing; for, you know, ‘the spirit that is in us lusteth to envy.’ I have never at all repented of my late journey to Chester [In April 1782. See Journal, vi. 313.]; a flame was kindled both there and at Wrexham, which I trust will not soon be put out. I do not know that I have spent a day at Chester with so much satisfaction for many a year. This afternoon I was agreeably surprised by a letter from our dear Miss Ritchie. [See his reply on Jan. 19.] It really seems as if God, in answer to many prayers, has lent her to us yet a little longer. He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up again. Wise are all His ways! I am not assured that there is not something preternatural in those pains which you frequently experience. Not improbably they are caused by a messenger of Satan, who is permitted to buffet you. But all is well; you find in this and all things His grace is sufficient for you. -- I always am, my dear Hetty, Most affectionately yours. To John Valton LONDON, January 18, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have received the first two sheets of your Life. Be not afraid of writing too much; I can easily leave out what can be spared. It pleased God to lead John Haime and you a long way through the wilderness. Others He leads through a shorter and smoother way; and yet to the same point: for we must not imagine that such a degree of suffering is necessary to any degree of holiness. In this God does certainly act as a Sovereign; giving what He pleases, and by what means He pleases. I believe the holiest man that ever lived was the Apostle John; yet he seems to have suffered very little. You should take care never to write long at a time, and always to write standing; never on any account leaning on your stomach. God gives me just the strength I had thirty years ago. I cannot allow John Sellars [See letter of Jan. 7.] to be any longer a leader; and if he will lead the class, whether I will or no, I require you to put him out of our Society. If twenty of his class will leave the Society too, they must. The first loss is the best. Better forty members should be lost than our discipline lost. They are no Methodists that will bear no restraints. Explain this at large to the Society. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Davenport LONDON, January 19, 1782. DEAR SIR, -- Many years ago I saw a condemned person in the Castle at Oxford two or three hours before his execution. When I asked him, ‘Whither are you going’ he said, ‘To hell, to be sure.’ And on my remarking, ‘But you seem to have no fear, no sorrow, no concern,’ he coolly replied, ‘I have none at all. And why should I tell a lie’ I said, ‘I cannot understand this.’ He said, ‘I will tell you how to understand it. Some told me five months ago, “Mr. Pope, make the best of your time; for the day of grace may end, before the day of life ends.” And so it is with me.’ But it is not so with you. If it was, you would have no fear, no trouble, no uneasiness, but would be just as easy and careless and unconcerned as that poor creature was. It is, I believe, near forty years ago that a friend recommended to me Mr. Marshall’s Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. [See Journal. v. 239-40.] A few passages I found scattered up and down which I thought leaned towards Antinomianism. But in general I approved of it well, and judged it to be an excellent book. The main proposition, that inward and outward holiness flow from a consciousness of the favor of God, is undoubtedly true. And it is a truth that should always be before our eyes. I commend you to Him that loves you more than you are sensible of; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Davenport, At Allexton, Near Uppingham, Rutlandshire. To Elizabeth Ritchie LONDON, January 19, 1782. It seemed a little strange to me, my dear Betsy, that I did not hear from you for so long a time. But I imputed your silence to your bodily weakness, of which several of our friends sent me word. From our brethren in various parts of England and Ireland I have very pleasing accounts of the uncommon blessings which many received at the time of renewing their covenant with God. I am glad to hear that you at Otley had your share. That point, entire salvation from inbred sin, can hardly ever be insisted upon, either in preaching or prayer, without a particular blessing. Honest Isaac Brown [The preacher at Keighley. He is named in the Deed of Declaration, and is one of four to whom Wesley left any money found in his pockets and bureau after his death.] firmly believes this doctrine, that we are to be saved from all sin in this life. But I wish, when opportunity serves, you would encourage him (1) to preach Christian perfection, constantly, strongly, and explicitly; (2) explicitly to assert and prove that it may be received now and (3) (which indeed is implied therein) that it is to be received by simple faith. In every state of mind, in that of conviction or justification or sanctification, I believe every person may either go sensibly backward, or seem to stand still, or go forward. I incline to think all the persons you mention were fully sanctified. But some of them, watching unto prayer, went on from faith to faith; while the others, being less watchful, seemed to stand still, but were indeed imperceptibly backsliding. Wishing you all may increase with all the increase of God, I am Ever yours. To Francis Wolfe LONDON, January 24, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have much reason to bless God both on your own account and on account of the people. Now see that you adorn in all things the doctrine of God our Savior. See that your conversation be in grace, always seasoned with salt, and meet to minister grace to the hearers; and let none of you preachers touch any spirituous liquors upon any account! I am sorry for poor Joseph Belten. The loss of that excellent woman will be a loss indeed! But there is One who is able to turn all to good. -- I am, dear Franky, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Francis Wolfe, In Redruth, Cornwall. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, January 25, 1782. DEAR SAMMY, -- I am glad you had no reason to complain of our Northern brethren. Many of them are as sincere and affectionate as any in England. And the way to do them good is to observe all our Rules at Inverness just as you would at Sheffield; yea, and to preach the whole Methodist doctrine there as plainly and simply as you would in Yorkshire. But you have not sent me (neither you nor Peter Mill) any plan of the circuit. This should be done without delay. See that you both do all you can for a good Master ! Lose no time Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Sam. Bardsley, At Mr. McLomie’s, In Inverness. To Thomas Hanson LONDON, January 30, 1782. DEAR TOMMY, There were certainly false [numbers]. This ought to be observed if we live to see another Conference. I never was fond of multiplying circuits without an absolute necessity. Your remark is unquestionably true, that this is oftener proposed for the ease of the preachers than the profit of the people. But it is clear to me that many of the preachers have already rather too little exercise than too much. [Hanson was Assistant at Colne.] If you are not yet recovered from the disorder in your mouth, I wish you would consult the Primitive Physick or John Floyd. [The second preacher at Bradford. See letter of March 15, 1777.] --I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Alexander Surer LONDON, February 9, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You see the wisdom of that advice, ‘O tarry thou the Lord’s leisure!’ And there is great reason that we should trust the Invisible God farther than we can see Him. There will need the greatest care and attention possible both in you and John Moon at Exeter. [Moon and Suter were the preachers at Tiverton.] For Satan will surely endeavor to lay stumbling-blocks in the way of the people. It is your part to prevent or remove them as quick as possible. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Ellen Gretton LAMBETH, February 12, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- If it pleases God to visit us with adversity, undoubtedly He will send a blessing with it. It will be for our profit, a means of weaning us from the world and uniting us more closely to Him. And if afterwards He changes it for prosperity, this also will be for good. It is our wisdom to improve the present state, be it one or the other. With what will be we have nothing to do. We need take no thought for the morrow. As yet I do not see my way clear, but wait for farther evidence, before I can determine whether I should put out toward Ireland or Scotland. If I do set out for Ireland and am driven back again, [As he had been in April 1781. See letter of May 8 of that year.] I shall say, Good is the will of the Lord. ‘With good advice make war.’ Do not hastily engage in anything so far that you cannot retreat. One would be particularly wary in that circumstance, which, as Prior observed, Slay or strife, Is all the color of remaining life. [Prior’s Solomon, ii. 234-5: ‘Love Why ’tis joy or sorrow, peace or strife; ‘Tis all the color of remaining life.’] Concerning this especially be much in prayer, and the unction of the Holy One will guide you. -- I am, my dear Nelly, Yours very affectionately. My kind love to Sister Fisher and Brother Derry. [See letter of Jan. 5 to Miss Gretton.] To John Bredin LONDON, February 20, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It was a good providence that none of your bones were broken. God gave His angels charge over you. So far the old murtherer could go, and no farther. ’Tis well if these headstrong Volunteers [See Journal, vi. 188.] do not soon get their own necks into an halter. The Southern Volunteers have absolutely refused to join them in any such measures. This is not my year for Ireland; but whether I shall go westward or northward, I have not yet determined. You say ‘Pray deliver the enclosed’; but you do not say to whom. I suppose you mean to Mr. Abraham. [John Abraham. See letters of May 8, 1781, and April 25, 1783 (to Charles Wesley).] -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, February 22, 1782. DEAR JOSEH, -- Who Mr. Tyndall is I know not; but he is just as sound a divine as Mr. Madan. I regard no authorities but those of the Ante-Nicene Fathers; nor any of them in opposition to Scripture. And I totally deny that (supposed) matter of fact that polygamy was allowed among the primitive Christians or that the converts ‘ who had many wives were not required to put any of them away.’ I have not yet time to read over the MS. When I do, I must read it all in a breath. Having talked with my friends, I judge it will be expedient to visit the North this year. I expect to be at Manchester on Wednesday, the 10th of April, and in Yorkshire in the beginning of May. I have no objection to your printing a few copies of those two sermons [Benson’s Two Sermons on Sanctification (text, I Thess. v. 23-4) were printed by J. Bowling, Leeds, in 1782. ‘An Extract from Leighton’s Rules for an Holy Life’ is appended.] to oblige your friends in the neighborhood. I doubt we are not explicit enough in speaking on full sanctification either in public or private. -- I am, with kind love to Sister Benson, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To William Wafters LONDON, February 22, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- YOU send me an agreeable account of the work of God in America. It is amazing that any good should be done in a time of so much hurry and confusion when one would imagine man would think of nothing but the works of the devil. I wish you would send me whenever you have an opportunity a particular account of what is doing throughout the province. Formerly we had some Societies in North Carolina and likewise in Maryland. I hope they still subsist and are growing in grace as well as increasing in number. It is a great blessing that there is an end of that unhappy dispute, which otherwise would have torn you all in pieces. Again and again it has been set on foot in England and Ireland, But it never came to any height. We always took care to suppress it at the very beginning, so that it could not do much mischief. I hope Mr. Jarrett is not weary of well doing, but goes on with his labor of love. Now and then I suppose you can contrive to send a letter to New York and thence to your friends in England. The word of God has free course throughout these kingdoms and sinks deep into many hearts. I have pleasing accounts from various parts where many are justified and many sanctified, and so it is wherever our preachers strongly and explicitly exhort all the believers to go on to perfection. Peace be with all your spirits. -- I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother. To a Respectful Reader LONDON, February 23, 1782. To Mr. Wesley February 23, 1782. REVEREND SIR, -- I am, as you are, an Arminian. I am well acquainted with your religious tenets, and have read most, if not all, of your Works; and though I do not entirely fall in with you in every article of your creed, yet I have much respect to your character, great reverence for your principles in general, and an entire affection for your person. Depending upon the acknowledged candor of your disposition and your uniform zeal for the truth, I expect your attention and answers to the following questions: -- Is it your wish that the people called Methodists should be or become a body entirely separate from the Church Answer. No. If not, when, that is how often, and where, I mean upon what description of teachers of the Establishment, are they to attend A. I advise them to go to church. More particularly, if the fall, the corruption, and natural impotence of man, his free and full redemption in Christ Jesus through faith working by love, should be taught and inculcated and offered to the attention of all at the church of the parish where they reside, are they then in your opinion bound in conscience to hear, or may they at their own option forbear A. I do not think they are bound in conscience to attend any particular church. Or, if they are at liberty to absent themselves, are they at liberty, that is, have they a Christian privilege, to censure this doctrine in the gross, to condemn such teachers, and boldly to pronounce them ‘blind leaders of the blind’ A. No; by no means. Lastly. Whenever this happens, is it through prejudice or rational piety Is it through bigotry or a catholic spirit Is it consistent with Christian charity Is it compatible with a state of justification Or is it even allowable in the high habit of evangelical perfection A. I think it is a sin. Your unequivocal answers to these interesting queries, in the Arminian Magazine, will oblige, reverend sir, A RESPECTFUL READER. I have answered simply to your questions, whether they be proposed out of good or ill will. To Joseph Algar LONDON, February 24, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Your builders should consider (1) that the Conference can allow them nothing, and (2) that they cannot expect to collect anything in the circuit. Then, if they will build, let them observe the advices given in the Minutes of the Conference. Barely by not ‘going on to perfection’ all believers will grow dead and cold; and then they are just ripe for levity, tattling, and evil-speaking, which will soon destroy all the life of God out of their souls. Therefore you have need on this very account to preach perfection in the most strong and explicit manner possible. Without this you can never lift up the hands that hang down and strengthen the feeble knees. And what you preach to others you have particular need to apply to your own souls. Fly on, and take the prize. It is received by simple faith. Believe, and enter into rest! -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Joseph Algar, At Mr. Henry Jones’s, In Swansea, South Wales. To Ambrose Foley LONDON, February 26, 1782. DEAR SIR, -- On Saturday, March 23, I hope to be at Birmingham to open the new chapel [He opened Cherry Street Chapel letters of June 19, 1781, and Feb. 24, on July7. See Journal, vi. 360; and 1783.] and to spend a few days there. About the middle of the ensuing week I shall be willing to give you a sermon at Quinton. I am glad to hear that our labor there has not been in vain and that you are not ‘ashamed of the gospel of Christ.’ It will be a particular pleasure to me to see Mrs. Foley, and I hope to see her happier than ever she has been yet. Peace be with your spirits. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Ambrose Foley, At Quinton, Near Birmingham. To Mrs. Knapp LONDON, February 27, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- If ever I observe you in any fault, I shall certainly tell you of it, because I love you much; and I am persuaded you would not be angry but rather pleased with my plain dealing. I wrote word to Brother Knapp that I hoped to be with you on the 20th of March. I am pleased with any opportunity of spending a little time with you; and when I am at Worcester, let me have a few minutes with you alone, that you may be able to speak freely. I want you to be ‘all praise, all meekness, and all love.’ You know that’s your calling. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bradburn LONDON, February 28, 1782. MY DEAR BETSY, -- You did exceeding well to write. You should always permit those you love to share both in your joys and your sorrows. The account you give brings strongly to my mind the words of the Angel to the Hermit [Parnell’s The Hermit.]: To all but thee in fits he seemed to go, -- And ’twas my ministry to deal the blow. I am much inclined to think this was an instance of the same kind. Our Lord saw good to take the little one into Abraham’s bosom; His angel came with a commission to fetch him. But it was not seen good to remove him at one stroke, lest you should be swallowed up of over much sorrow. A reprieve was given for a few days, that you might be more prepared for the great trial and more determined to say, ‘It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good.’ I expect to be at Manchester on the 12th of April and about the beginning of May in Yorkshire. But I believe I had better take Blackburn, Preston, and Colne (to save time) in my way thither. Sammy Bradbum does right in giving himself directly to the work of God. It is far better and more comfortable for him than to sit mooning at home. May God enable him and you to do and to suffer His holy and acceptable will! So prays, my dear Betsy, Your ever affectionate brother. To Robert Costerdine LONDON, March 2, 1782. DEAR ROBERT, -- I have now before me a particular account of the behavior of W. Gill toward Stephen Proctor and others. I am greatly surprised at the partiality of Brother Harper. [Harper was Assistant at Leicester, and Costerdine the second preacher. For Gill, see letters of Jan. 6, 1780 (to Thomas Carlill), and March 22, 1782; and for Proctor, Oct. 12, 1780, and June 7, 1782.] Besides, he had no authority to administer an oath to any one. I forbid William Gill to preach any more in any of our Societies. And I beg of Joseph Harper not to say anything in his defense either in public or private. Brother Whitehouse informs me you have heard the case at large and do not lay any blame on Stephen Proctor. -- I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, March 8, 1782. MY DEAR NANCY, -- I came hither from Bath this afternoon, and just snatch time to write two or three fines. It gave me pleasure to see your letter dated from Caerleon, as I know your spending a few days there would not be in vain. You will give and receive a blessing. Iron sharpeneth iron, and the countenance of a man his friends--not only the conversation, but the very countenance, as I have often found when I looked upon you. But much more your words shall (by the grace of God) convey health to the soul. You will comfort and quicken my dear Sally, and not suffer her hands to hang down. I can say nothing of Sir Charles Grandison, because I never read a page of his. On Monday the 18th instant I hope to have the pleasure of meeting you at Stroud. On Tuesday I have promised to dine with that amiable woman Mrs. Wathen [Mrs. Wathen, the wife of a rich clothier at Thrupp, Stroud. See W.H.S. v. 251-3.] at New House. But I should not desire it unless you was there. Peace be with all your spirits.mI am, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Robert Cart Brackenbury BRISTOL, March 9, 1782. DEAR SIR, -- The letter you refer to as giving me an account of Mrs. Brackenbury’s illness I have never seen. I did not hear anything of it till I received Mr. Collins’s letter from Raithby. What a comfort it is that we know the Lord reigneth, and that He disposes all things in heaven and earth in the very manner which He sees will be most for His own glory and for the good of those that love Him. I am firmly persuaded the present dispensation, severe as it may appear, will be found in the event a means of greater blessings than any you have yet received. Even already you find the consolations of the Holy One are not small with you. And He enables you to make the right use of this providence by devoting yourself more entirely to His service. I am glad you have such a friend as Mr. Collins [Brian Bury Collins. See letter of June 14, 1780.] with you. I will write to Dr. Coke and desire him to look out for such a family near London as you want. I am not afraid of your speaking too little, but of your speaking too much. Stay! A thought just comes into my mind. On April the 4th I expect to be at Manchester, in order to visit the Societies in Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire; and thence to proceed (if God permit) to Scotland. Perhaps it would be of use if you took part of the journey with me. You may let me know your thoughts by a line directed to Manchester. Let Mr. Collins and you strengthen each other’s hands in God. It is exceeding clear to me, first, that a dispensation of the gospel is committed to you; and, secondly, that you are peculiarly called to publish it in connection with us. It has pleased God to give so many and so strong evidences of this, that I see not how any reasonable person can doubt it. Therefore, what I have often said before I say again, and give it under my hand, that you are welcome to preach in any of our preaching-houses, in Great Britain or Ireland, whenever it is convenient for you. I commend you for preaching less frequently where you find less liberty of spirit (because no necessity is laid upon you with regard to this or that particular place), and for spending most time in those places where you find most probability of doing good. We have need to work while it is day. -- I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate friend and brother. To Robert C. Brackenbury, Esq., Raithby, Near Spilsby. To Ann Loxdale BRISTOL, March 9, 1782. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- ‘Gold is tried in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of adversity.’ You say, ‘I know not whither I am going.’ I will tell you whither. You are going the straight way to be swallowed up in God. ‘I know not what I am doing.’ You are suffering the will of God and glorifying Him in the fire. ‘But I am not increasing in the divine life.’ That is your mistake. Perhaps you are now increasing therein faster than ever you did since you were justified. It is true that the usual method of our Lord is to purify us by joy in the Holy Ghost and a full consciousness of His love. But I have known several exempt cases, and I am clearly satisfied yours is one; and Far, far beyond thy thought His counsel shall appear, When fully He the work hath wrought That caused thy needless fear. [See Wesley’s translation of Gerhardt’s poem, verse 14.] If it be possible, meet me at Madeley on Saturday [He was at Madeley on March 23.]; then you may talk more largely with, my dear Miss Loxdale, Yours most affectionately. To Hannah Ball BRISTOL, March 10, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I would not willingly grieve you. I love you too well, and have done for many years. I was disappointed both last year and this. Last year your preachers did less than I expected, and this year they have done more than I expected. [1780-1, George Story, John Accutt; 1781-1, Richard Rodda, Thomas Warwick. See letter of Nov. 17, 1781.] Yes, and I trust you shah see greater things than these. The work of God has wonderfully revived in many parts of the nation. And I do not know why it should not revive among you also. Certainly you should look and ask for it. I am glad to hear so good an account of your sister; the more active she is the more her soul will live. I wanted to know what was become of those little maidens, [Her Sunday scholars. She began her Sunday school in 1769. See Memoir, p. 84.] and trust some of them will bring forth fruit to perfection. As you have a peculiar love for children and a talent for assisting them, see that you stir up the gift of God which is in you. If you gain but one of them in ten, you have a good reward for your labor. -- I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Thomas Brisco BRISTOL, March 12, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- On Thursday, April 4, I expect to be at Manchester. The plan of my journey through Yorkshire I have sent to Brother Mather, from whom you may have a copy if you have it not already. I desire no better lodging than either that at Birstall or Dawgreen. You have done well in changing the hours of preaching at Morley. I would encourage all persons to go to church as much as they possibly can. The meeting the children, whenever there is an opportunity, is a point of the utmost importance. By earnest exhortation we may prevail upon their parents in all our larger Societies to send them, and some of them will second the advices which their children receive from the preachers. I hope you give Sister Brisco full employment. She may be of great use. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Costerdine WORCESTER, March 22, 1782. DEAR ROBERT, -- I think you have acted exceeding right in the case of William Gill. [See letter of March 2.] I cannot in any wise consent to his preaching in any of our Societies. But does not one more thing lie upon you--namely, to talk plainly and fully with Joseph Harper Otherwise I cannot say that you are clear of his blood. -- I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson MACCLESFIELD, March 30, 1782. DEAR SIR, -- Many have inferred, from my not answering Mr. Madan’s book, that I was of the same judgment with him. [Benson’s criticisms (on ‘Polygamy and Marriage’) were published in the Magazine. See letters of May 21, 1781, and Feb. 22, 1782, to him.] But it was owing to another cause -- my want of time. I am glad you have supplied my lack of service; and that you have done it with temper, though not with that complaisance, which is quite unseasonable on such an occasion. I have read over your remarks with attention, and believe they will satisfy any impartial reader. I commend you and your labors to the God of truth and love. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Rutherford [March 1782.] DEAR TOMMY, -- Write to Hugh Moore in my name and tell him, ‘I desire he would change places with you for six weeks or two months.’ The being near her relations at the time of her lying in may be a means of saving your wife’s life. I doubt not of Bro. Moore’s willingness to oblige either you or me in a matter of such importance. Probably more persons will buy the History of the Church when they see it. Peace be multiplied upon you both! I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Carlill NEAR M.ANCHESTER, April 3, 1782. DEAR TOMMY, -- Be of good courage. You have had a token for good at Lynn, where it was supposed the case was desperate; and I do not doubt but you will see good days in and about Fakenham, though the people yet do not know much of discipline--and no wonder, if they have never yet had the Rules of our Societies. First explain them at large, and afterwards enforce them, very mildly and very steadily. Molly Franklin and Sister Proudfoot are good women. Deal very gently with them, and lovingly labor to convince those whom it concerns of the evil of buying or selling on the Lord’s Day. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Atlay STOCKPORT, April 4, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I think two thousand more of the Hymns for the Nation may be printed as soon as is convenient, leaving out the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 12th, 16th, 21st, and 22nd. When these seven are omitted (which are not of so general use), the remainder will be large enough for a threepenny book. Five hundred of these I would have sent to Sheffield (over and above the five hundred sent to Leeds), and five hundred to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I hope they will be at Sheffield before the 9th of May. I am poorly provided with fellow travelers. To save John Broadbent’s life I take him with me for a month while George Whitfield supplies his place. But he and T. Simpson together are but half a man. So that it is well I have learnt to serve myself. Do not boast of your riches to T. Olivers. It is enough to make him stark mad. [See letter of April 13.] -- I am Your affectionate brother. [On the back of the letter Wesley adds:] If you print 2,000 Estimates of the Manners of the Times for ed. and send me 500 of them to Leeds as soon as you can, and 500 to Sheffield with the Hymns, I can sell them. [Atlay endorses the latter, ‘Mr. Wesley, April 8, 1782.’] To Francis Wrigley MANCHESTER, April 4, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have no objection to the judgment of the rector of Trowbridge; and it seems this would stand between you and blame, as no one could condemn you without first condemning him. I do not know anything that is amiss in the behavior either of Brother Fowler or his wife. But I do not know that he is called to preach. Certainly he should not go where they are not willing to hear him. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Francis Wrigley, At the Preach- ing-house, In Bradford, Wilts. [Wrigley (who was Assistant) was not appointed to Bradford-upon-Avon until the Conference in August. He was probably there earlier.] To John Bredin MANCHESTER, April 6, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is probable I shall be able to hold a little Conference in Dublin before the middle of July. But you will hear more before that time. The four volumes of Sermons with the Notes on the New Testament (small edition) are the best books for Mr. Haslett. Any other of our books you may give to him or Mr. Dillon in my name. If Adam Clarke [See letters of Oct. 19, 1781, and July 9, 1782.] can come to London at the Conference, I will send him to Kingswood directly. You may take those three volumes of Magazines with as many as make up the set. You may likewise have the History of England and of the Church. John McKenny [John McKenny (whose son was one of the first missionaries in Ceylon) was a friend and classmate of Adam Clarke’s.] must take his choice. If he will refrain from going to that house, it will remove the offense. But if he will go, he does thereby put himself out of our Society. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Bredin, In Coleraine, Ireland. To Samuel Mitchell MANCHESTER, April 6, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Joseph Pilmoor did not let me know that you had sent a plan of the circuit to Dublin. Otherwise George Whitfield need not have wrote. It is very probable I may get as far as Dublin, in order to hold a little Conference, about the beginning of July. As it was so greatly wanted and the people were so willing, you did well to begin the preaching-house, and as far as circumstances will admit let it be built accordingly to the directions laid down in the Minutes. If you strongly and explicitly encourage all the believers in every place to expect present and full salvation from all sin, the work of the Lord will prosper in your hands. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. You will contrive to send Brother Foster’s letter to him. To Mr. Sam. Mitchell, In Clones, Ireland. To John Bredin LIVERPOOL, April 10, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have a letter from Mrs. Davenport, informing me that Hugh Moore has offered marriage to Kitty Davenport without the consent of her parents. [Evidently Hugh Moore, preacher at Londonderry. See the letter of Aug. 4 to Bredin.] Pray write to him strongly upon the head, and show him the sinfulness of such a proceeding: reminding him withal that, if he married a person without the consent of her parents, he would thereby exclude himself out of the Methodist Connection. Let him remember the exemplary behavior of John Prickard on a like occasion. If he will seriously promise entirely to drop the affair, he may come to Coleraine as usual. If he will not, he must come thither no more. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Loxdale LIVERPOOL, April 12, 1782. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- I advised formerly my dear Jenny Cooper, [See letter of Sept. 11, 1765.] and so I advise you, frequently to read and meditate upon the 13th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. There is the true picture of Christian perfection! Let us copy after it with all our might. I believe it might likewise be of use to you to read more than once the Plain Account of Christian Perfection. Indeed, what is it more or less than humble, gentle, patient love! It is undoubtedly our privilege to ‘rejoice evermore,’ with a calm, still, heartfelt joy. Nevertheless this is seldom long at one stay. Many circumstances may cause it to ebb and flow. This, therefore, is not the essence of religion, which is no other than humble, gentle, patient love. I do not know whether all these are not included in that one word resignation. For the highest lesson our Lord (as man) learned on earth was to say, ‘Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ May He confirm you more and more! Yours most affectionately. To Thomas Taylor LIVERPOOL, April 12, 1782. DEAR TOMMY, -- I find the difference between us is very small, for most of what you say I subscribe to. That ‘the war has been ill-conducted,’ that ‘millions of money and thousands of lives have been thrown away,’ that ‘numerous families have been ruined, trade much hurt,’ that we are ‘in danger of losing all North America, if not the East Indies too,’ ‘that our commanders both by sea and land love robbing and plundering far better than fighting,’ are melancholy truths which no man that has any knowledge of public affairs can deny. But you do not know half yet. If we live to meet, I can tell you stranger things than all these. I have changed the plan of my journeys: from Leeds I go to Lincolnshire, and thence by Hull and Scarborough to Newcastle. So that I shall not be at York [Taylor was Assistant there.] till the latter end of June. -- I am, with love to Sister Taylor, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Atlay LIVERPOOL, April 13, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- By all means send what remains of the former edition of the Hymns before you send the new. You may likewise send to Sheffield an hundred of each of Mr. Galloway’s tracts. Let us shut the stable door, though the steed is stolen. As T. Olivers has the interest of five hundred pounds besides my allowance, I do not see how he can possibly be in want, unless there be a marvellous want of economy. However, be it as it may. I am at a point: I will give him forty pounds a year and no more. [See letters of April 4, 1782, and Aug. 15, 1789.] -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Zachariah Yewdull OTLEY, May 1, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I see no reason yet why you may not spend the next year in Cork and Bandon. [Yewdull was now in the Waterford Circuit. He became Assistant at Cork at the following Conference.] If nothing unforeseen prevent, I shall be at Dublin the beginning of July. If you desire to promote the work of God, you should preach abroad as often as possible. Nothing destroys the devil’s kingdom like this. You may have the History of the Church: money is nothing between you and me. Be all in earnest! -- I am, dear Zachary, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Nuttal LEEDS, May 7, 1782. DEAR MRS. NUTTAL, -- When I was at Preston, [He had been there on May 24, 1781.] I was much pleased with your spirit, and found a tender concern for you. I saw you had real desire to be a Christian, and this endeared you much to me. I saw likewise a good deal of affection in your behavior, which united me to you the more. But as you are weak and inexperienced you have need of much prayer and much watchfulness. And you have great need that others who have more experience should watch over you in love. Therefore it is highly advisable for you to join the Society. Yet do not imagine that all in the Society are angels. They are weak, fallible creatures the same as yourself. But such as they may be helpful to you. -- My dear Mrs. Nuttal, Your affectionate servant. To Mrs. Taylor THORNE, May 14, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I will certainly rather encourage than discourage the sale of Mr. Taylor’s Concordance. [A Concordance to the Holy Scriptures. Thomas Taylor was a diligent student of Greek and Hebrew and a busy writer. York was a quiet circuit then. See Wesley’s Veterans, vii. 64-5, 70.] And I have no objection to recommend it as far as I can upon a slight perusal; but I have by no means time to read it over. I hope to be at York about the middle of June, but I cannot fix the day yet. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Martha Chapman SUNDERLAND, May 25, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, --Some fault we may allow to be in the heart of that poor creature. But undoubtedly the main fault lies in her head. It is as manifest a case of insanity as ever came under my notice. With regard to you, it is the wise providence of God. For the present it is not joyous, but grievous; yet by-and-by you will find all these things working together for good. I advise you all to let her say whatever she has a mind to say. But answer her not one word either bad or good. -- I am, my dear Patty, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Patty Chapman, At Warledon, Near Nettlebed, Oxfordshire. To Captain Webb SUNDERLAND, May 25, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Explain to our brethren wherever you go your conversation with Colonel Barr, and enforce the proposal as far as you can. Then you will the better be able to judge what number of soldiers you may reasonably expect to raise among the Methodists. I wish you would tell Mr. Moore [The preachers in Bristol in 1781 were John Pawson, John Murlin, and William Moore. Alexander M’Nab had been Pawson’s predecessor in 1779, and had caused much trouble at Bath. See letter of Jan. 18, 1780.] I desire he would not converse at all with the Separatists at Bath. If he does, I shall look upon it as an open declaration that he has no regard for me. If twenty people pledge themselves for Mr. Walker, [John Walker was now at Gloucester, and next Conference ‘desists from traveling.’] they may. But I have nothing more to do with him. I will give him one more guinea, and that is all. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Charles Attoore ALNWICK, May 28, 1782. DEAR CHARLES, -- Agues this year spread all over the kingdom, and they are far more stubborn than usual. If you have not tried Dr. Sander’s pills, you should (after taking a little vomit). They are entirely safe, as has been proved in a thousand instances. Take, -- Castile soap, two scruples; arsenicum album, two grains. Mix thoroughly, and make into’ eight pills. Take one every four hours between the fits. It very seldom fads. I am considered at present an invalid too; yet I trust we shall both recover our strength. -- I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles ALNWICK, May 28, 1782. DEAR BROTHER, -- The history of the matter is this: When I was at Dawgreen, near Birstall, the trustees for Birstall house brought me a deed, which they read over and desired me to sign. We disputed upon it about an hour. I then gave them a positive answer that ‘I would not sign it’; and, leaving them abruptly, went up to my room. About noon I preached at Horbury. In the evening I preached and met the Society at Wakefield. [He was at Wakefield on April 10, 1780.] At night, a little before I went to bed, the trustees came again, got round, and worried me down. But I think they cannot worry you. May not you very properly write to Mr. Valton – ‘If the trustees will settle the Birstall house on the Methodist plan, I will sign their deed with all my heart; but if they build an house for a Presbyterian meeting-house, I will not, I dare not, have anything to do with it.’ I never yet sent a letter of attorney on such an occasion, nor wrote in any other form than this, ‘Its receipt shall be your discharge.’ If the executor says, ‘I will not pay it on such a receipt,’ then I will send a letter of attorney. The beginning of Rodney’s account is utterly unfashionable. [News arrived early in May of Rodney’s great victory over the French Navy near the island of Dominica on April 12.] I wonder how it entered into his head. We ‘get God on our side’ by the continual prayer of thousands. You may send me Cicero, and Fabritius, and the American War, together with the next Magazines, to York. I expect to be ten or twelve days in and near Edinburgh, and about the 17th of June at Newcastle. Peace be with you all! Adieu! To Mrs. Clark NEAR EDINBURGH, June 1, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am glad to hear that the Select Society increases, and that you meet it constantly. The prosperity of the whole society greatly depends on that little number. If these continue steadfast and alive to God, they will enliven the rest of their brethren. I love your little maidens, and wish they knew how well our Savior loves them. If they did, they would certainly love Him ! And then, how happy they would be! -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Clark, At Mr. Knapp’s, Glover, In Worcester. To Samuel Bradburn ABERDEEN, June 7, 1782. DEAR SAMMY, -- Cannot you give part of J. Hodgson’s class to the other leader Let each person meet with which he chooses. Let Henry Atkinson and Thomas Haigh be the stewards for the ensuing year. I see no reason why Brother Proctor should not remain in the circuit till the Conference. [Stephen Proctor, the Assistant at Glamorgan, ceased to ‘travel’ at the Conference in August.] But whenever you have the opportunity earnestly exhort him to be serious and to be jealous for God. Whoever is pleased or displeased, the preaching at Greetland and at Halifax must remain as it is. Our yea is yea, and our nay is nay. I have little objection to John Oliver’s [The preachers at Bradford were Samuel Bradburn, John Floyd, and John Oliver, who moved to Chester in August.] request -- it seems reasonable enough. I am glad to hear my poor Betsy [See letter of Feb. 28.] gathers strength. I love her well. Peace be with both your spirits! -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jonathan Hern ALNWICK, June 16, 1782. DEAR JONATHAN, -- I have made all the haste from the North of Scotland which I reasonably could. But still my time fails short. I shall not be able to reach York before the 27th instant. And I shall then have all the Midland Societies to visit; so that I cannot get any time for Ireland this summer. For before I have well done my business in the country the Conference will call me to London. Peace be with you and yours! Be zealous for God! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Jon. Hern, At the Octagon, In Chester. To Hester Ann Roe DARLINGTON, June 25, 1782. MY DEAR HETTY, -- It is certain there has been for these forty years such an outpouring of the Spirit and such an increase of vital religion as has not been in England before for many centuries; and it does not appear that the work of God at all decays. In many places there is a considerable increase of it; so that we have reason to hope that the time is at hand when the kingdom of God shall come with power, and all the people of this poor heathen land shall know Him, from the least unto the greatest. I am glad you had so good an opportunity of talking with Mr. Sellars. Surely, if prayer was made for him, so useful an instrument as he was would not be suffered to lose all his usefulness. I wish you could make such little excursions oftener, as you always find your labor is not in vain. Many years since, Madame Bourignon’s Works were put into my hands, particularly the treatises Mr. Sellars so strongly recommends, with her Exterior and Interior Life, written by herself. It was easy to see she was a person dead to the world and much devoted to God; yet I take her to be very many degrees beneath both Mr. De Renty and Gregory Lopez -- nay, I do not believe she had so much genuine Christian experience as either David Brainerd or Thomas Walsh. What makes many passages both in her life and in her writings so striking is that they are so peculiar -- they are so entirely her own, so different from everything which we have seen or heard elsewhere! But this is in reality not an excellence, but a capital defect. Her expressions naturally tend to give a new set of ideas: they will set imagination at work, and make us fancy we saw wonderful things, but they were only shadows. I avoid, I am afraid of, whatever is peculiar, either in the experience or language of any one. I desire nothing, I will accept of nothing, but .the common faith and the common salvation. This afternoon I was agreeably surprised by a letter from our dear Miss Ritchie. It seems as if God, in answer to many prayers, has lent her to us yet a little longer. ‘He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up again. Wise are all His ways!’ Take particular care, my dear Hetty, of the children: they are glorious monuments of divine grace; and I think you have a particular affection for them and a gift to profit them. -- I always am, my dear friend, Yours most affectionately. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] In her Journal for January 5, 1782, Miss Roe writes: ‘Mr. Leach preached this evening, and his word was accompanied with power from on high.’ John Leach was the third preacher at Macclesfield. He died in 1810, at the age of seventy-three. His obituary speaks of the zeal and preaching power of ‘this valuable man.’ [2] There were various rumors about Wesley’s friendship with Miss Ritchie. Benson writes to John Murlin on December 1, 1781 (manuscript Life, p. 1171): ‘I hope they will prove false prophets who tell us Mr. Wesley will be married soon to Miss Ritchie of Otley.’ They were false prophets. She proved herself a true daughter to the great evangelist; and her account of his death-bed is one of the noted Methodist treasures. [3] Bardsley was in the Aberdeen Circuit, of which Peter Mill was Assistant, He had left Sheffield in the previous August. [4] Benson had been much profited in January by reading Tindal’s Works. ‘He speaks so clearly of justification by faith, and the proper fruit and evidence of this in love and obedience, that his writings are full of instruction and comfort. Pie considers all mankind, even the most holy, as coming continually short of the obedience required in the law, and therefore as being sinners before God; and he speaks of consenting to and delighting in the law of God after the inward man as being an infallible mark of conversion.’ See manuscript Life, p. 1175; and letter of March 30, 1782. [5] William Wafters was brought to Philadelphia by Robert Williams after his triumphant work in North Carolina and Virginia, Pie became the first native American itinerant. Devereux Jarraft, of Bath Parish, Dinwiddie County, ‘the American Fletcher,’ who gave valuable help in the great Virginia Revival, encouraged Williams in his work and entertained him in his parsonage. Francis Asbury says in his Journal for November 1781 that ‘more souls were convinced by him than by any man in Virginia.’ He was known as an evangelist for fifty miles round his parish, and some of his converts became Methodist preachers. He died in February 1801, and Asbury preached his funeral sermon. The ‘dispute’ was probably about the administration of the sacraments, which all but one of the preachers agreed to give up at the Baltimore Conference in May 1781. See Lewis’s Francis Asbury, pp, 88, 168. [6] The letter is given with Wesley’ answers. [7] Mrs. Bradburn had lost her little boy of three on February 17. She wrote from Bradford to Wesley on the 24th about this ‘most engaging child, full of health and spirits,’ and said that her husband ‘engaged in his labors yesterday, and is now in the circuit, having no person to assist him in preaching. I am myself very poorly, and am not sure that I have quite five weeks to reckon.’ The boy had been poorly a few days, but seemed to be recovering. See Blanshard’s Bradburn, p. 88. [8] This letter is directed ‘To Miss Bolton, At Miss James’s, In Caerleon, Gloster.’ Sarah James (‘My Dear Sally’) had lived in St. James Barton, Bristol, and had evidently moved to Caerleon. Miss Bolton told Wesley on February 23 that Miss James, with whom she was staying, had begun to read Samuel Richardson’s novel Sir Charles Grandison to her in the evening. She found the great character there delineated led her to the ‘much higher One, the meek, the noble, the dispassionate, the lovely Jesus…. Besides, I meet with many beautiful sentiments in this book that have not fell in my way which may be useful to me as I pass through life. But, after all I have said in. layout of it, I beg your sentiments.’ The ideal of this perfect hero, the union of a good Christian and a perfect English gentleman, is said to have been Robert Nelson. See Arminian Magazine, 1790, p. 270; and letter of January 2, 1781. [9] Mrs. Brackenbury’s foot slipped as she stepped into her carriage, and caused such injury that she died after some months of illness, at the age of twenty-one. She was buried in Raithby Church on March 3, 1782. See letter of November 19, 1781, to him. [10] Brisco was Assistant at Bitstall and Alexander Mather Assistant at Leeds. Wesley stayed with Mr. Parson Greenwood. See Methodism in Dewsbury, p. 55; and for Dawgreen, near Dewsbury, Journal, v. 180. [11] This letter is undated, but was probably written about March 1782, when Rutherford was stationed at Lisburn. Hugh Moore was at Londonderry, in which circuit Mrs. Rutherford’s family lived at Coleraine. Wesley’s Ecclesiastical History was published in 1781. See letter of July 4, 1781, about their marriage. [12] John Prickard, the Assistant at Lynn, had been very ill with a violent bilious fever, and went to London, where he was most kindly cared for at Wesley’s house. Carlill is in the Minutes as Assistant at Colchester, and had probably gone to supply. On October 29, 1781, Wesley preached at Fakenham, ‘in a room built by Miss Franklin, now Mrs. Parker,’ and most of the town were present. Miss Franklin had also preached out of doors at Wells, ‘though at the peril of her life.’ See Journal, vi. 338; Wesley’s Veterans, iii. 245-8. [13] The Hymns for the Nation appeared in 1782. Nos. 2, 3, 8, and which are to be omitted in the 3d. form, are headed ‘For the Loyal Americans,’ ‘Amos viii. 2,’ ‘A Prayer for the Congress,’ and ‘For the Conversion of the French.’ In An Estimate of the Manners of the Present Times (23 pages), Wesley holds that ‘total ignorance of God, a total contempt of Him,’ is the great evil. See Green’s Bibliography, Nos. 360, 367, 368. Broadbent had evidently injured his health by ‘screaming’; Wesley took him with him on two journeys to Holland, and he was at Wesley’s death-bed (see letters of October 31, 1778, to Miss Warren, and February 23, 1785). George Whitfield became a preacher in 1785 and Book Steward in 1789; he died in 1832. Thomas Simpson, M.A., Master at Kingswood 1771-83, was evidently in poor health; so that he and Whitfield ‘together are but half a man.’ Thomas Olivers had been in charge of Wesley’s printing from 1776, and had to prepare the Arminian Magazine for press. [14] On September 17, 1754, Wesley opened a preaching-house at Trowbridge built by Laurence Oliphant, one of John Haime’s converts in Flanders. John Mason formed a class in 1781; and Wesley says on September 28 of that year: ‘How long did we toil here and take nothing! At length, it seems, the answer of many prayers is come.’ A scribbling-shop used for preparing wool had been rented and fitted up for services. Probably the rector’s action refers to this. See Journal, iv. 99-100, vi. 336. [15] Joseph Pilmoor was Assistant in Dublin and Henry Foster Assistant in Charlemont. Samuel Mitchell, an Irishman who became a preacher in 1779, was now Assistant at Clones. Wesley included his name in the Deed of Declaration. On May 28, 1785, Wesley found such a Society at Clones as he ‘had hardly seen in Ireland, making it a point of conscience to conform to all our Rules, great and small. The new preaching-house was exceeding neat, but far too small to contain the congregation.’ See Journal, vii. 84. [16] A most important and significant letter as to Wesley’s views on public affairs. Rodney’s victory and the defeat of Hyder All in India changed the outlook, despite the loss of the American Colonies. See letter of May 28 to his brother. [17] Mrs. Nuttal, a lady of independent means, lived at Walton-le-Dale. She was one of the earliest Methodists in the neighborhood. Wesley visited her on April 17, 1784, when she was on the point of death. See Journal, vi. 496; Richard Allen’s Methodism in Preston, p. 35; and letter of July 31 to her. [18] Colonel Isaac Barr (1726-92) was M.P. for Calne 1774-90, Treasurer of the Navy 1782, and afterwards Paymaster of the Forces. Both he and Webb served under Wolfe at Quebec, and his portrait is conspicuous in West’s painting. He was strongly opposed to the American War. Ho was blind for the last twenty years of his life. ‘His oratory was powerful, but coarse; his manner rugged, his countenance stern, and his stature athletic.’ See letter of July 24. [19] Attoore suffered much from ague at Grimshy for many months, and was compelled to retire to Haddiscoe till the Conference in August, when he was appointed to Scarborough. [20] The difficulty about the trust deeds of the Birstall preaching-place was an acute trial to Wesley. His brother was at a distance, and could not be worried by visits from the trustees. At his suggestion Charles wrote on July 29 to explain matters further, and sent it to James Cart, the trustees’ attorney. See Works, xii. 149-50; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 373-82. [21] This letter and that of August 1, 1789, were bequeathed to the Wisbech Museum by the Rev. Chauncey Hare Townsbend. [22] In her Journal Miss Roe describes her talk with John Sellars as they walked to Mr. Platt’s. Sellars considered Madame Bourignon as the most holy woman that ever lived, and lent her one of the French Mystic’s books. She read a few pages, and returned it. See Journal of Mrs. Hester Ann Rogers, pp. 162, 166-77; and letter of June 10, 1781, where Wesley gives his opinion to Miss Loxdale in similar words to these. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 80: 78. 1782 ======================================================================== 1782 To John Bredin BIRMINGHAM, July 9, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your letter reached me this morning. I know not whether it would not be best for you to spend the ensuing year in London. There you might have the best medical advice, and might preach more or less as your strength allowed. [See letters of Oct. 19, 1781, and Aug. 4, 1782, to him.] Adam Clarke may easily get over to Liverpool or Chester; but ships sometimes go from Newry to Bristol, and very frequently from Dublin, especially at this time of the year. My kind love to Alleck Knox. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. John Bredin, At Mr. McKear’s, In Londonderry. To Mrs. Fletcher BIRMINGHAM, July 12, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I was much pleased with the thought of meeting Mr. Fletcher and you here. But the will of the Lord be done! It gives me satisfaction to hear that the work of our Lord prospers in your hands. [Mrs. Fletcher had written Wesley on July 7, describing the work in Madeley.] That weak young man {whether with design or without) had damped it sufficiently. I trust the flame will now revive and increase on every side. It seems to have been the will of God for many years that I should have none to share my proper labor. My brother never did. Thomas Walsh began to do it; so did John Jones. But one died and one hinted. Dr. Coke promises fair; at present I have none like-minded. When a lot is cast, I have no more to say. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Ann Loxdale BIRMINGHAM, July 12, 1782. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE,--It raised some wonder in me that I had not a line from you in so long a time. I began to be almost afraid that your love was growing cold. And it would not be at all strange if it did: it is more strange if it does not, especially while you have an affair in hand that naturally tends to engross the whole thought. Whoever follows the few plain directions which are given in the sermon on Enthusiasm [See Works, v. 467-78.] will easily and distinctly see what is the will of God concerning any point in question -- that is, provided the eye be single, provided we have one design and one desire. But it is a just observation, ‘As a very little dust will disorder the motion of a clock, and as a very little sand will hinder the sight of the eye, so a very little desire or selfish design will greatly hinder the eye of the soul.’ By experience, the strongest of all arguments, you have been once and again convinced that salvation from inbred sin is received by simple faith, and by plain consequence in a moment; although it is certain there is a gradual work both preceding and following. Is it not, then, your wisdom not willingly to converse with any that oppose this great and important truth and studiously to avoid any books that reason plausibly against it If you play with fire, will you not be burnt sooner or later nay, have you not been burnt already A thought comes into my mind which I will simply tell you: it is not the will of God that you should on any account whatever contract a near union [See letter of July 24.] with any person tinged with Mysticism. I believe you will take this kindly from, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Penelope Newman July 12, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I do not yet see any reason why Jonathan Coussins should not labor next year in the Gloucester-shire Circuit. [He was then in the Sarum Circuit, and in August was duly appointed to Gloucester.] But I do not use to determine things of this kind absolutely before the Conference. Afflictions, you know, are only blessings in disguise. ‘He prepares occasions of fighting that thou mayest conquer.’ Whenever you have an opportunity of making a little excursion it will be for good. -- I am, dear Penny, Your affectionate brother. To Miss P. Newman, In Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. To Ellen Gretton LONDON, July 23, 1782. MY DEAR MISS GRETTON, -- We are frequently called to give up our own will, not only when it is contrary to the will of God, but when it seems to us we desire to do this or that purely to promote His glory. And in cases of this kind we are required (in a sense) to give up our understanding as well as our will. By making this sacrifice we profit much; we die to ourselves and advance in the life of God. But I do not apprehend you are at all obliged to make a sacrifice of all your religious friends, all the opportunities of doing good, and all the means of grace which you now enjoy, if there be any possibility of avoiding it. You have undoubtedly returned your thankful acknowledgments both to your father and your brother for their kind offer. But I should think it was your best way neither to accept nor refuse it for the present. I commend you to His care who loves you; and am, dear Nelly, Yours affectionately. I know not but I may find a way for your coming to Conference. [It met in London at the beginning of August. See W.H.S. xiv. 2-3.] To Ann Loxdale LONDON, July 24, 1782. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- Two or three years ago, when the Frenchmen expected to land, I made an offer to the Government. It was not accepted; so I thought of it no more. But some months since, Captain Webb renewed it to Colonel Barr I knew nothing of the matter. But I would not oppose it, as neither did I forward it. I barely gave him leave to inquire what number of the Methodists were willing to embark with him. But I suppose the whole is now at an end, as Colonel Barr is out of place. [See letters of May 25 (to Captain Webb) and Aug. 3 (to Joseph Benson).] I wish you to retain a close acquaintance with Mr. -----. He is an upright man. And I am in hopes we may now set his head right [See letters of July 12, 1782, and Nov. 21, 1783, to her.]; as he that confounded his interests is gone to another world. There is no danger of your taking any step that is materially wrong if you continue instant in prayer. But I know so little of the thing you refer to that I can say little about it. Only do not expect that any creature will increase your happiness any farther than it increases your knowledge and love of God. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, July 29, 1782. DEAR TOMMY, -- I doubt not but the work of God will revive in Dublin; for Brother Blair and you will not only preach the full Methodist doctrine, but enforce our discipline in every point and preach abroad at every opportunity. Pray tell Richard Calent I thank him for his letter. I have a letter likewise from George Pellet, of Eyre Court, and am glad to hear his daughter is so well married. Now I speak a word to you in your ear. Thomas Bethell [See letter of Oct. 19.] has been basely used. James Deaves is deeply prejudiced against him, and has prejudiced many others. Do all you can by little and little to remove that prejudice. He is a downright honest man, and ‘a troublesome man’ only to mongrel Methodists. I thank nobody for hindering his prayer-meeting, which was a direct affront to me. Give him the note which I have enclosed. -- I am, with love to Sister Rutherford, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Nuttal LONDON, July 31, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You judge right that preaching abroad [See letter of May 7.] is an admirable means of increasing the work of God, as many will then have an opportunity of learning the truth that otherwise would never have heard it. Rather let all who wish religion to flourish exhort and encourage them to it. You would do well during this fine season to make every opportunity of learning the good word, otherwise there will be a danger that your desire of being altogether a Christian should faint and die away. And, indeed, the staying always at home may gradually impair your bodily health, For exercise in the open air is absolutely necessary to this. Therefore on a very fine day, if you cannot go far, then you should walk half an hour or an hour in your garden. For the meantime let it be your great desire and care to exercise yourself unto godliness. Be a Christian indeed! Be alive to God; and you will give more and more satisfaction to Yours very affectionately. To Kitty Warren LONDON, July 31, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It pleases God to give me much better health in general than I had at five-and-twenty. For many years also I was frequently weary; but I know not now what weariness means. I have just strength enough for what I am called to do; and at the end of my work I feel just the Same as at the beginning. Till very lately I had hopes of paying you a short visit after the Conference. But I find it cannot be. I must see them in the West of Cornwall, where there is a great revival of the work of God. And before I can return thence there will hardly so much time remain as will be due to the Bristol Circuit. [He finished the Conference in London on Aug. 13, and set out by coach the same afternoon for the West of England.] T. Tennant [The preachers at Pembroke were Samuel Randall, Thomas Tennant, and James Hall. Tennant stayed another year.] writes to me and desires he may not continue any longer in Pembrokeshire. However, I will tell him the desire of his friends in Wales, and then leave him to his choice. Mr. Randall has been there two years already. So it is time for him to remove. You are exactly in your place. If you desire it, you shall have more employment [See letters of Oct. 19, 1779, and June 8, 1786.]; but you would be a loser if you had less. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear Kitty, Your ever affectionate brother. To Miss Warren, In Haverfordwest. To Joseph Benson NEAR LONDON, August 3, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Do not you know that all the preachers cannot leave a circuit at once Therefore, if you left it, Brother Hopper could not. Perhaps, likewise, I can depend upon your judgment more than that of another man. Two or three years ago, when the kingdom was in imminent danger, I made an offer to the Government of raising some men. The Secretary of War (by the King’s order) wrote me word that ‘it was not necessary; but if it ever should be necessary, His Majesty would let me know.’ I never renewed the offer, and never intended it. But Captain Webb, without my knowing anything of the matter, went to Colonel Barr, the new Secretary of War, and renewed that offer. [Colonel Barr became Paymaster of the Forces in July. See letter of July 24.] The Colonel (I verily believe, to avoid his importunity) asked him how many men we could raise. But the Colonel is out of place. So the thing is at an end. I read over both the sermons; but I did not see anything materially wrong in either. -- I am, with love to Sister Benson, Your affectionate brother. We will consider what you propose. To Ann Bolton NEAR LONDON, August 3, 1782. MY DEAR NANCY, -- I thought you had known the truth of the old saying, ‘A Friend is made for adversity.’ Very probably you have suffered more by keeping your sufferings to yourself. But still we know the Lord is King and ruleth all things both in heaven and earth. I am glad your brother’s distresses are a little relieved. I shall not be sorry when he is entirely quit of Finstock. I never expected great things from it; but I thought he knew better than me. [See letters of Sept. 9, 1781, and Jan. 5, 1783.] I believe, if you feed the poor man three or four weeks with absolutely nothing but bread and milk, it will totally restore his senses. I have known it tried here, and the patient recovered entirely. Miss Ritchie is just alive; she is still hovering between life and death. I have divided Nottingham Circuit into two, and stationed Brother Warwick [Thomas Warwick (1778-1809), who appears in the Minutes for Leicestershire, was a laborious and successful preacher. See letter of March 6, 1788.] in the Derby part of it. Do not, my dear Nancy, again delay so long writing to Yours most affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Hannah Ball LONDON, August 4, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I almost wondered that I did not receive a line from you for so long a season. I could not easily believe that your love was grown cold; and I am glad to hear it is not. But it is a discouragement to see one month pass after another without any perceptible fruit of our labor, without any discernible outpouring of the Spirit, either in His convincing or converting influences. But beware you do not cast away hope! ‘He will come, and will not tarry.’ You know not how soon He may send on all around you A kindly gracious shower Of heart-reviving love! Look for it, my dear Hannah! Pray for it! Expect it soon! And you will not be disappointed. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my sister and friend, Your affectionate brother. To John Bredin LONDON. August 4, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- In your present state you must not attempt to travel. It is as much as your life is worth. [See letters of July 9 and Nov. 30 to him.] You may be a supernumerary in whatever place you judge most advisable; and the little salary, the 12, we will allow from hence. I do not understand what is the accusation against Hugh Moore. [Moore moved from Londonderry to Aberdeen, See letter of April 10.] Simply administering an oath is a folly; but I know not that it is contrary to any law. If he is afraid of staying at Coleraine (although I know not why), let him change with a Sligo or Castlebar preacher. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Francis Wolfe LONDON. August 6, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Necessity has no law. Till your strength is restored do all the good you can as a local preacher. According to my last regulations pray inform the preachers and Captain Williams my plan is this, -- Taunton, Thursday, Aug. 15; Exeter, Friday, Aug. 16; Plymouth, Monday, Aug. 19; St. Austell, Wednesday, Aug. 21; Helstone, Thursday, Aug. 22; Penzance, Friday and Saturday, Aug. 23 and 24; St. Just, Sunday, Aug. 25: and in the West, -- St. Ives, Thursday, Aug. 29; Redruth, Saturday, Aug. 31; St. Anne’s, Redruth, Gwennap, Sept. 1. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Jasper Winscom LONDON, August 10, 1782. DEAR JASPER, -- That the work of God has not prospered in the Salisbury Circuit for several years is none of your fault. I am persuaded you have His work at heart and will do all that is in your power to promote it. So will Mr. Mason [John Mason had just been appointed Assistant at Sarum.]; so will the other preachers. Look for happy days! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To William Sagar LONDON, August 11, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Certainly nothing can more effectually stop the work of God than the breaking in of Calvinism upon you. I hope your three preachers will calmly and diligently oppose it, although not so much by preaching as by visiting the people from house to house, dispersing the little tracts as it were with both hands. Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Cooper LONDON, August 12, 1782. MY DEAR HARRIETT, -- Take place on the coach, and I will pay the expense. Make no delay, but come away immediately to Yours affectionately. Come straight to my house in the City Road, near Moorfields. To Mrs. Harriet Cooper, Liverpool. To Robert Hopkins LONDON, August 13, 1782. DEAR ROBERT, -- I am very well satisfied with your letter. I could take your word in a greater matter than this. The whole seems to have arisen from a misapprehension of your words; so the matter is at an end. [He was now at Norwich, where there were special difficulties, and evidently some unhappy reports.] -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Davenport BRISTOL, August 14, 1782. DEAR SIR, -- It would have given me a good deal of satisfaction to have had a little conversation with you. But I do not stay long in one place. I have no resting-place on earth: A poor wayfaring man, I dwell awhile in tents below, Or gladly wander to and fro, Till I my Canaan gain. You would have been very welcome at our Conference. Mr. Pugh and Mr. Dodwell were present at it; and I believe are more determined than ever to spend their whole strength in saving their own souls and them that hear them. I believe one of our preachers that are stationed in the Leicester Circuit will call upon you at Allexton; and I make no doubt but some of the seed which you have been long sowing will then grow up. No one should wish or pray for persecution. On the contrary, we are to avoid it to the uttermost of our power. ‘When they persecute you in one city, flee unto another.’ Yet, when it does come, notwithstanding all our care to avoid it, God will extract good out of evil. To-morrow I am to set out for Cornwall. In about three weeks I expect to be here again. In the beginning of October I generally move towards London, in the neighborhood of which I usually spend the winter. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ellen Gretton BRISTOL, September 7, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It pleases God to lead you in a rough path for the present; but it is enough that all will end well. I never knew any disorder in the bowels which might not be speedily cured by drinking plentifully of lemonade; unless in a few peculiar constitutions, which could not bear lemons. And the drinking nettle-tea (instead of common tea) will commonly perfect the cure. If occasion require, she should certainly return to some place where she is not known. And I hope God will incline his heart to allow her what is necessary. The fearing lest we should be called hence before we are perfected in love is one species of taking thought for the morrow. You have nothing to do with this. Live to-day I And Be now willing to receive What His goodness waits to give. -- I am, my dear Nelly, Yours affectionately. To Richard Rodda BRISTOL, September 9, 1782. DEAR RICHARD, -- You should take particular care that your circuit be never without an assortment of all the valuable books, especially the Appeals, the Sermons, Kempis, and the Primitive Physick, which no family should be without. Send for these, and, according to the rule of Conference, take them into your own keeping. You are found to be remarkably diligent in spreading the books: let none rob you of this glory. If you can spread the Magazine, it will do good: the letters therein contain the marrow of Christianity. Your affectionate friend and brother. It is very remarkable that you should have a prospect of doing good at Oxford I And it is certainly a token for good that you should find a magistrate willing to do you justice. To Joseph Taylor BRISTOL, September 9, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, -- You will now have full scope for the exercise of every talent that God has given you; and you have fellow laborers after your own heart. See that no strangeness creep in between you! If you continue instant in prayer, I trust there will be such a work in Cornwall as never was yet. You remember the rule of Conference that every Assistant should take my books in his own hands, [See previous letter and that of Sept. 24.] as having better opportunities of dispersing them than any private person can possibly have. I desire you would do this without delay. The Primitive Physick should be in every family. So should the Christian Pattern if possible. Of the Magazines I need say nothing. Herein I am persuaded you will tread in James Rogers’s steps, and go beyond him as far as you can. The children will require much attention; and the bands too, or they will molder away. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Joseph Taylor, At the Preaching- house, In Redruth, Cornwall. To a Quaker FROME, September 12, 1782. I have lately heard, to my no small surprise, that a person professing himself a Quaker, and supposed to be a man of some character, has confidently reported that he has been at Sunderland himself and inquired into the case of Elizabeth Hobson, that she was a woman of a very indifferent character, that the story she told was purely her own invention, and that John Wesley himself was now fully convinced that there was no truth in it. From what motive a man should invent and publish all over England (for I have heard this in various places) an whole train of absolute, notorious falsehoods, I cannot at all imagine. On the contrary, I declare to all the world, (1) that Elizabeth Hobson was an eminently pious woman, that she lived and died without the least blemish of any kind, without the least stain upon her character; (2) that the relation could not possibly have been her own invention, as there were many witnesses to several parts of it, as Mr. Parker, the two attorneys whom she employed, Miss Hesmer, and many others; and (3) that I myself am fully persuaded that every circumstance of it is literally and punctually true. I know that those who fashionably deny the existence of spirits are hugely disgusted at accounts of this kind. I know that they incessantly labor to spread this disgust among those that are of a better mind, because if one of these accounts be admitted their whole system falls to the ground. But whoever is pleased or displeased, I must testify what I believe to be the truth. Indeed, I never myself saw the appearance of an unbodied spirit; and I never saw the commission of a murder. Yet upon the testimony of unexceptionable witnesses, I can firmly believe both one and the other. To William Robarts FROME, September 12, 1782. I was much concerned when I saw you last; and as ‘life for delays no time will give,’ especially my life, which is far spent, I take the first opportunity of speaking once for all. You are in a large way of business, wherein I suppose you dear one (if not two or three) hundred a year. Over and above that you have an estate which, if you gave above thirty years’ purchase, is an hundred a year. You have neither son nor daughter; and yet you cannot afford sixpence a month for the Magazine! Nay, you could not afford to give a guinea in a pressing case, viz. at the instance of an old tried friend! Are you, then, in more debt than you can pay Or is your trade gone, so that it will no more than keep your house Do you clear nothing in the year If so, you may still lay up the annual income of your estate. (What you could sell it for is nothing to the purpose; you do not need to sell it.) Are you not, then, ‘laying up treasures upon earth’ And how is this consistent with Scripture Surely no more than living in adultery or habitual drunkenness. Those words of St. Paul have for some time past been much impressed on my mind, ‘If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, with such an one, no not to eat.’ Now, I cannot dear you of covetousness, deep, uncommon covetousness, such as I very rarely meet with. I do not know that in forty years I have asked a guinea of any other man that has denied me! So I have done! I give you up to God. I do not know that you will any more be troubled with Your former Friend. [Wesley was mistaken in his judgment, as the following reply from Robarts on September 16 shows. He was evidently using all possible economy that he might escape failure in business.] VERY DEAR SIR, -- You sat in judgment on me as long ago as Mr. Hindmarsh [James Hindmarsh was Assistant of the Devon Circuit in 1775.] was here and condemned me unheard; and though I then was, and yet am, conscious of my innocence in that respect, you still hold me guilty, and now incline to treat, at least to esteem, as an heathen man or a publican. Had you admitted me to answer in person, I could have given you satisfaction; but shall not commit it to paper, which may perhaps come to other hands before yours. But that I am not ‘laying up treasures upon earth,’ that I am not convinced of ‘deep, uncommon covetousness,’ that I am convinced you have wronged me and are severe and uncharitable in your censure, I do and must inform you; for the truth of which I appeal to that righteous God who is both yours and mine. Where, then, is that charity that thinketh no evil I am really grieved, and not without cause. Four or five if not seven years you have thus treated your honest and generous but injured son in the gospel, W. ROBARTS. To Ann Bolton BATH, September 15, 1782. MY DEAR NANCY, -- Be so kind as to inform Brother Rodda that if God prolong my life and strength, I shall be at Walling-ford on Monday, October 16; at Oxford on Tuesday, 17; at Witney, Wednesday; and at High Wycombe on Thursday. As I hope to see you in a short time, I do not now inquire into the particulars of your afflictions, although it is pity but you had used the privilege of a friend and told me them all just as they occurred. But it is enough that God drew good out of evil and commanded all things to work together for good. He has proved you in the furnace of affliction; and when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold. In many parts of the kingdom there has been a considerable increase of the work of God. And why should there not be the same with you also It will if our brethren be instant in prayer. One effect of your trials is to unite me more closely to you as ‘pity melts the mind to love.’ Indeed, you long have been exceedingly near to, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To William Robarts BRISTOL, September 19, 1782. Strange! Have you not an estate Does it bring you in nothing Have you not a large trade Do you gain nothing thereby Then how can you avoid ‘laying up treasures on earth’ I want to know: I desire to justify you. To this Robarts replies: REVERAND SIR, -- In this respect I know nobody but you that condemns me; my heart, my God does not. I therefore need no justification. I have already spoke and wrote, but to no avail; therefore desire to be silent till you can cast one glance of charity, at least of candor, though I am not worthy of your address or subscription. I hope you will for this once admit the name of your once esteemed W. R. [See letter of Aug. 3, 1783.] To Joseph Taylor BRISTOL, September 24, 1752. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Joseph Andrew writes to me about his keeping the books still. I answer, ‘It was determined at the Conference that the books all over England should be kept by the Assistant in each circuit.’ [See letters of Sept. 9.] I believe he has discharged this office well; but I believe you will discharge it better. You do not expect to do your duty without giving offence Recommend the Magazines, Kempis, and the Primitive Physick in earnest. And take care of the bands and the children. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Joseph Taylor, At the Preaching- house, In St. Ives, Cornwall. To Penelope Newman BRISTOL, October 1, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I have often been concerned at your being cooped up in a corner; now you are likely to have a wider field of action. Only the danger will be lest, when you have more opportunity, you should have less desire of doing good. This is the case of many pious persons when they marry, and I do not wonder at it. I should rather wonder it is not the case of all. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Hester Ann Roe BRISTOL, October 1, 1782. MY DEAR HETTY, -- I received yours two days after date, and read it yesterday to Miss Stockdale, [Miss Stockdale had stayed with her nephew Robert Roe at Macelesfield in July (Account, p. 61).] and poor Peggy Roe, who is still strangely detained in life. But she is permitted to stay in the body a little longer that she may be more ready for the Bridegroom. You did exceedingly well to send me so circumstantial an account of Robert Roe’s last illness and happy death. It may incite many to run the race that is set before them with more courage and patience. That our dear Miss Ritchie should come to Macclesfield just at this time was an excellent instance of Divine Providence. She could never have come in a fitter season. Only let her not do more than consists with her health. The removal of so useful an instrument as your late cousin, in the midst, or rather in the dawn, of his usefulness (especially while the harvest is so great and the faithful laborers so few), is an instance of the divine economy which leaves our reason behind; our little narrow minds cannot comprehend it. We can only wonder and adore. How is your health I sometimes fear lest you also (as those I tenderly love generally have been) should be snatched away. But let us live to-day. -- I always am Affectionately yours. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, October 19, 1782. DEAR TOMMY, -- I allow you to give any books you please to any preacher to the value of forty shillings. I have hope for T. Bethell. Watch over him, and he will reward your labor. [See letter of July 29.] I think you have determined fight concerning Waterford and concerning Brother Christie. Send me the substance of the quarterly plans. Cannot you find an easier circuit for John Crook We cannot receive John McBurney. I like your prayer-meetings well. If you judge it right, let there be one on Thursday too. But I hope you do not discontinue morning preaching. There is something very awful in the sudden removal of that good man Richard Boardman. But what can be done to supply his place Cork is of very great importance. Can anything better be done (at least for the present) than to cut off your own right hand, to send Andrew Blair thither, and to keep John Mayly in Dublin -- I am, with kind love to Sister Rutherford, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, October 19, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Those tracts that are in any degree damaged you will do well to sell at half price. [See letter of Sept. 9.] And those of them that are greatly damaged you may give away as you see proper. But I apprehend it would be best, when a proper occasion is, to send the Magazines by sea to Bristol or London. Where they have preaching only one night in a week, you may meet the bands and the Society by turns. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Joseph Taylor, At the Preaching- house, In Redruth, Cornwall. To Zachariah Yemdall SEVENOAKS, October 21, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Undoubtedly you are to act as Assistant; and if you carefully read the great Minutes of the Conference and keep close to them in every point, assuredly you will see the fruit of your labor. But whom can you get to help you I know none, unless you can persuade Brother Rutherford to spare you Andrew Blair, and to take a poor invalid, John Mayly (who is now at Dublin), in his stead. [See letters of Oct. 19 (to Thomas Rutherford) and Nov.] You know, we have no preachers to spare; every one is employed: and we can neither make preachers nor purchase them. God alone can thrust them out into His harvest. All you can do until H. Grave comes is to divide yourself between Cork and Bandon. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Zachariah Yewdall, At the New Room, In Cork. To Duncan McAllum NEAR LONDON, October 24, 1782. DEAR DUNCAN, -- Epworth, I believe, is not supplied. I think it will be a comfortable place for Peter Mill; and I trust he will be more useful than ever. Yet I was afraid he would be straitened for money, so I have drawn a little note on Mr. Prickard in his favor, who keeps the money of the Contingent Fund in Dr. Coke’s absence. If he wants anything, he shall have it. -- I am, dear Duncan, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Bradburn YARMOUTH, October 30, 1782. MY DEAR BETSY, -- My disorders are seldom of long continuance; they pass off in a few days, and usually leave me considerably better than I was before. We are always safe while we are either doing or suffering the will of Him that orders all things well. I do not doubt but you will find both profit and pleasure in the conversation of my dear Miss Ritchie. I had marked her out for your acquaintance, or rather friendship, before you set out for England. You are two kindred souls, and I almost, wonder how you could be so long kept apart from each other. Her conversation, I doubt not, will quicken your desires of being all renewed in the image of Him that created you. But let those desires rise ever so high, they need not lessen your thankfulness -- nay, the strongest hunger and thirst after righteousness are found in those that in everything give thanks. I am glad to hear the little jars that were in Bradford are at end. Let them all die and be forgotten. But let brotherly love continue. Peace be with both your spirits! -- I am, my dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, November 9, 1782. DEAR SAMMY, -- I abhor the thought of giving to twenty men the power to place or displace the preachers in their congregations. How would he then dare to speak an unpleasing truth And if he did, what would become of him This must never be the case while I live among the Methodists. And Birstall is a leading case; the first of an avowed violation of our plan. Therefore the point must be carried for the Methodist preachers now or never: and I alone can carry it; which I will, God being my helper. You are not a match for the silver tongue, nor Brother Hopper. But do not, to please any of your new friends, forsake Your true old friend. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, November 12, 1782, MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Before this time I suppose you have my last. I have wrote to T. Rutherford to send Andrew Blair. The leaders, I find, were unwilling to part with him; but I think he will be guided by me rather than by them. Till I have done meeting the classes, I shall have little leisure to write either prose or verse, being fully taken up from morning to night. After this I may get a little time. O let us work while the day is l The night cometh, wherein no man can work. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, November 21, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I believe you need not be ashamed to inscribe the lines above on R. Boardman’s tombstone. I doubt you do not find any account of himself among his papers. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson LONDON, November 29, 1782. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I am well pleased that it is you who give me an opportunity of considering this important question, because you are able to bring the whole strength of the cause; so that in answering you I may answer all. I will first endeavor to state the case, and then argue a little upon it. When our Lord preached on the mountain or St. Paul by the river-side, there was no such thing as patronage. But as soon as Christians grew rich some of them built preaching-houses (afterwards called churches); and those who built were called patrons, and appointed whom they pleased to preach in them. When revenues were annexed to these houses,-they disposed of houses and revenues together. Indeed, the patrons generally gave the lands from which the revenues arose. At the Reformation many rich men built new churches, and still claimed to dispose of them; and many Presbyterians and Independents built preaching-houses at their own expense, and placed in them whom they pleased. But others entrusted their powers with a few friends whom they could confide in. I built the first preaching-house which was built for the people called Methodists -- namely, at Bristol in the year 1739. And, knowing no better, I suffered the first deed of trust to be drawn in the Presbyterian form. But Mr. Whitefield, hearing of this, wrote me a warm letter asking, Do you consider what you do If you let the trustees name the preachers, they may exclude you and all your brethren from preaching in the houses you have built. Pray let the deed be immediately canceled; to which the trustees immediately agreed. Afterwards I built the preaching-houses in Kingswood and at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. But I took care that none but myself should have any right to name preachers for them. About this time a preaching-house was built at Birstall by contributions and collections. But John Nelson, knowing no better, suffered a deed to be drawn without my consent or knowledge giving twelve or thirteen persons a power not only of placing but even of displacing the preachers at their pleasure. Had I then known of this I should have insisted on having it altered as that at Bristol. Soon after this I was informed that the houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle were my property, and as such liable to descend to my heirs. I immediately procured a form to be drawn up by three of the most eminent counselors in London, whereby not only these houses but all hereafter to be built might be settled on such a plan as would infallibly secure them from the heirs of the proprietor for the purpose originally intended. In process of time, Birstall being too small for the congregation, it was moved to build a new one; and a deed was prepared which (like the old) gave a few people the power both to place and displace preachers at pleasure. When I heard this, I vehemently objected to it, and positively refused to sign it. But in the evening several came and strongly urged me to sign, averring that the old deed could not be altered; on which consideration I at length unwillingly complied. This was mentioned at the ensuing Conference [See Works, viii. 329-32.]; and it was asked What can be done with regard to the preaching-house at Birstall ‘The answer was, If the trustees still refuse to settle it on the Methodist plan, (1) let a plain state of the case be drawn up; (2) let a collection be made throughout all England in order to purchase ground and to build another preaching-house as near the present as may be. But why should not all our houses be settled like that at Birstall Because, if the trustees have a power to place and displace preachers, then (1) Itinerant preaching is at an end. When the trustees in any place have fixed a preacher they like, the rotation of preachers there is at an end--at least, till they pick a quarrel with him and turn him out. (2) While he stays, how he will be gagged, since if he displeases the trustees he will lose his bread! and how will he dare to put a trustee out of the Society (3) If any beside the Conference name the preachers, surely it should not be twenty or thirty men, but all the Society unless you would say all the congregation. (4) The power of these trustees is greater than that of any noble-man-yea, or of the King himself. He can put in a preacher where he is patron; but he cannot put him out. ‘But since this power will not commence till after your death, why should you oppose it’ Because none else can oppose it so effectually. I have more influence than any other person is likely to have after me. And every one sees I am not pleading my own cause (as they would say the other preachers were); I am pleading not for myself, but for every preacher who desires to act on the old Methodist plan. I am pleading for Mr. Hopper, Mr. Bradburn, Mr. Benson, that you may not be liable to be turned out of all or any of our houses without any reason given at the pleasure of twenty or thirty men. I say ‘or any’; for I see no sufficient reason for giving up any house in England. And if one were given up, more would follow; it would be as the letting out of water. ‘But you did consent to it with regard to this house.’ Yes, I was worked into an unwilling consent [] and even this was grounded on the positive assertion that the deed could not be altered. Whereas it was actually altered in the second deed, not in one but in twenty places. The plain conclusion is, if the trustees will not alter the deed, they must keep their house, and we must bu’11d another. ‘But then you occasion endless strife, animosity, confusion, and destroy the work of God.’ No, not I: it is these trustees that cause all the strife, animosity, and confusion. I go on in the old way. It is they that, by going out of it, hinder, yea destroy, the work of God. I sit down with the loss; leave them the house, and go on as if they were not in the world. It is they who do the wrong, who bawl with all their might and pour out bitter words. But let them take care; for God heareth, and He will arise and maintain His own cause. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To John Bredin NEAR LONDON, November 30, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Medicines, I think, will be of no service to you, unless it were a course of tar-water. But very probably change of air might be of service. [See letters of Aug. 4, 1782, and Nov. 16, 1785, to him.] It might be of service to spend, suppose, a week or two at Liverpool, afterwards a week or two at Chester or Parkgate and perhaps at Manchester. Your diet in the meantime should be chiefly milk and vegetables; of which I judge turnips, potatoes, and apples to be the best. Preach as much as you can preach, and no more.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Bredin, At the Preaching-house, In Whitehaven. To the Commanding Officer in Lowestoft LONDON, November 30, 1782. SIR, -- I am informed by some of my friends in Lowestoft that they have been frequently disturbed at their public worship by some officers quartered in the town. Before I use any other method, I beg of you, sir, who can do it with a word, to prevent our being thus insulted any more. We are men; we are Englishmen: as such we have a natural and a legal right to liberty of conscience. -- I am, sir, Your obedient servant. To the Earl of Shelburne LONDON, December 1782. MY LORD, -- If I wrong your Lordship, I am sorry for it; but I really believe your Lordship fears God: and I hope your Lordship has no unfavorable opinion of the Christian revelation. This encourages me to trouble your Lordship with a few lines, which otherwise I should not take upon me to do. Above thirty years ago a motion was made in Parliament for raising and embodying the militia, and for exercising them (to save time) on Sunday. When the motion was like to pass, an old gentleman stood up and said, ‘Mr. Speaker, I have one objection to this: I believe an old book called the Bible.’ The members looked at one another, and the motion was dropped. Must not all others who believe the Bible have the very same objection And from what I have seen, I cannot but think these are still three-fourths of the nation. Now, setting religion out of the question, is it expedient to give such a shock to so many millions of people at once And certainly it would shock them extremely, it would wound them in a very tender part. For would not they, would not all England, would not all Europe, consider this as a virtual repeal of the Bible And would not all serious persons say, ‘We have little religion in the land now; but by this step we shall have less still. For, wherever this pretty show is to be seen, the people will flock together, and will lounge away so much time before and after it that the churches will be emptier than they are at present!’ My Lord, I am concerned for this on a double account. First, because I have personal obligations to your Lordship, and would fain, even for this reason, recommend your Lordship to the love and esteem of all over whom I have any influence. Secondly, because I now reverence your Lordship for your office’ sake, and believe it to be my bounden duty to do all that is in my little power to advance your Lordship’s influence and reputation. Will your Lordship permit me to add a word in my old-fashioned way I pray Him that has all power in heaven and earth to prosper all your endeavors for the public good; and am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s willing servant. To Hannah Ball LONDON, December 1, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It is hard if we cannot trust the invisible God farther than we can see Him! We do not yet see the fruit of our labors; but we can trust Him that hath promised. ‘He will fulfill the desire of them that fear Him.’ He hath already done great things; but He will do greater things than these. Only ’hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end.’ You do well, whenever opportunity offers, to step over to Watlington. It will be a means of increasing life both in them and yourself. I only wish you could see our friends at Oxford too, that iron might sharpen iron. I hope you do not drop the select society. If Mr. Rhodda [Then in the circuit.] strongly and explicitly preaches perfection, he will see more and more fruit of his labor. -- I am, with love to my dear Ann, Your affectionate brother. To John Valton St. NEOTS, December 3, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are thoroughly satisfied that there is nothing wherein conscience is not concerned which I would not do for your sake. But here conscience is very deeply concerned. What I do I do unto the Lord. The question is in the last resort, Methodism or no Methodism I A blow is struck at the very roots of our whole discipline, as appears by the short state of the ‘case’ which I have sent to Joseph Benson. And if this work is not obviated while I live, probably it never will be. None can stem the tide when I am gone; therefore I must now do what I can, God being my helper. And I know the fierceness of man shall turn to His praise. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, December 7, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not see that you can fix upon a more proper person than either George Howe or Laren Wright. [Howe was one of the most devoted Methodists in Cork. He led the party of thirty horsemen who met Wesley as he was coming to the city in May 1785. See Journal, vii. 74-5n.] You should endorse it on the back of the deed, only taking care to have fresh stamps. Those who will not meet in class cannot stay with us. Read the Thoughts upon a Single Life, and weigh them well. You will then feel the wisdom of St. Paul’s advice (especially to a preacher, and to a Methodist preacher above all), ‘If thou mayest be free, use it rather.’ [See letter of May 26, 1781, to him.] I hope Andrew Blair is now with you. Brother Swindells is dead, and John Trembath is alive again. [For Robert Swindells, see letter of Feb. 28, 1748; and for Trembath, Sept. 21, 1755.] -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Davenport LONDON, December 23 [1782]. DEAR SIR, -- I believe Mr. Perronet labored about thirty years in the parish of Shoreham, and that with all his might, before there appeared the least fruit of his labor. He then broke through, and in spite of reproach accepted the assistance of the poor Methodists. Immediately the seed which he had been so long sowing began to grow up; and for several years the largest and most lively Society in all the circuit is that of Shoreham. I should not wonder if it should be the same case at Allexton. God is able out of the stones to raise up children unto Abraham there also. But I do not know which of our circuits borders upon it, otherwise I would write to the Assistant of that circuit to pay you a visit at the first opportunity. Our little Society [‘A Plan of the Society, instituted in January 1782, to distribute Religious Tracts among the Poor.’ See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 369.] for dispersing religious books among the poor has now spread them through all England. Two of the books which they disperse are Alleyne’s Alarm and Baxter’s Call to the Unconverted. Any person that subscribes half a guinea or a guinea yearly will have four times as many books sent down as he could otherwise purchase with that sum. It seems this is one of the most excellent charities that we can be concerned in. One of our Society here went to rest on Tuesday last, and another on Wednesday. They had both walked in heaviness for many years; but God did not forsake them at the last. The sting of death was taken away, and they calmly fell asleep. But there is not any need for you to stay so long before your spirit rejoices in God your Savior. He is not far from you now! All things are ready. Lo! on the wings of love He flies, And brings redemption near! --I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate brother. To the Rev. Mr. Davenport, At Allexton, Near Uppingham. To Mr. ----- LONDON, December 23, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Many years since, when I read those words in the Lesson for the day, ‘Son of man, I take from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke,’ I was so affected that it was not without difficulty I could speak a word more. [See Journal, i. 325-6; and letter of Oct. 7, 1749, where the same words are used about Grace Murray. Compare letter of Feb. 14, 1786.] But it was not long before He enabled me to say, ’Good, is the will of the Lord.’ I trust He has taught you that great lesson, which reason alone cannot teach. He has always one end, whether in His pleasing or painful dispensations, to wean us from all things here below and to unite us to Himself. You see the present dispensation of His providence in a true light. He is vindicating His right to your whole heart and claiming you for His own. And He can make you large amends for all He has taken away by giving you Himself. Let not this medicine be without its full effect. ‘It is a great loss to lose an affliction.’ Now is the time that you are loudly called to give up yourself wholly to God. It would be your wisest way to select two or three for your intimate acquaintances who are deeply alive to God; and to have no farther intercourse with those who know not God than necessary business requires. If you form this resolution and keep steadily to it, you will meet our dear friend again in a little time. May God enable you so to do! His grace is sufficient for you. – I am Your affectionate brother. To Matthiss Joyce [ABOUT CHRISTMAS], 1782. DEAR BROTHER, -- Not only Mr. Smith but several others gave a satisfactory account of you at the Conference. Mr. Watkinson [Richard Watkinson was the Assistant at Limerick, and Robert Blake his colleague. See letter of Dec. 31.] writes me word that, as Robert Blake has left him, he is in great want of help. I have no objections, if your wife is willing, for you to go upon trial to Limerick. To Robert Hall, Jun. LONDON, December 29, 1782. The Conference gives nothing towards building houses. But they may give you more circuits to beg in; and if you had Joseph Bradford to beg for you, you would succeed well. The Londoners are a princely people. They are never weary of well doing.... [Wesley dined with Hall at Nottingham on July 8, 1786 (Journal, vii. 186d). Joseph Bradford was Assistant in Leicestershire.] To Ellen Gretton LONDON, December 31, 1782. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You do not consider the slowness of the by-posts. A letter could not be wrote on the receipt of yours so as to reach Skillington by Wednesday, January the 1st. The thing seems to be altogether providential; it was no way of your own contriving. There is not only a fair prospect of a sufficient provision for yourself (which a Christian should not despise), but of being an instrument of good to others, which is highly desirable. One that fears God and is waiting for His salvation is not such an unbeliever as St. Paul there speaks of. Proceed with much prayer, and your way will be made plain. [See letter of Feb. 16, 1783.] -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Gretton, At Mr, Derry’s, Shoemaker, In Grantham, Lincs. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, December 31, 1782. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You fear when no fear is. I have appointed Mr. Blair to labor with you at Cork and Bandon, and shall not alter that appointment without stronger reasons than I am likely to see. If I live, I shall probably see Ireland in summer; if I do not, I expect Dr. Coke will. Robert Blake may go just where he will; I have nothing to do with him. Three times he left his circuit without the consent of his Assistant. [Blake was a young Englishman who became an itinerant in 1778. He was now at Athione. See letter of Feb. 9, 1783.] He has stupidly and saucily affronted almost all the leaders. His high spirit, I fear, will destroy him. Till he is deeply humbled, I disclaim all fellowship with him. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Bredin replied that the expense was great and the young man had little means. He himself stayed in Derry, and Clarke came alone to England the following month. See letter of April 6 to him. [2] Miss Gretton’s relatives were trying to draw her away from Methodist influence. Her father said he would reduce the 30 he allowed her by 5 a year until she gave up her Methodism. See Cocking’s Methodism in Grantham, p. 181. [3] Wesley’s sympathy and his knowledge of the Societies up and down the kingdom are extraordinary. Rutherford and Andrew Blair had just been appointed to Dublin. A few zealous young men in the city had recently met at five every Sunday morning and on three days of the week at eight to pray for the revival of the work. Some of the leaders joined the young men, and prayer-meetings were held in various parts of the city and its vicinity. See Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1827, p. 75; and letter of October 19 to Rutherford. [4] Wolfe retired from the work at the Conference, then sitting in London. He did not resume his ministry, and nothing more is known of him. See W.H.S. xv. 16. [5] Davenport replied from Allextort on December 14, 1782: ‘I have not here a soul to strengthen my hands; nothing seems to take root.... I feel a longing desire to converse with you.’ William Dodwell, Vicar of Welby, and John Pugh, of Rauceby, afterwards Vicar of Weston, Salop, were at the Conferences of 1781 and 1782. See Journal, vt. 327-8; and letters of November 19, 1781 (to Ellen Gretton), and June 21, 1784 (to Mrs. Christian). [6] Rodda, now Assistant in the Oxfordshire Circuit, became an itinerant in 1769, and died in 1815. He was a wise counselor and an acceptable preacher. See Wesley’s Veterans, iv. 195-222; and next letter. [7] Taylor (just appointed Assistant in West Cornwall) was born at Duffield in 1752; he became a preacher in 1777, and died at Derby in 1830, after a ‘universally acceptable’ ministry. Rogers was at Macclesfield, and had left Sheffield, where Taylor had been his colleague. [8] The story of Elizabeth Hobson is given in Wesley’s Journal, v. 265-75. Dr. Johnson talked the story over with Boswell, and gave him a letter of introduction to Wesley, which he delivered in Edinburgh. Some years later a Quaker described the story as the woman’s own invention, and drew from Wesley this reply. See Arminian Magazine, 1782, pp. 651-2; Boswell’s Johnson, p. 509 (Globe edition); and letter of September 9, 1768. [9] William Robarts was a Cornishman who joined the Methodists at an early age. When about twenty-two he went to minister at Tiverton, and later on labored with much acceptance in Durham and Newcastle. The Methodists of Tiverton suffered crud defamation and persecution about the year 1752, and earnestly petitioned for Robarts to come to their assistance. This he did, and after much further trouble some peace was procured. Robarts married and engaged in trade in Tiverton, but preached in the town and neighborhood several times a week, bearing, in a truly Christian spirit, reviling, ill-usage, and persecution, until at last even his enemies became conscious of his innocence and desired to be at peace with him. After a while he failed in business through no fault of his own. This troubled him greatly, as his letters show. Finally, however, his debts were fully paid, and his last years were spent peacefully with his friend, Thomas Gamlen, at Hayne, near Tiverton, where he died in 1797. [10] Miss Bolton wrote on September 9: ‘Many troubles and afflictions have interrupted the free communication of my mind to you.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1790, p. 555. [11] Miss Roe says that on April 14, 1782, news came from Bristol that ‘Cousin M[argaret] R. is not expected to survive long’ (Journal, p. 163). Robert Roe died in the following September. His cousin’s account appears in the Arrninian Magazine, 1783-4. [12] James Christie, who was admitted on trial in 1782 and retired in 1799, was at Ballyconnell; and Crook at Lisburn. McBurney, a devoted young Irishman, became a preacher in 1772; he was cruelly beaten with clubs on March 4, 1778, by six ruffians near Aghalun, and never recovered from the effects. Boardman, the second preacher at Cork, had died of an apoplectic fit on October 4; he had preached the night before: Blair was sent from Dublin to take his place. Mayly died in 1788, ‘worn out in the service of his Master.’ See letter of October 21. [13] Duncan McAllum was at Newcastle, Peter Mill at Dundee and in 1783 at Epworth. John Prickard was in London. Dr. Coke was away from London at the time on the affairs of Birstall Chapel. See letter of November 29. [14] Samuel Bradburn moved from Cork to Keighley in 1780, and was now in Bradford. Miss Ritchie’s home was at Otley. The ‘jars’ seem to have been due to the Bitstall trustees. See next letter. [15] Bradburn was being pressed to become pastor of the Congregational chapel, recently erected in Little Horton Lane. The invitation was strongly urged and repeated; but he declined it, as he also refused a more tempting offer by the Independents of the White Chapel, Leeds. Is the ‘silver tongue,’ for whom neither Bradburn nor Hopper was a match, James Carr, the attorney For the Birstall Chapel case, see letter of May 28 to Charles Wesley. [16] Yewdall wanted some lines for Richard Boardman’s tombstone. Charles Wesley wrote them, and John sent them on November 21. See next letter. [17] Charles Wesley’s epitaph refers to Richard Boardman’s mission to America in 1769 and his return at the outbreak of the Civil War. For some reason, however, much inferior lines were used, See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 365; and letter of October 19 to Thomas Rutherford. ON THE DEATH OF MR. BOARDMAN With zeal for God, with love of souls inspired, Nor awed by dangers, nor by labours tired, BOARDMAN in distant worlds proclaims the word To multitudes, and turns them to his Lord. But soon the bloody waste of war he mourns, And, loyal, from rebellion’s seat returns; Nor yet at home, -- on eagles’ pinions flies, And in a moment soars to paradise! [18] On November 12 Benson wrote from Halifax, regretting that he had not come to Yorkshire himself instead of sending Dr. Coke. ‘Then I am persuaded things would have been settled in an amicable manner; at least, they would not have been carried to such a length.’ See manuscript Life, p. 1211; and letter of May 28 to Charles Wesley. Benson replied on December 14, urging still further that it would be ‘time enough to build another house at Birstall when we are shut out of this.’ [19] This letter is to Earl Shelburne, described in Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 400, as ‘a nobleman high in office.’ He became Prime Minister in July 1782. His aunt, Lady Arabella Fitzmaurice, who married Alfred Denny, was Wesley’s friend. He visited ‘this excellent lady’ at the Blackrock, near Dublin, in May 1785. Earl Shelburne says in his autobiography that to her ‘virtues, talents, temper, taste, true religion, and goodness of every kind, it is impossible for me to do sufficient justice, any more than to the unspeakable gratitude I owe her.’ See Journal, vi. 408; Fitzmaurice’s Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, i. 8-10. [20] Valton was Assistant at Birstall. His manuscript Journal shows how deeply he was pained about Mathers. At a private meeting he was called ‘the greatest villain.’ See letters of November 29, 1782, and January 16, 1783 (to him). [21] Joyce was born in Dublin in I754. He became an itinerant, and set out for his first circuit on January 11, 1783. His obituary appears in 1814. See Wesley’s Veterans, vii. 180-230. [22] Yewdull was at Cork. He was reappointed there in 1783 by the Irish Conference, but the British Conference sent him to Liverpool. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 81: 79. 1783 ======================================================================== 1783 To Abraham Orchard [January 1], 1783. DEAR BROTHER, -- You have reason to be thankful to God for enabling you to set out in His good way; and if you would go on therein, remember that you cannot walk alone. Therefore your wisdom is, not to think much of shame or the fear of any temporal matter, to connect yourself in the dosest manner you can with those you believe to be the children of God. A form of prayer used in private may be of considerable use; only now and then, at the beginning or middle or end of it, you may break out a little and speak a few words, just according to the present temper of your mind. When your sins are forgiven, you will surely be sensible of it; and ‘every one that seeketh findeth.’ But it will be given you without money and without price; you know not how soon I Perhaps now! -- I am Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 5, 1785. I thought it long since I heard from my dear Nancy. But I hoped ‘no news were good news,’ and that this was a token of your not having had any fresh embarrassment. Undoubtedly you have your hands full of business; but it will not hurt you while your heart is free. As long as this is given up to God all these things must work together for good. But I wanted to know whether the clouds begin to disperse whether you have an hope of seeing better days Do Neddy’s difficulties increase or lessen Has he a prospect of getting through his troubles If his income is now superior to his expense, he has ground to believe all will end well. And how does he bear up under this burthen Does it drive him from or lead him to God It is enough if it Keeps him dead to all below, Only Christ resolved to know. I have likewise great hopes that you will see a good increase of the work of God in Witney. I suppose the prayer-meetings still continue In many places they have been of more use than even the preaching. And in them the flame first broke out which afterwards spread through the whole people. You have, I hope, more than one or two at those meetings who use the gift which God has given them. And if they pray for the whole gospel salvation, God will send a gracious answer down. I shall hope for the pleasure of seeing you in March. But do not stay till February before you write to, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, January 10, 1785. DEAR SIR, -- As I expect to remain in London till the beginning of March, I hope to have the pleasure of spending a little time with you before I set out on my spring and summer journeys, which I shall probably continue as long as I live. And who would wish to live for any meaner purpose than to serve God in our generation I know my health and strength are continued for this thing. And if ever I should listen to that siren song, ‘Spare thy life,’ I believe my Master would spare me no longer, but soon take me away. It pleases Him to deal with you in a different way. He frequently calls you not so much to act as to suffer. And you may well say, -- O take Thy way! Thy way is best: Grant or deny me ease. This is but tuning of my breast To make the music please. [Adapted, in his Chariestown Hymn-Book, from George Herbert’s The Temple, ‘The Temper’: Yet take Thy way; for sure Thy way is best: Stretch or contract me, Thy poor debtor; This is but tuning of my breast, To make the music better.] I am glad you are still determined to do What you can, and to do it without delay. But others are not of this mind. I have just received a letter from Mr. Oddie, [See letter of Sept. 26, 1774.] formerly one of our traveling preachers, informing me, whereas it has pleased God to take away his dear partner, he is resolved again to give up himself to the work, -- after he has settled his worldly business, which he thinks will take but sixteen or seventeen months! Would one think he had ever read the Epistle of St. James or that he had ever heard those words, ‘What is your life It is even a vapor, which appeareth and vanisheth away’ Commending you to Him who is able to save you to the uttermost, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, January 16, 1783. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I am glad to hear so good an account of Marazion. You must endeavor to hire a larger room at Truro. [See letter of Feb. 25 to him.] We shall not build any more in haste. I often preach abroad in winter as well as summer. In my Journals, in the Magazine, in every possible way, I have advised the Methodists to keep to the Church. They that do this most prosper best in their souls; I have observed it long. If ever the Methodists in general were to leave the Church, I must leave them. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Valton LONDON, January 16, 1783. MY DEAR BROTRER, -- Here are two questions: (1) Whether I have acted right I answer, No. I ought to have resolutely withstood all importunity. (2) Whether trustees [See letter of Dec. 3, 1782.] should place and displace preachers (This is the essential question.) I say No again; otherwise intolerable consequences will follow. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Pray send my love to George Brown, and tell him I have his letter. To John Valton LONDON, January 22, 1783. My DEAR BROTHER, -- It is right to add as much solemnity as we can to the admission of new members. I think you may refer the case of the butcher’s wife to the leaders. ‘Not to sell’ would certainly be the more excellent way. But whether she should be expelled upon that account may be matter of doubt. There must be some particular end designed in every extraordinary work of God. But there are instances wherein it is a considerable time before that end appears. And it may be expedient for us to remain in suspense in order to wean us from our own will and our own wisdom. If there was any particular meaning in that appearance, God will reveal it in due time. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, At the Preaching-house, In Manchester. To Mrs. Fuller [February 1783.] MY DEAR SISTER, -- You did well in giving me a plain and circumstantial account of the manner wherein God has dealt with your soul. Your part is now to stand fast in the glorious liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. There is no need that you should ever be entangled again in the bondage of pride or anger or desire. God is willing to give always what He grants once. Temptations, indeed, you are to expect. But you may tread them all under your feet: His grace is sufficient for you. And the God of all grace, after you have suffered a while, shall establish, strengthen, and settle you.--I am, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, February 9, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad you have given another trial to Inishanmon. And why not to Hinscla I am a good deal of your mind. I hope those are only drops before a shower of grace. Over and above the general reasons contained in that tract, a preacher, and above all others a Methodist preacher, has particular reasons for valuing a single life. I am glad Brother Blair [Andrew Blair, his new colleague.] and you converse freely together: it will preserve you from many snares. There can be no properer person for a trustee than Andrew Laffan. [One of Whitefield’s converts at Cork in 1751. Wesley appointed him a steward in 1785, and stayed with him in 1787. See Journal, vii. 74d, 271n; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 83, 399, 429; and letter of Feb. 9, 1789.] I have hope that Robert Blake [See letters of Dec. 31, 1782 (to Yewdall), and Feb. 23, 1783.] will be more useful than ever. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Cricket LONDON, February 10, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Many years ago the Society at Barnard Castle, as large as that at Derry, was remarkably dead. When Samuel Meggot (now with God) came to them, he advised them to keep a day of fasting and prayer. A flame broke out and spread through all the circuit [In 1763. See his account in Journal, v. I7-19; and letter of July 30, 1775.]; nor is it extinguished to this day. I advise you to do the same at Derry. On Sunday morning reprove strongly their unfaithfulness and unfruitfulness, and desire all that fear God to humble themselves with fasting on the Friday following. I am much inclined to hope a flame will break out in Londonderry likewise. But you must immediately resume the form at least of a Methodist Society. I positively forbid you or any preacher to be a leader; rather put the most insignificant person in each class to be the leader of it. And try if you cannot persuade three men, if no more, and three women to meet in band. Hope to the end! You shall see better days. -- I am Yours affectionately. PS.--The plainer you speak the more good you will do. Derry will bear plain speaking. I am just as well as I was forty years ago. To Ellen Gretton DEPTFORD, February 16, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- If you enter into a new state, the first steps you take will be of the utmost importance. Leave nothing to the morrow, but begin exactly as you hope to go on. It might be of use for Mr. Christian and you carefully to read over and consider those Directions to Married Persons which are in the fourth volume of Sermons. [Miss Gretton was about to marry William Christian. See letters of Dec. 31, 1782, and April 25, 1783, to her. For Directions for Married Persons, by William Whateley, which appears in the Christian Library, vol. xxiv, and in an abridged form in the Sermons, see Green’s Bibliography, No. 163.] Whatever family follows those directions will be as a city set upon an hill. I am glad to hear that regular preaching is already begun at Skillington: we have no time to lose. If a few should be awakened there, I doubt not the work will increase, and perhaps you will have a larger sphere of action than ever you had yet. Meantime be faithful in that which is little! -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Gretton, At Mr. Derry’s, In Grantham, Lincolnshire. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, February 23, I783. DEAR TOMMY, -- I am glad you have wrote to Brother Blake [Robert Blake. See letters of Feb. 9, 1783, and Dec. 24, 1784 (to Blake).] to go into Ballyconnell Circuit. He has wrote me a very proper letter. If you can bring William West to make any concessions, I am willing to try him again. [West had been admitted on trial in 1782, and was appointed to Enniskillen. He moved from there to Limerick at the next Conference.] I believe the books in Dublin were confused enough; for I doubt Joseph [Joseph Pilmoor was Assistant there. The books were Wesley’s publications, including the Arminian Magazine. He afterwards returned to America. See letter of March 27, 1771.] did not take much better care of them than he did of the people. If Brother Moore and his wife should stay awhile in Dublin, I think the two sisters [Henry Moore had been appointed to Londonderry; but when Andrew Blair moved to Cork, he went to Dublin, where he had family business to settle. For ‘the two sisters,’ see letter of July 4, 1781.] will not quarrel with each other. I scarce know which of them I love best. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ambrose Foley LONDON, February 24, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear that Sister Foley and you are still going on to perfection. On Wednesday, March the 19th, I hope to be at Worcester, and about the 20th at Birmingham. Then we may determine something concerning Quinton! [See letter of Feb. 26, 1782.] -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Foley, At Quinton, Near Birmingham. To George Blackall LONDON, February 25, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- St. Paul teaches that it is in heaven we are to be joined with ‘the spirits of just men made perfect,’ in such a sense as we cannot be on earth or even in paradise. In paradise the souls of good men rest from their labors and are with Christ from death to the resurrection. This bears no resemblance at all to the Popish purgatory, wherein wicked men are supposed to be tormented in purging fire till they are sufficiently purified to have a place in heaven. But we believe (as did the ancient Church) that none suffer after death but those who suffer eternally. We believe that we are to be here saved from sin and enabled to love God with all our heart. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, February 25, 1783. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I make no doubt but you will be well able to collect enough in the circuit to enlarge the house at St. Ives. [See letters of Jan. 16 and Dec. 24 and Nov. 9, 1783.] And the sooner you begin the better. Only see that you have good workmen and a good plan! Remember, light enough and air enough; and do not make a bungling but a neat work. When I have fixed my plan, I will send you a copy of it. I set out for Bristol on Sunday evening. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. PS. -- Pray tell Capt. Rd. Williams [See letters of Dec. 30, 1778, to him.] that I have his letter, and will consider it. To William Black LONDON, February 26, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I did, indeed, very strongly expostulate with the Bishop of London [See letter of Aug. 10, 1780.] concerning his refusing to ordain a pious man without learning while he ordained others that to my knowledge had no piety and but a moderate share of learning. I incline to think that letter will appear in public... some time hence. Our next Conference will begin in July; and I have great hopes we shall then be able to send you assistance. One of our preachers informs me he is willing to go to any part of Africa or America. He does not regard danger or toil; nor, indeed, does he count his life dear unto himself, so that he may testify the gospel of the grace of God and win sinners to Christ. But I cannot advise any person to go alone. Our Lord sent His disciples two and two. And I do not despair of finding another young man as much devoted to God as he. The Antinomian [The Rev. Henry Alline, of Falmouth, Nova Scotia. Seventy withdrew from the Methodist Society at Amherst in 1782, and attached themselves to him. He died early, and the Churches he had founded soon declined. See letter of July 13.] you mention ought to be guarded against with all possible diligence; otherwise he will do more hurt in one year than he can do good in twenty. And it is well if he that calls himself Lady Huntingdon’s preacher does not do as much hurt as he. Of Calvinism, Mysticism, and Antinomianism have a care; for they are the bane of true religion, and one or other of them has been the grand hindrance of the work of God wherever it has broke out. If you come over to England, we shall make room for you at Kingswood. Peace be with all your spirits. -- I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bradburn LONDON, February 26, 1783. MY DEAR BETSY, -- This morning I have wrote to Mrs. Karr; and I do not despair of its having some effect, especially as I have added that ’ I hope to see her in a month or two.’ For I believe she would not easily do anything that might make her ashamed to see me. You did well in dissuading Mr. Bradburn from writing. Let us try all fair means first. Any harshness might afford a pretense for refusing, or at least delaying, the payment. It has pleased God hitherto to lead Sammy and you in a rough and thorny way. But it is happy when you have learned to say, ‘Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ It is a beautiful saying of Mr. Herbert’s: Grant or deny me ease; This is but tuning of my breast To make the music please. [See letter of Jan. 10.] -- I am, my dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To John Baxendale BRISTOL, March 7, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I had much satisfaction when I was with you last; and hope to spend a night with you again, though I can’t yet fix the time. [He was at Wigan on April 15, 1782, and again in May 1783. See letter of Feb. 19, 1784.] I agree with you it would be well if your chapel were properly settled. You do well to lose no opportunity of enlarging your borders. It is an acceptable time. We are now more especially called to preach the gospel to every creature; and many of the last shall be first. If we live to meet, I shall be glad to converse with that good young woman you speak of. The happy death of that poor mourner was a token for good. It was intended to encourage you in warning every one and exhorting [every] one, even though you do not see any present fruit. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. Strongly exhort all believers to go on to perfection. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Baxendale, In Wigan, Lancashire. To John Mason BRISTOL, March 7, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not know that there was anything amiss in those letters. I hope the ground of complaint is now taken away. I was in the same case with you till the last meetings of the trustees. Five of them then agreed to sign the bonds. Hitherto it has been everybody’s business and nobody’s business. I think now it will be done effectually. Great bodies usually move slowly. Had we five or seven instead of five-and-twenty trustees, they would not have been so unwieldy. I hope you go on well in the Isle; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Mason, At the Preaching-house, In Newport, Isle of Wight. To Hester Ann Roe BRISTOL, March 16, 1783. MY DEAR HETTY, -- I shall not be able to come to Macclesfield quite as soon as usual this year; for the preaching-houses at Hinckley and Nottingham are to be opened, which I take in my way. I expect to be at Nottingham April 1; but how long I shall stay there I cannot yet determine: thence I shall probably come by Derby to Macclesfield. It has frequently been upon my mind of late that my pilgrimage is nearly at an end; and one of our sisters here told us this morning a particular dream which she had two months ago. She dreamt the time of Conference was come, and that she was in a church expecting me to come in; when she saw a coffin brought in, followed by Dr. Coke and Mr. Fletcher, and then by all our preachers walking two and two. A fortnight ago she dreamt the same dream again. Such a burying I have ordered in my will, absolutely forbidding either hearse or coach. I intended to have wrote a good deal more; but I am hardly able. For a few days past I have had just such a fever as I had a few years ago in Ireland. But all is well. I am in no pain; but the wheels of life seem scarcely able to turn any longer. Yet I made a shift this morning to preach to a crowded audience, and hope to say something to them this afternoon. I love that word, ‘And Ishmael died in the presence of all his brethren.’ Still pray for, my dear Hetty, Yours most affectionately. To his Brother Charles [] BIRMINGHAM, March 22 [or 24], 1783. DEAR BROTHER CHARLES, -- If your view be correct, and this Epistle was the last the Apostle wrote before his martyrdom, it is invested with peculiar interest, as containing the dying counsels of one who was not behind the ‘chiefest of the Apostles.’ -- I am, dear Brother Charles, Yours affectionately. To Mr. ----- BIRMINGHAM, March 23, 1783. DEAR SIR, -- If you would have five or ten more, be so kind as to give an hint to Yours affectionately. To John Valton NOTTINGHAM, April 4, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Being more than half recovered from my late illness, [See letters of March 16 and April 4.] I am creeping forward on my way. I purpose staying here till over Sunday; then I think of moving on toward Dublin. Your reasons for desiring to spend another year in Birstall Circuit [He was reappointed to Birstall in 1783.] seem to me to be of weight. It may be so, if nothing occurs to the contrary between this and the Conference. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, At Birstall, Near Leeds. To his Brother Charles NOTTINGHAM, April 4, 1783. DEAR BROTHER, -- Yesterday my second disorder left me, and I seem now to be recovering strength. [See previous letter.] On Monday next I hope to be at Derby; on Tuesday at Blewcastle-under-Lyme; on Wednesday at Chester; and at Holyhead as soon as God permits. I have no desire to stay above three weeks in Ireland, and hope to be in England again before the end of May. On the day appointed, March 25, I went from Birmingham to Hilton Park. [See Journal, vi.. 401; W.H.S. v. 170n.; and letter of April 25 to his brother.] A little before we reached the Park gate Miss Freeman met us in Sir Philip Gibbes’s chaise. After staring awhile, she came into my chaise, and she was convinced that I was alive. That afternoon and the next day I gathered strength apace. The place was agreeable, and much more the company. Lady Gibbes put me in mind of one of Queen Elizabeth’s dames of honour. Her daughters are exceeding amiable, but sink under Miss Freeman’s superior sense, and begin to feel that they are not Christians. She has been of great service to them, and hies at them day and night to show them what is real religion. On Wednesday night they were much struck; the younger sister could not contain herself, but burst out into a passion of tears. M. F. herself seems to be utterly disconcerted, seeking rest, but finding none. If Sally is not hurt by her, she (Sally [Charles Wesley’s daughter.]) will help her much. She now feels her want of help. I wish King George (like Louis XIV) would be his own Prime Minister. The nation would soon feel the difference. All these things will work together for good. Let us work while the day is! I take no thought for the morrow. Peace be with you all. Adieu. Revd. Mr. C. Wesley, Marybone, London. Hester Ann Roe writes in her Journal for 1783: ‘Sunday, April 6. -- I had a letter from dear Mr. Wesley, who tells me he is hastening to Holyhead in his way to Dublin, and he will be at Newcastle on Tuesday.’ She says she met him at Lane End on Tuesday, and heard him preach; then he took her in his chaise to Newcastle-under-Lyme, where he preached from ‘One thing is needful.’ She heard him again next morning at five. See Journal of Mrs. Hester Ann Rogers, pp. 210-11. To Henry Brooke WILLIAM STREET, [DUBLIN], April 21, 1783. DEAR HARRY, -- Your letter gave me pleasure, and pain too. It gave me pleasure because it was written in a mild and loving spirit; and it gave me pain because I found it had pained you, whom I so’ tenderly love and esteem. But I shall do it no more: I sincerely thank you for your kind reproof; it is a precious balm -- and will, I trust, in the hands of the Great Physician, be a means of healing my sickness. I am so sensible of your real friendship herein that I cannot write without tears. The words you mention were too strong; they will no more fall from my mouth. My dear Harry, cease not to pray for Your obliged and affectionate brother. To Mrs. Barton DUBLIN, April 23, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It has pleased God for many years to lead you in a rough and thorny way. But He knoweth the way wherein you go; and when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold. Every proof you have had of God’s care over you is a reason for trusting Him with your children. He will take care of them, whether you are alive or dead; so that you have no need to be careful in this matter. You have only by prayer and supplication to make your requests known to God; and whenever He sees it will be best for you, He will deliver you out of your captivity. In two or three weeks I hope to be in England again; but it is all one where we are, so we are doing the will of our Lord. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles DUBLIN, April 25, 1783. DEAR BROTHER, -- How extremely odd is the affair of Mr. Abraham! [See letters of Feb. 20, 1782, and May 2, 1783 (to his brother).] I scarce ever remember the like. It really seems to be a providential incident which fairly acquits us of one that would have been no honor to us. But how odd also is this affair of Miss Freeman! [See letters of April 4 and May 2 to his brother.] Since I left her at Sir Philip Gibbes’s preparing for her journey to Bath, I have not had so much as one line from her. Yesterday I had a letter from Miss Gibbes and another from her sister; but she is not even mentioned either in one or the other. Do you know what is become of her Is she ill Surely she is not slipped back to Paris! All is quiet here. God has made our enemies to be at peace with us. In about ten days I hope to be at Chester. Peace be with you and yours! To Rev. Mr. C. Wesley, No. 1 in Chester- field Street, Marybone. To Mrs. Christian (Ellen Gretton) DUBLIN, April 25, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- In the new sphere of action to which Providence has called you, [She had just been married. See letter of Feb. 16.] I trust you will find new zeal for God and new vigor in pursuing every measure which may tend to the furtherance of His kingdom. In one of my mother’s letters you may observe something resembling your case. [See his mother’s letters in Stevenson’s Wesley Family, pp. 194-7.] She began only with permitting two or three of her neighbors to come to the family prayers on Sunday evening. But they increased to an hundred, yea above an hundred and fifty. Go humbly and steadily on, consulting the Assistant in all points, and pressing on to perfection. -- I am, with love to Brother Christian, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To John Watson DUBLIN, April 25, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Yesterday I received yours from Perth; but I do not know how to answer it. If Brother McLean has been able to do good at Perth or Dunkeld, it would be worth while to take a room. But truly I think, if the Highlanders will not pay for their own room, they are not worthy of the preaching. To labor and pay for our own labor is not right before God or man. Are you able to undertake a circuit You may direct your next to London. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Taylor DUBLIN, April 26, 1783. DEAR JOSEPH, -- By all means let James Hall [His colleague in Cornwall West. Taylor stayed in Cornwall another year; Hall went to Plymouth as second preacher in 1783.] come to the Conference. If he would put forth all his strength and be exact in every branch of his office, I would appoint him for the Assistant next year. But I should be sorry if the work should decay. Do all you can during this precious season. I shall have no objection to your being in Nottingham Circuit (unless you are in love). But if you go thither, you must take the books into your own hands; though I do not say you will receive many thanks from Matthew Bagshaw. [Evidently the books had been in the charge of this layman.] I expect to be in England in about ten days. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles DUBLIN, May 2, 1783. DEAR BROTHER, -- In three or four days we hope to embark. When we land, you may hear farther; but at a venture you may direct to Chester: and don’t forget the verses. I marvel Miss Freeman does not answer my letters. [See letter of April 25 to him.] Surely she is not affronted at anything. We parted in much friendship. I think verily you will keep out of debt while I live, if you will give me an hint now and then. We must positively let Mr. Abraham [This note is written by Charles Wesley on the letter: ‘The clergyman who accompanied me in my first journey to Londonderry. He returned to London, but was quite unmanageable. I saw him there in 1784.’] drop, and both his relations with him and near him. I am in hopes T. M. will satisfy Dr. Coke. I suppose she loses her annuity if she owns her marriage. I have not seen Mr. Barnard. [See letter of May 12, 1785.] We had an exceeding happy Conference, which concluded this morning. I wish all our English preachers were of the same spirit with the Irish, among whom is no jarring string. I never saw such simplicity and teachableness run through a body of preachers before. Tell me all you know of the good Congress, the loyalists, and the Colonies. Peace be with you and yours! Adieu! To John Cricket DUBLIN, May 2, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- We should have been glad to see you at the Conference; but the reasons you give for not coming are good. You was hindered not by choice but by Providence. Therefore you would find a blessing where you was. And the more pains you take the more blessings you will find. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Tattershall DUBLIN, May 3, 1783. DEAR TOMMY, -- I thank Brother Robinson [The preachers in the Isle of Man were Jasper Robinson, Jonathan Brown, and Thomas Tattershall. Robinson died on Dec. 6, 1797, after twenty-three years of fruitful ministry; and Tattershall in 1821, after forty years’ service.] for his letter, and hope we shall soon be able to supply you with books. At present we have rather too little than too much persecution. [See Journal, vi. 321-2.] We have scarce enough to keep us awake. Send me as particular an account as you can of all that relates to Mary Casement. I hope you still find a witness in yourself, not only of your acceptance, but of your salvation from inbred sin and of your loving God with all your heart. And you should constantly and explicitly exhort all believers to aspire after this, and encourage them to expect it now. The advice of Brother Robinson herein is good. If you would learn the Manx language, I should commend you; but it is not worth while to learn Greek or Latin. Brother Robinson should send me to London the particulars of that young man’s death. My kind love to Barrow and Brother Brown. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Benson MANCHESTER, May 19, 1783. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I do not, and never did, consent that any of our preachers should baptize [Compare letter of Jan. 6, 1784.] as long as we profess ourselves to be members of the Church of England. Much more may be said for burying the dead; to this I have no objection. One of the preachers in every circuit usually stays two years; this is generally the Assistants. But when you were at Manchester [In 1779 John Valton, who relieved him at Manchester, had written to Wesley as though some were kept in class who were not worthy members. ‘But he afterwards wept bitterly for what he had said; and therefore I never mentioned the matter to him; nor do I love him any less on that account.’] you quite disappointed me. You were not exact at all; you let things go as they would: therefore you have not been an Assistant since. I will mend or end T. Olivers as a corrector. [Benson had found fault with some articles of his in the Magazine incorrectly printed. Wesley bore it for twelve years, till 1789.] Next week I hope to be in London; and am, with love to Sister Benson, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, June 5, 1783. DEAR JOSEPH, -- According to the printed Minutes, p. 8, Sister Rodda is to have her allowance from Cornwall West and Sister Day out of the Preachers’ Fund. [See Minutes, 1782.] The fault therefore lay first in Joseph Harper, [Joseph Harper was at Bedford.] for Cornwall has nothing to do with Sister Day this year; and secondly, in John Atlay, who ought to have sent him and you the Minutes immediately after the Conference. Send no more money to Sister Day, but to Richard Rodda. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Valton LONDON, June 5, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- What have the Birstall Assistants (even Thomas Taylor himself [Taylor was Assistant at Bitstall in 1778.]) been doing these seven years I believe our fast will be productive of many good effects. Many have already found reason to bless God on account of it. Sister Rogers [Mrs. Rogers died in 1784. Her husband married Hester Ann Roe the same year. See letter of May 5, 1784.] is a jewel of a woman. She has all the spirit of her husband, and desires nothing but to do and suffer the will of God. Those trustees [At Birstall. See letter of Nov. 9, 1782.] are wonderfully injudicious. Are they afraid their sons will be of the same mind as themselves I would not for all the world leave a preaching-house to my executors. However, do what you judge best. Your affectionate friend and brother. But your Life! I want your Life. [See letter of Jan. 18, 1782, where Wesley acknowledges the receipt of the first part of the autobiography.] To Hannah Ball NEAR LONDON, June 7, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Your mentioning past times puts me in mind of God’s remarkable providence in the Oxford Circuit. Four young women were made the chief support of four Societies. One of them quitted her post at Henley, and both she and the Society sank into nothing. [Is this Miss Hartly See letter of Jan. 24, 1771, to Hannah Ball.] The other three by the grace of God stand their ground; and so do the Societies at Wycombe, Watlington, and Witney. And I trust my dear friends Hannah Ball, Patty Chapman, and Nancy Bolton will never be weary of well doing! I can’t find any fault in them but that they are not so well acquainted with each other as I would have them to be. If I possibly can, I will spend a night with you as I go from London to Bristol next month. [He visited Wycornbe on July 14. See Journal, vi. 432.] I was well pleased to hear of Mr. Batting’s generosity to our poor friends at Oxford. [For his assistance at Wycombe, see Memoir of Hannah Ball, p. 143; and letter of Feb. 24, 1779, to Miss Ball.] It seems as if the time is drawing near for more good to be done there also. We should expect to see still greater things. The right hand of the Lord hath the pre-eminence! -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Ferguson HARWICH, June 12, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Hitherto God has helped us. As the weather last night was exceeding rough, the captain did not think advisable to sail; for which I was not sorry. We expect to sail this morning, as it seems the storm is over; and probably we shall see Helvoetsluys to-morrow. Sally and my other companions are in perfect health, and are all in good spirits; knowing that they are under His protection whom the winds and the seas obey. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Abraham Orchard lived at Bath. Isaac Orchard, who died on December xo, x732, aged seventy-six, was probably his brother. He was the first District Missionary Treasurer. See Methodist Magazine, 1833, p. 155. [2] Miss Bolton wrote to Wesley on December 27, 1782; on January 3, 1783 (‘I have been learning in the school of adversity’); and again on January 29, ‘In this large family, duty to it and the calls of business allow me very little time in the day for retirement; I therefore rise about five (and I hope strictly to adhere to it), and make me a little wood fire in my room, and comfortably and quietly enjoy my morning.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1790, pp. 667-8; x79~, pp. 49-50, 108-9; and letters of August 3, 1782, and February 20, 1789. [3] Elizabeth Fuller died on December 2L 1836, aged seventy-six. The Diary for January 28 and 29 records visits to Sister Fuller in London. Wesley seems to have preached there on the 28th and dined there on the 29th. See Journal, vi. 388; Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 517. [4] Inishannon was on the road between Cork and Bandon. Wesley preached in the market-house in 1756 and 1758. It was given another trial. The Society greatly revived and increased in 1785. Wesley preached to a full house there on May 11, 1787. See Journal, iv. 163, 279, vii. 274, 494d; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 110, 408. [5] Cricket had come from Limerick to Deny. Unsophisticated to an astonishing degree, apparently unable to understand the ordinary conventionalities of society, he was withal a man of unaffected piety and of pulpit power. He died in 1806. Meggot, many years a faithful preacher and ‘a truly primitive Christian,’ died about 1764. His constant motto was, ‘Thou God seest me.’ See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 345; Atmore’s Memorial, p. 270. [6] Blackall lived at Brentford. Wesley took tea with him on February 13. See Journal, vi. 390d. [7] Black was born at Huddersfield in 1760, and in 1775 went out to Nova Scotia, where his father had bought an estate. He had begun to preach, and wrote Wesley in May 1781 about the work in Amherst. At the close of 1782 he asked for missionaries for Nova Scotia and about his spending a year or two at Kingswood School. Two preachers were appointed for Nova Scotia at the famous Christmas Conference at Baltimore in 1784. See Richey’s Memoir of William Black, p. 98; Early Methodist Preachers, v. 242-95. [8] Mrs. Bradbum had called in Wesley’s help in her family troubles. Her father had left no will, so that the property was all in the hands of his widow, who married John Karr and died a year later, when Karr married Mrs. Palmer. See letters of June 4, 1778, and November 27, 1783 (to her). [9] Miss Roe writes on March 20: ‘A letter from dear Mr. Wesley written from Bristol overwhelmed my soul in tenderest grief.... When my first emotions of grief on perusing these lines had a little subsided, I fell upon my knees before God, and was enabled to plead in powerful supplications and strong faith for the restoration and long-spared life of this eminent servant of God. Opening the Bible upon my knees, it was upon that passage, Psalm xci. 15-16. I was filled with comfort; nor could doubt a moment longer respecting him.’ On the 29th she hears that Wesley’s ‘fever turned in the very hour that a number of the preachers were wrestling in prayer, having been told that he was just departing.’ See Journal, vi. 398-9; Journal of Mrs. Hester Ann Rogers, pp. 208-9; and next letter. [10] The handwriting of this letter bears witness that Wesley was not yet fully recovered from the fever which had seized him in Bristol. See Journal, vi. 400; W.H.S. ix. 126; and previous letter. [11] This is evidently a promise of further help if needed by his unnamed correspondent. [12] ‘Mr. Brooke had objected to some expressions of Wesley’s as to the Mystic writers, which he considered harsh and unfounded’ (Memoirs, p. 194). Wesley had reached Dublin on April 13, and stayed with Brooke. This letter shows how he welcomed the candor of his friend’s criticism. [13] Benson on January 3, 1783, had consented ‘with some reluctance’ to do what he had never done before -- bury someone, and on the same evening ‘to baptize a young man, who appeared to be very penitent and to experience a measure of faith in the Lord Jesus.’ He had other applications, and consulted Wesley on the subject. He also asked that he might remain another year in Bradford, which request was granted. In his reply Benson reminded Wesley that he had been accustomed to favor him in this respect, and he knew Samuel Bradburn (who had been two years in Bradford) did not expect to stay. He said he did not wish to be Assistant; but added, with the frankness which he always showed to Wesley, ‘Yet you must give me leave utterly to deny what you lay to my charge. I did not let things go as they would when at Manchester; and whoever informed you so misinformed you, Ever since I have traveled, whether Assistant or not, I have always made it a point of conscience to contribute all I could to the good of the work both by doctrine and discipline, and to regulate whatever seemed to want regulation in every place; and when I could not otherwise do it, I wrote to you.’ He refers Wesley to the preachers with whom he had been associated. He admits that he has not courage to beg as some of his brethren, and therefore probably might not raise enough for the Yearly Collection. See the manuscript Life, pp. 1248-50. [14] Wesley arrived at Harwich from London by coach the previous evening, sailed for Holland next morning about nine, and reached Helvoetsluys on the 13th. His niece Sarah Wesley, and Brackenbury, Broadbent, and Whitfield were his companions. Mrs. Ferguson was the wife of his host in Holland, William Ferguson, of Hoxton and Amsterdam. He was local preacher, and distributed Wesley’s sermons among his Dutch friends. His son acted as Wesley’s interpreter and traveling companion. See Journal, vi. 416, 422; and letter of September 7, 1779. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 82: 80. 1783 ======================================================================== 1783 To Mrs. Barton LONDON, July 5, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Last month I made a little journey to Holland, from whence I returned yesterday. [He arrived in London about eleven on Friday night, July 4. For the visit, see Journal, vi. 416-30.] There is a blessed work at the Hague, Amsterdam, Utrecht, and many other of the principal cities; and in their simplicity of spirit and plainness of dress the believers vie with the old English Methodists. In affection they are not inferior to any. It was with the utmost difficulty we could break from them. I am glad to hear so good an account of my two little maids. [Mrs. Barton’s daughters (see letter of Nov. 6). He was there in May 1782.] I found much love to them when I was at Beverley. Now is the time for them to choose that better part which shall never be taken from them. Now is the time for them to choose whether they will seek happiness in God or in the world. The world never made any one happy, and it is certain it never will. But God will. He says, -- Love shall from Me returns of love obtain; And none that seek Me early seek in vain. -- I am, with love to Brother Barton, Your affectionate brother. To William Black LONDON, July 13, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is a rule with me to answer all the letters which I receive. If, therefore, you have not received an answer to every letter which you have written, it must be either that your letter or my answer has been intercepted. I do not wonder at all that, after that great and extraordinary work of God, there should be a remarkable decay. So we have found it in almost all places. A swift increase is generally followed by a decrease equally swift. All we can do to prevent it is continually to exhort all who have tasted that the Lord is gracious to remember our Lord’s words, ‘Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation.’ Mr. Alline may have wit enough to do hurt; but I fear he will never have wit enough to do good. He is very far from being a man of sound understanding; but he has been dabbling in Mystical writers, in matters which are too high for him, far above his comprehension. I dare not waste my time in answering such miserable jargon. I have better work. But I have sent you (with other books) two volumes of Mr. Law’s works, which contain all that Mr. Alline would teach if he could: only it is the gold purged from the dross; whereas he would give you the gold and dross shuffled together. I do not advise you ever to name his name in public (although in private you must warn our brethren), but go on your way exactly as if there were no such person in the world. The school at Kingswood is exceeding full; nevertheless there shall be room for you. And it is very probable, if you should live to return to Halifax, you may carry one or more preachers with you. I will order Mr. Atlay to send the books you sent for to our German brethren. I hope you will live as brethren, and have a free and open intercourse with each other. I commend you to Him who is able to make you perfect, stablish, settle you; and am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother. To John Evan BRISTOL, July 19, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I write just two or three lines because perhaps it may be a comfort to you. I commend you for giving up all that you had. It was acting the part of an honest man. Now you are cast upon the good providence of God; and He will not leave you nor forsake you. I hope to see you after the Conference; and am Your affectionate brother. Mr. John Evan, In Lowbridge, Near Gloucester. To Elizabeth Ritchie BRISTOL, July 20, 1783. MY DEAR BETSY, -- It seemed a long time since I heard from you; but I believe your not writing was owing to your not knowing how to direct to me while I was abroad. [See letter of July 5.] The prayers of many were productive of many blessings, and in particular of the amazing friendship and goodwill which were shown us in every place. We always looked upon the Dutch as an heavy, dull, stoical people. But truly most, nay I may say all, with whom we conversed familiarly were as tender-hearted and as earnestly affectionate as the Irish themselves. Two of our sisters, when we left the Hague, came twelve miles with us on our way; and one of our brethren of Amsterdam came to take leave of us to Utrecht, above thirty miles. There are, indeed, many precious souls in Utrecht full of faith and love, as also at Haarlem, the Hague, and Amsterdam. And one and all (without any human teaching) dress as plainly as you do. I believe, if my life be prolonged, I shall pay them a visit at least every other year. Had I had a little more time, I would have visited our brethren in Friesland and Westphalia likewise; for a glorious work of God is lately broken out in both these provinces. Miss Loten [Miss Loren, of Utrecht, corresponded with Wesley till his death. Henry Moore had read many of her letters. See Journal, vi. 426-9, vii. 200-1; Moore’s Wesley, ii. 291; and letter of Sept. 20, 1789.] is an Israelite indeed; she is a pattern to all that are round about her. One would scarcely have expected to see the daughter of the head burgomaster dressed on a Sunday in a plain linen gown. She appears to have but one desire--that Christ may reign alone in her heart. I do not remember any storm which traveled so far as that on the 10th. [See Journal, vi. 432-3.] It has been in almost all parts of England, but especially at Witney, near Oxford. The next night they had a far greater, which seemed to cover the whole town for four hours with almost one uninterrupted blaze; and it has made such an impression on high and low, rich and poor, as had not been known in the memory of man. I expect a good deal of difficulty at this Conference, and shall stand in need of the prayers of you and your friends. [About the Bitstall Chapel case and the state of Kingswood School. See Journal, vi. 437-8.] Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am Yours most affectionately. To George Gidley BRISTOL, July 30, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I cannot come into Cornwall myself this year. But I am in hopes one or more of our preachers will make a trial this autumn whether some good may not be done at Bideford. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Gidley, Supervisor, In Bide- ford, Devon. To Elizabeth Padbury BRISTOL, August 1, 1783. MY DEAR BETSY, -- I am glad to find that you remember me still, and that your love is not grown cold. I love you much, and I trust always shall; as I doubt not you will always deserve it. I have found several (my own father was one) that could rejoice in the justice as well as mercy of God. But punishing is His strange work: He delights chiefly in showing mercy. I apprehend, when you find those seasons of dryness and heaviness, this is owing either to the agency of the devil, who can easily cloud our mind when God permits, or to the corruptible body pressing down the soul. But believe and conquer all! -- I am, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To Miss Padbury, In Whittlebury. To William Robarts BRISTOL, August 3, 1783. I have taken your advice, and reunited the Taunton and Tiverton Circuits. [The Devon Circuit had been divided into the Taunton and Tiverton Circuits in 1778, which were reunited in 1783.] At the same time that I wrote to you I wrote to Mr. Jaques at Wallingford, who was barely a member of our Society. I wrote to the same effect as I wrote to you, and indeed nearly in the same words. He was so far from being offended that he immediately wrote me the most affectionate letter I ever received from him in my life; not only thanking me heartily, but (what I never expected) telling me what his income was and how he laid it out. Why did not Billy Robarts answer me in the same manner Had he less love than Mr. Jaques or more pride Consider, Billy, consider! You have certainly got out of the way which you and I walked in many years ago! [The reply sent by Robarts is so much to the point that it is given in full.] TIVERTON, August 6, 1783. DEAR SIR, -- You are my father; as such I have loved and honoured you. Forty years I have been in your Connection; thirty-six I have been admitted an helper in the gospel thirty of which my labor have been without charge to my brethren, but not so to myself. Ten pounds a year upon an average (I think) have not discharged my various expense with the Connection, which I am fully conscious was as much as I ought at any time, and for seven years past more than my ability required. I have informed you again and again that I have exceeded my ability. Why would you not believe me If you were not satisfied, why did you not ask me in person You never found me concealed or disguised. Was it right, upon your own suspicion or any vague information, to upbraid me before the congregation and before company at table, and even then refuse to be set right Was it kind, was it common candor, after the plain answer I gave you in person last year to write me as you did Had my conduct at any time merited that you should put a negative upon all I could say or write even when I appealed to my God for the truth of it When I was informed after all this that you censured me in various companies at Bristol and in its vicinity as a man worth thousands and eat up of covetousness and love of this world, I was astonished, and could not avoid exclaiming, What is become of charity are justice and truth also fled from the earth where is the man that doeth to another as he would be done by Whether I have less love or more pride than Mr. Jaques I do not determine; but I hope he have not been treated with so much severity and so totally without cause as your injured WILL. ROBARTS. To William Robarts BRISTOL, August 8, 1783. DEAR BILLY, -- Not being well able to write myself, I use George Story’s hand. What I wrote to you before was not upon bare suspicion or from vague information, but I was really frightened by hearing you say some years ago that you had just been giving 3,000 for a little estate. Perhaps your substance is not so great now as then. Of the things which some officious person said I spoke concerning you I remember nothing; but I suppose they lost nothing in the telling. [See letter of Aug. 16.] -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Peter Garforth BRISTOL, August 9, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have borrowed the hand of a friend, not being able to write myself. You have great reason to praise God for the late remarkable instance of His goodness, which you mention. It really seems had it not been for the mighty power of prayer the boy would have been blind all his life, the more reason you have entirely to dedicate both him and yourself to His service. This is manifestly the sign of a gracious dispensation, and I trust it will be answered thereby. Watch and pray, and you will no more enter into temptation.-- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Garforth, At Skipton- in-Craven, Yorkshire. To Thomas Les BRISTOL, August 15, 1783. Joseph Bradford is without delay to desire the assistance of our friends in London for the house at Nottingham. I hope all our brethren will exert themselves therein. The importance of the case he will himself explain. Mr. Atlay will give you my ten pounds. To Thomas Welch BRISTOL, August 15, 1785. DEAR THOMAS, -- You seem to be the man I want. As to salary, you will have 30 a year; board, &c., will be thirty more. But do not come for money. (1) Do not come at all unless purely to raise a Christian school. (2) Anybody behaving ill I will turn away immediately. (3) I expect you to be in the school eight hours a day. (4) In all things I expect you should be circumspect. But you will judge better by considering the printed Rules. The sooner you come the better. – I am Your affectionate brother. To William Robarts BRISTOL, August 16, 1783. DEAR BILLY, -- The great God fill you with as much of His blessing as your heart can contain! Your letter did me good like a cordial: I am right glad that you explained yourself. Never more come mistrust between us twain -- Dear Billy, adieu. To John Atlay LEEDS, September 3, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The schoolmasters for Kingswood are fixed, and are expected there every day. Mr. Simpson’s sister is the housekeeper, who is come hither in her way to Bristol. Let no man or woman go to West Street Chapel without my appointment. It is a matter of deep concern. The building or not building at Birstall does not depend upon me, but the trustees. [The day after this letter was written Wesley met the Bitstall trustees about building another chapel, ‘as near the present as may be,’ on ground bought by Dr. Coke for the purpose. See Minutes, 1783; Coke’s An Address to the Inhabitants of Birstall, 1782; and letter of Nov. 27 to Mrs. Bradburn.] J. Fenwick is to correct the press chiefly, in the absence of Dr. Coke, and to transcribe tracts for me. And he may receive his tittle salary (at least) till I return to London. I never expected the ten pounds to be returned. Take the dock if you can get it.--I am, with love to Sister Atlay, Your affectionate brother. To Robert Hall, Jun. LEEDS, September 6, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am not at all well pleased with John Hampson for leaving the circuit, and hope he will soon be with you again. So undoubtedly will Mr. Myles, [William Myles and John Hampson, jun., were the newly appointed preachers at Nottingham.] if he is not with you already. Dr. Coke purposes to be with you on Tuesday se’nnight. -- I am Your affectionate brother. You may give notice of Dr. Coke’s preaching at seven on Tuesday evening. To Mr. Robert Hall, jun., At Mr. Math. Bagshaw’s, In Nottingham. To Jane Bisson LONDON, October 2, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It gives me much pleasure to find you are still happy in God, leaning upon your Beloved. [See letter of Aug. 4, 1787.] O may you increase therein more and more 1 May you be more and more holy, and you will be more and more happy. This I long for, even your perfection, your growing up in all things into Him that is our Head. O may you never endeavor Loves all-sufficient sea to raise By drops of creature happiness! I send you a little book or two by Mr. Clarke. If I could be of any service to you in anything, it would be an unspeakable satisfaction to, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Howton BRISTOL, October 3, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- There will never be any trouble about the child, whether anything is paid or not; you need not be apprehensive of any demand upon that account. Those which I saw at your house were a company of lovely children both in their persons and in their behavior. Some of them I am in hopes of meeting there again if I should live till spring. The account you gave of that sick maiden is very remarkable; and her spirit must, I trust, influence others. It is the glory of the people called Methodists that they condemn none for their opinions or modes of worship. They think and let think, and insist upon nothing but faith working by love.--I am, with love to Sister Price, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Howton, At Mrs. Price’s Boarding-school, Worcester. To the Preachers in America BRISTOL, October 3, 1783. DEAR BROTHER, -- 1. Let all of you be determined to abide by the Methodist doctrine and discipline published in the four volumes of Sermons and the Notes upon the New Testament, together with the Large Minutes of the Conference. 2. Beware of preachers coming from Great Britain or Ireland without a full recommendation from me. Three of our traveling preachers have eagerly desired to go to America; but I could not approve of it by any means, because I am not satisfied that they thoroughly like either our discipline or our doctrine. I think they differ from our judgment in one or both. Therefore, if these or any other come without my recommendation, take care how you receive them. 3. Neither should you receive any preachers, however recommended, who will not be subject to the American Conference and cheerfully conform to the Minutes both of the American and English Conferences. 4. I do not wish our American brethren to receive any who make any difficulty of receiving Francis Asbury as the General Assistant. Undoubtedly the greatest danger to the work of God in America is likely to arise either from preachers coming from Europe, or from such as will arise from among yourselves speaking perverse things, or bringing in among you new doctrines, particularly Calvinism. You should guard against this with all possible care; for it is far easier to keep them out than to thrust them out. I commend you all to the grace of God; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. ----- LONDON, October 12, 1783. I am glad to hear that you had a safe though it was a slow passage to Dublin, and that your master received you not in a civil but in an affectionate manner. I really hope this is a token that God is turning your captivity. And if you serve Him in earnest, He will withhold from you no manner of thing that is good. I do not well know who your father is; your mother I remember perfectly well. It seems but as yesterday since I was conversing with Miss Lovelace at Athlone. She had then strong desires to be not only almost but altogether a Christian. If she and your father cast their care on Him that careth for them, He will deliver them out of all their trouble. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Jasper Winscorn LONDON, October 13, 1783. DEAR JASPER, -- You and I have been old friends. We have known one another for many years. Friendship therefore requires me to tell you my thoughts without either disguise or reserve. Your son, an hopeful young man, fearing God, falls in love with an agreeable, well-bred, sensible woman. After some delays, he takes a wrong step: he marries her without your consent. For this you are angry and forbid him your house; and I cannot blame you. You may say, ‘Well, what would you advise me to do now’ I advise you to forgive him. I advise you to lay aside your anger (it is high time), and to receive him again (occasionally) into your house. For you need forgiveness yourself; and if you do not forgive, you cannot be forgiven. You will perhaps say, ‘Why, I have forgiven him; but he shall never come into my house.’ And what if God should say the same to you Then you had better never have been born! But beside, what would follow if you should persist in treating your son thus Probably his patience would be worn out, and he would contract resentment, perhaps bitterness, if not hatred toward you; and if so, what must follow Why, your implacable anger will cause your son’s damnation. ‘But she has settled her fortune upon herself.’ I cannot blame her if she has. Every woman has a right so to do. ‘But she will not let him travel with her.’ Nay, but he does not desire it, knowing it would be a double expense and inconvenient on many accounts. [See letter of Dec, 10, 1785.] Nay, Jasper, take advice. Show yourself a man of sense, a man of piety, and a real friend to Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, October [18], 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Your wisdom is, as far as is possible, not to think or speak of Mr. W----- at all. You have better things to think of -- namely, that God is returning to His people. There is a beginning already; but you should continually expect to see greater things than these. ‘Temptations,’ says Mr. Haliburton, ‘and distinct deliverance from temptation, profit us much’; and ‘He prepareth for us,’ as Kempis observes, ‘occasions of fighting that we may conquer.’ [Book II. chap. xi.] Never scruple to declare explicitly what God has done for your soul. And never be weary of exhorting the believers to ‘go on to perfection.’ When they are athirst for this in any place, the whole work of God goes on. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Padbury LONDON, October 29, 1783. MY DEAR BETSY, -- I love to see anything that comes from you, although it be upon a melancholy occasion. Nothing can be done in the Court of King’s Bench till the latter end of next week at the soonest, and till then I am trying all milder means which may possibly avail. If nothing can be done this way, we can but fight at Sharp’s. But prayer and fasting are of excellent uses; for if God be for us, who can be against us Probably I may visit you this winter. -- I always am, dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To Thomas Longley LONDON, November 5, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- What you mention is an exceeding odd case. I hardly remember the like. I refer Samuel Edwards wholly to you. If you cannot trust him, he must go home. If you can, you may receive him again as a fellow laborer -- that is, if he is sensible of his fault, of his very uncommon pride and stubbornness and unadvisableness, contrary both to religion and to reason. But you can’t receive him unless he promises for the time to come to take your advice or reproof, not as an affront, not as ‘trampling him under-foot,’ but as a favor and an act of real kindness. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Longley, At Mr. M. Dobinson’s, In Derby. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, Noveraber 6, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am always well pleased to hear from you especially when you tell me that God has dealt well with you. I trust He has yet greater blessings in store by and for you and for the little flock at Beverley. I was glad of the little time we had together, and hoped it would not be in vain. I found love to your two little maidens [See letter of July 5.]: there is good seed sown in their hearts, which, if it be carefully watered, will probably bring forth fruit to your comfort and to the glory of God. Let your husband and you go on hand in hand, stirring up the gift of God that is in you, and running with resignation and patience the race that is set before you. You have met and undoubtedly will meet with manifold temptations. But you have had full proof that God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape that you may be able to bear it. O tarry thou the Lord’s leisure! Be strong, and He shall comfort thy heart. And put thou thy trust in the Lord. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Captain Richard Williams LONDON, November 9, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I know the talents which God has lent me, and I dare not bury any of them in the earth. I am a debtor both to the learned and the unlearned. And in the Magazine I apply to both; chiefly, indeed, to the unlearned, because these are the far greater number. And still I keep my original points in view, -- He died for all to save them from all sin. I think the lines on Slavery will do well! [See letters of Feb. 25 to Taylor, and Dec. 10.] They are both sensible and poetical. -- I am, dear Richard, Your affectionate brother. To Capt. Richa. Williams, In Poldice, Near Truro, Cornwall. To Mrs. Nail LONDON, November 12, 1783. DEAR SISTER, -- Mr. Wesley desires me to inform you that he has written to Mr. Pritchard on the subject of your letter, and you may expect to hear farther from him soon. He seems highly displeased with Mr. Pritchard for what he has done. -- I am Yours, THOMAS TENNANT. To Mr. Alexander NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. DEAR SIR, -- It is very certain your day of grace is not passed: if it were, you would be quite easy and unconcerned. It is plain the Lover of souls is still striving with you and drawing you to Himself. But you have no time to lose: for ‘now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation!’ It is therefore your wisdom (without considering what others do, whether clergyman or layman) to attend to one thing -- that is, ‘to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.’ And nothing can be more sure than that, if you do this, if it be indeed your one care to ‘seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness, all other things shall be added unto you.’ To His protection I commit you and yours; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. I write a line to your son: NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. DEAR JAMES, -- Only let your actions correspond with your words, and then they will have weight with all that hear them. It seems highly probable to me that Providence does not intend you should be a tradesman. I have known a young man that feared God acquire as much learning in one year as children usually do in seven. Possibly you may do the same. If you have a desire to try, and we should live till July, I will give you a year’s schooling and board at Kingswood School, and you will then be the better able to judge what it is that God calls you to. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Walter Churchey NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have indeed had a sea of troubles. But I have not yet heard any one say it was your own fault; which I wonder at, because it is the way of the world still (as it was in the days of Job) always to construe misfortune into sin. But you and I know that there is a God in the world, and that He has more to do in it than most men are aware of. So little do they advert to that great truth, ‘Even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.’ One thing only I have heard of you, which, if it be true, I should not commend: I mean, that you have wholly forsaken the poor Methodists, [Churchey adds this note: ‘This was a misrepresentation.--W.C.’] and do not so much as attend the public preaching. One was mentioning this a few days ago, when I was saying something in favor of you; and it stopped my mouth; nay, supposing it true, I do not know what to say yet. For surely, when affliction presses upon us, we need every possible help. Commending you to Him that careth for you, -- I am Your affectionate brother. PS.--My kind love to Sister Churchey. To Mr. Churchey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To Mrs. Dowries NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Through the blessing of God I find no difference at all between the health and strength which are now given me and that which I had forty years ago. Only I had then many pains which I have not now. You are enabled to give a very clear and standing proof that weakness of nerves cannot prevent joy in the Lord. Your nerves have been remarkably weak, and that for many years, but still your soul can magnify the Lord and your spirit rejoice in God your Savior! Your affectionate brother. To Ann Loxdale NEAR LONDON, November 21, 1783. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, -- It is probable your letter came to Bristol during the time of my illness, and was then laid so carefully by that it never was found since. I have reason to think some other letters wrote about that time met with the same misfortune. One in particular from a lovely woman at the Hague, which I was exceedingly sorry to lose. [The letter from Mm. M.F. Loren, dated Hague, July 16, 1783, was apparently found afterwards, and appears in Arminian Mag. 1792, pp. 50-1. Wesley describes the family in Journal, vi. 421, 427: see also letter of July 20.] I believe Mr. Walsh’s nervous disorders gave rise to many if not most of those temptations to which many persons of equal grace but firmer nerves are utter strangers all their lives. As you never yet experienced anything of the kind, so I am persuaded you never will. Yet I do not wonder at the horrid temptations of Gregory Lopez; because he was in a desert--that is, (so far) out of God’s way. I see much of the goodness and wisdom of God in the particular trial you are now under. As you speak to me without reserve, I will speak to you in the same manner. But summon up all your faith and resignation, or you will not be able to bear it. I cannot doubt at all but some years ago he was earnestly seeking salvation. But I have more reasons to believe that he is now far, very far, from it. It was with doubting conscience I refrained from expelling him the Society: (1) because I heard he was deeply, uncommonly covetous, and because I knew that he mortally hated Mr. Rogers and did him all the ill offices he could; (2) because he equally hated that blessed creature Hetty Roe; and (3) because he is a determined enemy to perfection. [See letters of July 24, 1782, and Dec. 9, 1783.] Herein I have given you strongest proof of the sincerity with which I am, my dear Miss Loxdale, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Bradburn SHEERNESS, November 27, 1783. My DEAR BETSY, -- Although our brethren at Birstall were not so admirable as I could have desired, yet I do not repent me of my journey: I am well pleased that I did my part. [See letter of Sept. 3.] You are now among a teachable and a loving people. And as you have fewer crosses, I expect you will have better health. Yet crosses of one kind or another you must still expect. Otherwise you must go out of the world. But every cross will be proportioned to your strength; and you will always find His grace is sufficient for you. When I talked with Mrs. Karr about your affair, [See letter of Feb. 26 to Mrs. Bradburn.] I did not observe that she resented anything. She spoke of you with much tenderness; but if she does not write, she is certainly a little disgusted. It seems you have nothing to do but to sit still, and in due time God will order all things well. I am glad you have had a little time with my dear Miss Ritchie; there would be no jar between her spirit and yours. -- I am, with love to Sammy Bradburn, my dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To Benjamin Chappel November 27, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is so long a time since I heard from you that I began to be in doubt whether you had forgotten your old friends or was safe landed in a better world. As I find you are still in the land of the living, I hope you are still making the best of life and laboring by every possible means to make your calling and election sure. Without doubt you have found many trials, and will find many more. But still you know in whom you have trusted, and who is able to deliver you out of all. But what means of grace have you Have you any church within any reasonable distance If you have, how often have you divine service Twice on every Sunday Have you a clergyman that loves or fears God Though, if he does not, it will not hinder you of the blessing attending the divine ordinances. But if you have no clergyman, see that you constantly meet together, and God will be where two or three are gathered together. If Sister Morse is a lively, zealous, and judicious Christian, she may be of much use among you. But I doubt whether Henry Alline [See letters of July 13, 1783, and May 11, 1784.] be not the person concerning whom our brethren in Cumberland wrote to me: who has wrote and published a book which is full of broad, ranting Antinomianism. If it is he, he is a wild, absurd man, wiser in his own eyes than seven men that can render a reason; and has done much mischief among the serious persons there, setting every man’s sword against his brother. If it be the same man, have a care of him, or he will do more harm among you than ever he can do good. I should think some of our brethren from Cumberland would have zeal and courage enough to come over to you now and then and impart some of their fire to you. If the case of the island be as you say, why do not the inhabitants send a petition to the Government It seems this would be a very seasonable time. It will be a difficult thing to find apprentices who will be willing to take so long a journey to a cold and uncomfortable place. I am glad to hear so good an account of your wife. See that you strengthen each other’s hands in God. Beware of lukewarmness. Beware of cleaving to the present world. Let your treasure and your hearts be above! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Benj. Chappel, At St. John’s, Newfoundland. To Isaac Twycross LONDON, November 29, 1783. DEAR ISAAC, -- I love you well, and would be glad to do you any service that is in my power. If I should find any person that has need of a serious curate, I would not fail to recommend you. -- I am Your affectionate brother. Rev. Mr. Twycross, In Dagenham, Essex. To Ann Loxdale LONDON, December 9, 1783. MY DEAR NANCY, -- Because I loved you, and because I thought it my duty, I wrote freely to you on a tender point. But I have done. I do not know that I shall speak one word more concerning it. The regard which I have for you will not suffer me to give you any pain which answers no good purpose. So you may still think him as holy as Thomas Walsh; I will say nothing against it. Only beware of one snare of the devil. Do not tack things together which have no real connection with each other: I mean, your justification or sanctification and your marriage. God told you that you was sanctified. I do not say, ‘God told you you should be married to that man.’ Do not jumble these together; if you do, it may cost you your life. Profit by the friendly warning of, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Captain Richard Williams LONDON, December 10, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have directed your lines to the editor of the General Post. But both he and Mr. Pine will insert in their papers only what they believe will promote the sale of them. You send me an agreeable account of the work of God in Cornwall and in some places that I do not know. I know nothing of Wheal Rose, nor of the Copper House at Hayle: I hope Mr. Edwards will continue in the same state he is now. I thought the Calvinists were resolved to run away with the Society at Kirly. But the Universal Lover of Souls is stronger than them! He hath said, ‘Hitherto shall you come, and no farther!’ The work of God (Brother Asbury sends me word) goes on both steadily and swiftly in America. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Capt. Riehl. Williams, At Poldice, Near Truro, Cornwall. To Matthem Mayer LONDON, December 13, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- No chastening is joyous for the present; but it will bring forth peaceable fruit. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away -- that He may give you Himself. We will make room for the little boy at Kingswood. You may send him whenever you have an opportunity. If you choose it rather, you may change places for two or three months with one of the preachers in any of the neighboring circuits. I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, December 24, 1783. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Look into the Minutes concerning the building of preaching-houses, and see that the directions there laid down be observed. No one can object to your making a collection for the house in your circuit. [See letter of Feb. 25 to him.] I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Black wished to be trained at Kingswood School; but the way did not open for his coming to England. He became an itinerant in 1786, though he had already been devoting his whole time to evangelistic work for five years. He had sent Wesley an account of Henry Alline’s unscriptural principles, and asked him to write a brief refutation of them, as they were exerting considerable influence. See Richey’s Memoir, pp. 109-11; and letters of February 26 (to Black) and November 27 (to Benjamin Chappel). [2] Wesley’s plain dealing with his friends comes out in this frank correspondence. See letter of September 19, 1782. [3] This letter and that of April 2, 1790, were given by Lieut.-Col. Tottle, a descendant of Mr. Garforth, to the Craven Museum at Skipton. Wesley preached in Thomas Garfield’s house on July 25, 1766. He was leader of the Society class, a zealous local preacher, and built the first chapel at Woodhouse, Leeds, in 1769, at his own expense. His brother Peter was of the same spirit. See Journal, v. 177, 376, and Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1840, p. 1044. [4] The Minutes of 1782 ask, ‘What houses are to be built this year’ Nottingham stands first of the four. Lee was in London, and Bradford at Leicester; John Atlay was Wesley’s Book Steward. [5] Welch was born at Markfield, Leicestershire, in 1760. His father moved soon after to London, where he kept an academy in Nightingale Lane. His mother died when he was four, his father when he was eight. He was brought up by his grandfather at Rugby, and in 1779 became assistant in a large school at Coventry, where he joined the Methodist Society in September 1781. When Thomas Simpson and Cornelius Bayley resigned as masters at Kingswood, he wrote to Wesley offering to succeed Bayley in the Writing Department. After Wesley’s reply, a friend urged him to remain at Coventry, where he was likely to do much good. He told Wesley, who sent him a tart reply – ‘You use me very ill. I have turned away three masters on your account. The person who gives you this advice is wanting either in common sense or common honesty.’ Welch quotes this in his Diary, and adds: ‘To have grieved one of the greatest of men was, indeed, trying to me; and I believe this precipitate and thoughtless step prepared the way for many of my subsequent trials in life.’ He regretted that he did not accept the position, as ‘in all probability in a few years I might have been wholly devoted to the important work of the ministry, a work for which I have always had a strong desire.’ In 1781 he opened a school in Birmingham, and in 1809 retired to Stourport, where he died on December 31, 1813. See Methodist Magazine, 1817, pp. 321-31, 481-90. [6] The frank letter of August 6 had won the day, and reinstated the writer in the good graces of his old friend. See letter of November 8, 1785, to him. [7] Wesley had been at Worcester on August 26 and September 11. On March 24, 1785, he visited the boarding-school of Mrs. Price, a Quaker, and had tea at ‘Sister Howton’s.’ See Journal, vi. 441, 446d, vii. 59; and letter of August 5, 1787, to Mrs. Howton. [8] This letter (sent through Jesse Lee) produced a profound impression on the American preachers, who enacted a rule embodying the principles stated in it. The following autumn Wesley appointed Coke and Asbury as General Superintendents. Lee had been converted in 1773 under the preaching of Robert Williams, and had been pressed into the ranks of the itinerants by Asbury at the Conference of i782. He became one of the most successful and popular of the preachers. See letter of September 10, 1784. [9] This letter was sent to a member of Society who had recently gone to a situation in Dublin. [10] This letter probably refers to the little chapel at Whittlebury, which was opened in 1783. It cost 68 11s. 7d. Wesley gave 4, and then 5. John Barber, the second minister in the Northampton Circuit, came to London, where he collected 48; and the building was opened free of debt. In 1883 the chapel was restored by the congregation, who were chiefly agricultural laborers. The side galleries were removed; but the pulpit in which Wesley and Dr. Coke preached was carefully preserved. Wesley once met his brother Charles and Fletcher at Whittlebury, which lies on the old Watling Street, a few miles from Towcester. See Methodist Recorder, June 29, 1885; W.H.S. vi. 45. [11] Longley, a native of Dewsbury, died on March 17, 1809, aged sixty-five, after twenty-six years’ service, ‘with general approbation and success.’ Edwards had been Longley’s junior colleague at Derby. The difficulty was evidently met, for he is stationed at Leicester next year. [12] Mrs. Phoebe Nail, of Frome, bad written to Wesley complaining that she and her husband (Moses Nail) and Robert Dyer had been expelled from the Society by John Pritchard, the Assistant in the Bradford (Wilts) Circuit. This letter (written in reply by Termant, who was appointed to London at the Conference of 1783) is an instance of Wesley’s using an amanuensis: compare letters of August 8, 1783, and February 12, 1785 (to Samuel Bardsley). See Tuck’s Methodism in Frome, pp. 51-2. [13] At the Isle of St. John (later called Prince Edward Island) William Black met, in the autumn of 1783, Benjamin Chappel, an ‘eccentric but truly pious and upright man,’ who had been a London Methodist and a friend of Wesley. He and his wife were wrecked there in 1775 on their voyage to Quebec. He now associated himself with the Societies Black gathered on the mainland, and became the pioneer and the venerated patriarch of Methodism in Prince Edward Island. As a skilled machinist he gained a good position, and was able to render great service to his Church. See Richey’s Memoir of William Black, pp. 115-16; Findlay and Holdsworth’s History of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, i. 290; and letter of June 4, 1787. [14] Miss Loxdale was evidently sought in marriage by a person whom Wesley distrusted. See letters of November 21, 1785 (to her), and April 2, 1785. [15] Captain Williams had sent him some ‘lines on Slavery,’ which Wesley regarded as ‘sensible and poetical.’ He now sends them on to the Bristol newspaper. See letters of November 9, 1783, and February 15, 1785, to him. Mr. Edwards probably had much to do with Calvinistic affairs at Kirly. Wesley got to know the Copper House a little later. He preached in the new house at the Copper Works near Hayle on August 27, 1785. ‘It is round, and all the walls are brass -- that is, brazen slags. It seems nothing can destroy this, till heaven and earth pass away.’ He preached there again on September 9, 1787. See Journal, vii. 110, 325. Francis Asbury was now reaping the harvest which led Wesley to set Dr. Coke and him apart as ‘Joint Superintendents over our brethren in America.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 83: 81. 1784 ======================================================================== 1784 To Isaac Andrews CITY ROAD, January 4, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - After all I can say you will not conceive what I mean unless the Holy Spirit open your understanding. Undoubtedly faith is the work of God; and yet it is the duty of man to believe. And every man may believe if he will, though not when he will. If he seek faith in the appointed ways, sooner or later the power of the Lord will be present, whereby (1) God works, and by His power (2) man believes. In order of thinking God’s working goes first; but not in order of time. Believing is the act of the human mind, strengthened by the power of God. What if you should find it now - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Andrews, Near James Street, Bethhal Green. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, January 4, 1784. DEAR SIR, - I rejoice to hear that you have had a safe passage, and that you have preached both in Guernsey and Jersey. [See Lelivre’s Histoire du Mthodisme dans les les de la Manche, p. 185.] We must not expect many conveniences at first: hitherto it is the day of small things. I should imagine the sooner you begin to preach in French the better: surely you need not be careful about accuracy. Trust God, and speak as well as you can. Peace be with your spirit! I wish you many happy years; and am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and servant. To John Valton LONDON, January 6, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I do not suppose Bristol water would have done you much good; but exercise and change of air would. I do not know Dr. Davison [See letter of Oct. 13 to Valton.]; but I have seen (perhaps thrice) more patients than he has done. And I know many that have perished by swallowing large quantities of powdered wood. Beware of this, and you may live and do good. I shall have no objection to Mr. Taylor if he does not baptize children; but this I dare not suffer. I shall shortly be obliged to drop all the preachers who will not drop this. Christ has sent them not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. [See letters of May 19, 1783, and March 4, 1784 (to Percival).] I wonder any of them are so unkind as to attempt it, when they know my sentiments. We have heard twice from Dr. Coke. They all go on well. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Cart Brackenbury LONDON, January 10, 1784. DEAR SIR, - While those poor sheep were scattered abroad, without any shepherd and without any connection with each other, it is no wonder that they were cold and dead. I am glad you have gathered a few of them together; and surely, if prayer be made concerning it, God will provide you with a convenient place to meet in. Perhaps an application to the gentlemen who have hired the ballroom might not be without success. ’Tis pity but you had the Earnest Appeal to present to the governor as well as the minister. I trust both you and our newly connected brethren will overcome evil with good. We can easily print the Rules here, and send them down with some other books. ’Tis good that every one should know our whole plan. We do not want any man to go on blindfold. Peace be with your spirit! - I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend. To Walter Sellon LONDON, January 10, 1784. DEAR SIR,"I sincerely thank you for your speedy and satisfactory answer. T. Maxfield affirms that you either wrote such a deed or signed it. So fare it well. On the 28th of last June I finished my eightieth year. When I was young I had weak eyes, trembling hands, and abundance of infirmities. But, by the blessing of God, I have outlived them all. I have no infirmities now but what I judge to be inseparable from flesh and blood. This hath God wrought. I am afraid you want the grand medicine which I use - exercise and change of air. I believe what you say concerning that place in the Journal is true. I can trust your memory better than my own. You used to meet me when I came near you; but you seem of late to have forgotten Your old friend and brother. To the Rev. Walter Sellon, At Ledsham, Near Ferrybridge, Yorkshire. To Thomas Carlill LONDON, January 12, 1784. DEAR TOMMY, - It gives me pleasure to have so good an account of all your fellow laborers. Go on in one mind and one spirit, and your labor will not be in vain. I have received one or two uncommon letters from your wise friend at Lowth. It would have been cruelty to the people if you had suffered him to continue leader of a class. Be in earnest to spread the magazines. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Carlill, At the Preacher’s House, In Great Grimsby, Lincolnshire. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, January 12, 1784. DEAR JOSEPH, - I am sorry that so useful a man as Brother Lewly [Taylor had moved from Cornwall West to Gloucester, where he appears in the Minutes for 1784. See letter of Jan. 12, 1791, to Edward Lewly.] was constrained to leave Worcester. But I am not sorry that the books are delivered into your hands, as I am clearly persuaded a far greater number of them will be disposed of. Take care of the select societies as well as the bands. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Parker NEAR LONDON, January 21, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - I have taken time to consider your letter calmly; and now I will speak freely to you concerning it. You assign three reasons for discarding the Methodist preachers: one, because several who had left your chapel promised to join you again, on condition that you would suffer the Methodists to preach there no more; a second, that these preached perfection; and a third, that while one of them was preaching several persons were suddenly and violently affected. But are these reasons valid Let us coolly and impartially consider them before God. I. ’Several who had left you promised to join you again, provided you would suffer the Methodists to preach in your chapel no more.’ I cannot but think you ought never to have joined with or received persons of such a spirit. What a narrow popish spirit was this! What vile bigotry I The exact spirit of Calvinism! Such as surely none that is not a Calvinist ought to encourage either by word or deed. Every one that does I call the maintainer of a bad cause, as bad as bad can be. For whom has God owned in Great Britain, Ireland, and America like them Whom does He now own like them in Yorkshire, in Cheshire, in Lancashire, in Cornwall Truly these are the tokens of our mission, the proof that God hath sent us. Threescore thousand persons setting their faces heavenward, and many of them rejoicing in God their Savior. A specimen of this you yourself saw at Leeds. Come again, and see if the work be not of God. O consider the weight of that word, ’He that rejecteth you rejecteth Me and Him that sent Me.’ 2. ’But they preach perfection.’ And do not you Who does not that speaks as the oracles of God Meaning by that scriptural word neither more nor less than ’loving God with all our heart,’ or having the mind that was in Christ and walking as Christ walked. 3. ’But, while one of them was preaching, several persons fell down, cried out, and were violently affected.’ Have you never read my Journals or Dr. Edwards’ Narrative or Dr. Gillies’s Historical Collections [A Faithful Narrative of the Conversion of many hundred Souls in Northampton, by Jonathan Edwards, 1736; and John Gillies’s Historical Collections relating to Remarkable Periods of the Success of the Gospel, 1754.] Do not you see, then, that it has pleased the all-wise God for near these fifty years, wherever He has wrought most powerfully, that these outward signs (whether natural or not) should attend the inward work And who can call Him to account for this Let Him do as seemeth Him good. I must therefore still think that neither these nor any other reasons can justify the discarding the messengers of God, and consequently that all who do, or abet this, are maintaining a bad cause. Yet I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Hopkins LONDON, January 21, 1784. DEAR ROBERT, - The return you are to make for the blessings you have received is to declare them to all mankind and to exhort all believers strongly and explicitly to go on to perfection. You never need lose what you now experience; but may increase therein till your spirit returns to God. You cannot infer that the air of this or that place does not agree with you because you have a fever there. But if there be a necessity, Christopher Peacock will change places with you. - I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate brother. To Victory Purdy LONDON, February 1, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Your father was one of our first Society, which met at Fetter Lane, and one of the first that found peace with God. When it was thought best that I should go to Bristol, we spent a considerable time in prayer, and then cast lots who should accompany me thither. The lot fell upon him; and he was with me day and night till he judged it proper to marry. But I had no curiosity; so that I scarce ever asked him a question concerning his parents, birth, or former way of life. I first saw him when he came to Fetter Lane and desired to be admitted into the Society. He was a man of eminent integrity and simplicity, ’fervent in zeal and warm in charity’; both in his spirit and behavior greatly resembling Joseph Bradford. Be you a follower of him, as he was of Christ! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Victory Purdy, At the New Room, In Bristol. To Alexander Knox NEAR LONDON, February 5, 1784. DEAR ALLECK, - As to the love of praise, I do not doubt but you have much more of it than you want; and I am persuaded the Great Physician shows you the disease on purpose that He may cure it. But yet, I apprehend, you a little mistake. You blame yourself where no blame is. ’ To be pleased with the approbation of our fellow creatures’ is no part of corrupt nature. It belongs to our pure nature; and to cherish it in a degree is a duty, and not a sin.... Peace be with you and yours! - I am, my dear Alleck, Ever yours. To Samuel Bardsley [ ] LONDON, February 13, 1784. DEAR SAMMY, - It was a senseless, unreasonable prejudice which two or three persons conceived against James Rogers and labored to infuse into others - a mere trick of the devil to hinder his being more useful than any Assistant in that circuit had been before. They will never be able to undo the mischief they have done. If Brother Garside persists in not hearing him, I will trouble his house no more. You don’t tell me anything of Hetty Roe. I hope you have seen and conversed with Mr. Smyth [Edward Smyth. See letter of March 3 to Bardsley.] and that his preaching at Macclesfield had been useful. He is an alarming preacher l Strongly exhort the believers to go on to perfection! - I am, with tender love to Brother and Sister Rogers, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, February 13, 1784. DEAR SIR, - It is undoubtedly our duty to use the most probable means we can for either preserving or restoring our health. But, after all, God does continually assert His own right of saving both souls and bodies. He blesses the medicines, and they take place; He withdraws His influence, and they avail nothing. You will not easily be forgotten by any of this family. I trust we are all one body united by one Spirit. I doubt not but we have also a few fellow members in your little islands. May He whom we serve in the gospel of His Son increase them an hundred-fold I We hear of some increase of the work of God almost in every part of England; but above all in Cornwall, in Lancashire, Cheshire, and various parts of Yorkshire. It pleases God to bless Mr. Valton wherever he turns his face; but his body sinks under him, and he is still hovering between life and death. Would it not be advisable, if you still continue feeble, to return to England as soon as possible; especially if you have reason to believe the air of ~ Jersey does not agree with your constitution I commend you to Him who is able to heal both your soul and body; and" am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and brother. To John Baxendate LONDON, February 19, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You do well to put me in mind of my promise; for otherwise I might have forgotten it. It seems at length the time is come for poor Wigan to lift up its head. I shall be glad to give them a sermon at Wingates myself in my way from Wigan to Bolton. [He preached at Wingates, five or six miles from Bolton, On April and in the evening at Wigan.] We should mark the places where God is pleased to work eminently, and strive to pour in all the help we can. You would do well to read over and consider the Large Minutes of the Conference. See if you can thoroughly agree with what is there laid down both with regard to doctrine and discipline. If you can, then set your hand to the plough in God’s name, and never look back. [See letters of March 7, 1783, and Feb. 25, 1785, to him.] Begin as soon as you please ordering your affairs, and go on with circumspection. Meantime stir up the gift of God that is in you, and do all the good you can. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, February 25, 1784. DEAR SAMMY, - At present I have but just time to tell you I hope to be at Leeds on Tuesday, March [9]. [Wesley went first to Scotland, and did not get to Leeds till July 25, for the Conference which began on the 27th.] Your manner of proposing your objection puts me in mind of your friend Mr. Dodd, your speaker cathedra. But the matter is not half so dear as it appears to you. It is, however, a point, though considered long ago, worth considering again and again. But you must stay your stomach till you either see or hear again from Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Bailey BATH, March 3, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad to hear that Mr. Bailey recovers his health and that he is not quite unemployed. The more both he and you are employed for a good Master the better; seeing it is a sure truth that every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. On Monday, April 5 (if nothing unforeseen prevent), I expect to be at Stockport, and Tuesday, 6th, at Manchester. [His route was varied a little, so that he did not reach Manchester till April 10.] - I am, my dear Rachel, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Rachel Bailey, In Salford, Manchester. To Samuel Bardsley BATH, March 3, 1784. DEAR SAMMY, - I am glad Mr. Smyth [See letter of Feb. 13 to Bardsley.] preached at Macclesfield. He is, indeed, a son of thunder. I believe God employed him to awake several poor sinners at Manchester. Now, Sammy, do all the good you can; be instant in season and out of season 1 Put forth all your strength! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Arthur Keene BATH, March 3, 1784. DEAR ARTHUR, - It is a true saying, ’There is in love a sweetness ready penned.’ Copy out only that, and save expense. You mean what you speak, and that is enough. I am glad the school is begun, and am in great hope that it will be continued. Those that are frequently apt to weary of well doing might be frequently stirred up; otherwise the love of many, both in England and Ireland, will in process of time wax cold. I am in hopes that Dr. Coke has spoke to my brother concerning writing a few hymns for the poor widows. [The Widows’ Alms House in Dublin.] But, because the Doctor is apt to forget, I have this morning desired Mr. Whitfield to remind him of it. You did well in sending me an account of the widows themselves, living or dead. There is one (if she be yet alive) whom I visited in Cuffe Street several times. Rachael Davis I never recommended before; but I should be glad if she could be admitted - when there is a vacancy. As yet I do not know any reason why Mr. Blair may not spend the next year at Dublin. I agree with you that a year is generally quite enough for a preacher to spend in one place. When he stays longer, both the people and the preacher usually grow flat and dead together. This year, if God prolong my life and health, I am to visit Scotland; otherwise I should have willingly accepted your kind invitation. Peace be with you and yours! - I am, dear Arthur, Your affectionate brother. To Susanna Knapp [BRISTOL, March 4, 1784.] MY DEAR SUKY, - I am glad to find you are still desiring and seeking the best portion. To-morrow fortnight I hope to see you at Worcester. It gives me pleasure to learn that Mrs. Knapp’s health is in some measure restored. We are sure of this - Health we shall have if health be best. I am a good deal better than I was in autumn; but we are always well while we are in our Lord’s hands. - I am, my dear Suky, Yours affectionately. To Miss Knapp, At Mr. Knapp’s, Glover, In Worcester. To William Percival BRISTOL March 4, 1784. DEAR BILLY, - I desire Mr. Murlin, if any of our lay preachers talk either in public or private against the Church or the clergy, or read the Church Prayers, or baptize children, [See letter of Jan. 6.] to require a promise from them to do it no more. If they will not promise, let them preach no more. And if they break their promise, let them be expelled the Society. From Macclesfield I expect to go to Chester, Monday, April 5; on Wednesday the 7th to Liverpool; Good Friday, April 9, Warrington; Saturday, 10th, Manchester; Tuesday, 13th, Bolton; Thursday, 15th, Wigan. - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Brian Bury Collins BRISTOL, March 11, 1784. DEAR SIR, - When I was at Bath last, I found a very uncommon liberty of spirit, both in prayer and preaching, which I supposed to be partly owing to the spirit of the congregation, who appeared more than usually serious. I am therefore a little surprised that you should find less liberty than you usually do. [If] you have not since then found any change for the better; if you still feel that restraint upon your spirit at Bath, I am of the same judgment with you: it seems to be a divine indication that you are called to other places. Should you think well of taking either a short or a long journey with me, I am to set out on Monday morning for Stroud. I have an easy horse; and whenever you are tired with riding, you may come into the chaise. If you like the proposal, come hither either upon Sunday morning or afternoon. If you choose it, you may preach in Temple Church. [Wesley preached at Bath on March 3.] I am a little embarrassed with regard to Dr. Witherspoon. It is natural for you to be prejudiced in his favor. But he cannot be surprised if most Englishmen are strongly prejudiced on the other side: when they consider him as the grand instrument of tearing away children from their parents to which they were united by the most sacred ties, so that I know not with what face I can mention him, or with what probability of success. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. If you do not come, you will send a line directly. To Zachariah Yewdall WORCESTER, March 21, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - My judgment is that you must not have any respect of persons. But whoever will not promise to put away the accursed thing, to refrain from buying stolen goods (such are all uncustomed goods), can no longer be a member of our Society. [See letter of Jan. 29, 1780.] And you should everywhere scatter the Word to a Smuggler. Let every one rich or poor show his ticket, or not be admitted at the meeting of the Society. [See letter of April 9, 1781.] You must mend or end that local preacher. Make an example of him for the good of all. Let the rail in the new preaching-house go down the middle of the room. We have found this the only effectual way of separating the men from the women. This must be done, whoever is pleased or displeased. [See letter of Sept. 16, 1785.] Blessed is the man that endureth temptation! When he has been tried, he shall come forth as gold. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton BURSLEM, April 1, 1784. MY DEAR NANCY, - The recovery of Mr. Boltoh’s health and much more of his cheerfulness you should look upon as a token for good, a fresh proof that God is on your side. It is another blessing that your spirits do not sink, but you are still kept above the billows. It shows, indeed, how you are called to trust God, though without knowing which way He will lead you. In due time He will reveal this also and make it plain before your face. At present it is easier to know what is not to be done than what is. But you are in God’s school, and He will teach you one lesson after another fill you have learned all His holy and acceptable will. O tarry thou the Lord’s leisure. Be strong, and He shall comfort thy heart; and put thou thy trust in the Lord! - I am, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Hannah Ball EDINBURGH, April 25, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - It would not be strange if your love did grow cold. It would only be according to the course of nature. But, blessed be God, we know there is a power that controls the course of nature; and the affection which flows from this does not depend upon blood and spirits, and therefore ’ never faileth.’ I was afraid there had been some misunderstanding between Mr. Broadbent [John Broadbent, the Assistant.] and you. Let him and you be free and open with each other, and I trust nothing will hurt you. Whenever the preachers strongly exhort the people to accept of full sanctification, and to accept it now, by simple faith, there the work of God in general will prosper. This is the proper Methodist testimony! - I am, with kind love to Ann, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To his Nephew Charles Wesley DUNDEE, May. 12, 1784. DEAR CHARLES, - I doubt not but both Sarah and you are in trouble because Samuel has ’changed his religion.’ Nay, he has changed his opinions and mode of worship. But that is not religion; it is quite another thing. ’Has he, then,’ you may ask, ’sustained no loss by the change’ Yes, unspeakable loss; because his new opinion and mode of worship are so unfavorable to religion that they make it, if not impossible to one that once knew better, yet extremely difficult. ’What, then, is religion’ It is happiness in God, or in the knowledge and love of God. It is ’faith working by love, producing’ righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ In other words, it is an heart and life devoted to God; or communion with God the Father and the Son; or the mind which was in Christ Jesus, enabling us to walk as He walked. Now, either he has this religion or he has not.’ If he has, he will not finally perish, notwithstanding the absurd, unscriptural opinions he has embraced and the superstitious and idolatrous modes of worship. But these are so many shackles which will greatly retard him in running the race that is set before him. If he has not this religion, if he has not given God his heart, the case is unspeakably worse: I doubt if he ever will; for his new friends will continually endeavor to hinder him by putting something else in its place, by encouraging him to rest in the form, notions, or externals, without being born again, without having Christ in him, the hope of glory, without being renewed in the image of Him that created him. This is the deadly evil. I have often lamented that he had not this holiness, without which no man can see the Lord. But though he had it not, yet in his hours of cool reflection he did not hope to go to heaven without it. But now he is or will be taught that, let him only have a right faith (that is, such and such notions), and add thereunto such and such externals, and he is quite safe. He may, indeed, roll a few years in purging fire; but he will surely go to heaven at last! Therefore you and my dear Sarah have great need to weep over him. But have you not also need to weep for yourselves For have you given God your hearts Are you holy in heart Have you the kingdom of God within you righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost the only true religion under heaven O cry unto Him that is mighty to save for this one thing needful! Earnestly and diligently use all the means which God hath put plentifully into your hands! Otherwise I should not at all wonder if God permits you also to be given up to a strong delusion. But whether you were or were not, whether you are Protestant or Papist, neither you nor he can ever enter into glory, unless you are now cleansed from all pollution of flesh and spirit, and perfect holiness in the fear of God! - I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate Uncle. To James Rogers ABEEDEEN, May 5, 1784. DEAR JEMMY, - All letters to any part of Scotland must go through Edinburgh. Therefore it is sufficient to direct thither till the 15th instant, and then to Newcastle-on-Tyne. I objected to nothing in that sermon but a few tart expressions concerning the clergy. When these are altered, I believe it will be of use; and the more of them you can sell the better. You have done well in restoring the meetings at five in the morning. These are the glory of the Methodists. My kind love to Hetty Roe. [Whom he married on Aug. 19. See letters of June 5, 1783 (to John Valton), and Nov. 7, 1784.] - I am, dear Jemmy, Your affectionate brother and friend. To William Black INVENESS, May 11, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad you have given a little assistance to our brethren at Halifax and along the coast. There is no charity under heaven to be compared to this, the bringing light to the poor heathens, that are called Christians, but nevertheless still sit in darkness and the shadow of death. I am in great hopes that some of the emigrants from New York are really alive to God. And if so, they will every way be a valuable acquisition to the province where their lot is now cast. This may be one of the gracious designs of God’s providence in bringing them from their native country. And if they not only themselves grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, but are likewise happy instruments in His hand of imparting that knowledge to others, they will have unspeakable reason to praise God both in time and in eternity. There is no part of Calvinism or Antinomianism which is not fully answered in some part of our writings, particularly in the Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion. I have no more to do with answering books. It will be sufficient if you recommend to Mr. Alline’s [See letter of Nov. 27, 1783, to Benjamin Chappel.] friends some of the tracts that are already written. As to himself, I fear he is wiser in his own eyes than seven men that can render a reason. The work of God goes on with a steady pace in various parts of England. But still the love of many will wax cold, while many others are continually added to supply their place. In the West of England, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire God still mightily makes bare His arm. He convinces many, justifies many, and many are perfected in love. My great advice to those who are united together is: Let brotherly love continue! See that ye fall not out by the way! Hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Simon Day NEWCASTLE, June 1, 1784, DEAR SIMON, - You shall be in Oxfordshire. Adieu. To Mr. Simon Day, At Mr. Wicken’s, Shoemaker, Near the Castle, Oxon. To Alexander Surer DARLINGTON, June 13, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Your letter gave me not a little satisfaction. I am glad to hear that your spirit revives. I doubt not but it will revive more and more, and the work of the Lord will prosper in your hands. I have a very friendly letter from Sir Lodowick [Sir Lodovick Grant. Wesley visited him at Grange Green, near Forres, in June 1764, and on June 7, 1779. See Journal, v. 74-6; vi. 237.]; and hope you will have an opportunity of calling upon him again, especially if Brother McAllum [Duncan McAllum was Assistant at Aberdeen, and Alexander Suter his colleague in Inverness.] and you have the resolution to change places regularly, as I proposed. I dearly love the spirit of Sister McAllum. She is a woman after my own heart. It will be of great and general use, when you have a quantity of little books, partly to sell and partly to give among the poor - chiefly indeed to give. If I live till the Conference, I will take order concerning it. Certainly you shall not want any help that is in the power of Your affectionate brother. To Zachariah Yewdall DARLINGTON, June 13, 1784. DEAR ZACHARY, - I really think it is a critical case; and as we shall all (if God permit) meet together at the Conference in Leeds, I agree to what you say of referring the full consideration of the matter till that time. Meanwhile I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Entwisle and David Gordon SCARBOROUGH, June 20, 1784. MY DEAR BRETHERN, - Having very little time, I take the opportunity of answering you both together. You have great reason to bless God continually, who has dealt so graciously with you. You have good encouragement to put forth all your strength in publishing the glad tidings of salvation. You are particularly called to declare to believers that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Watch and pray that you may be little in your own eyes. - I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Francis Wrigley SCARBOROUGH, June 20, 1784. DEAR FRANCIS, - You did right with regard to Captain Colmer [Wrigley was at Bradford (Wilts). ’Brother Colmet’ is mentioned on July 28, 1783 (Journal, vi. 437d).]; but you should likewise apply, if it can be done, to all his employers. I think he will soon find he has missed his mark. I advise you to write to Mr. Shipman and ask whether he did give or offer [money] for Risgwy. I hope it is a slander. Pray inform the minister of St..... I have tried that point in Westminster; and if he requires it of me, I will try it again. If the preaching-places can be [supplied] during his absence, James Thom [Thom was in Cornwall East, to which Wrigley is appointed next Conference. Probably he had already gone there, and both of them wished to attend Conference in July in Leeds.] may come with you to the Conference. I am afraid that kind of rupt[ure under] which Mary Hooker labors will [admit] of no natural remedy. - I am, dear Francis, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Francis Wrigley. To Mrs. Christian BRIDLINGTON, June 21, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - The summer is already so far spent that I shall have little time to spend in Lincolnshire. I hope to be at Epworth on Saturday the 26th instant, and after visiting Gainsborough (on Monday the 28th) and Owston on Tuesday, at Epworth again on Wednesday, and in the neighboring towns the rest of the week. On Monday I am to Be at Rotherham: so that I shall not see Mr. Dodwell, [See letters of Aug. 14, x782, and July 17, 1785.] unless I could have the pleasure of seeing him at Epworth. My work is great, and my time is short. ’I would my every hour redeem.’ Why should any time be spent in vain - I am, with kind love to your husband, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Arthur Keene BRIDLINGTON, June 21, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHR,"I agree with you in hoping that Brother Blair’s labors will be productive of a blessing to many in Dublin; the rather because he not only preaches but also lives the gospel. And wherever a man’s life confirms his doctrine God will confirm the word of His messenger. It gives me pleasure to hear that the school succeeds well. It is an excellent institution. I am very glad that Richard Condy’s brother has come over to assist him. [See letter of March 3 to Keene.] I hope Brother Condy continues to go out on Sunday noon to the little towns round Dublin. We try all the little towns round London, and have Societies in most of them. What a shame it is that we should so long have neglected the little towns round Dublin, and that we have not a Society within ten miles of it During the present state of Mr. Pawson’s health he would be of little service at Dublin. You want lively, zealous, active preachers. And, to tell you a melancholy truth, few of our elder preachers are of this character. You must look for zeal and activity among the young preachers. I am greatly scandalized at this, that a preacher fifty years old is commonly but half a preacher. I wonder that every preacher does not use Bishop Stratford’s prayer, [Nicholas Stratford (1633-1707), Bishop of Chester 1689.] ’Lord, let me not live to be useless.’ A gradual work of grace constantly precedes the instantaneous work both of justification and sanctification. But the work itself (of sanctification as well as justification) is undoubtedly instantaneous. As after a gradual conviction of the guilt and power of sin you was justified in a moment, so after a gradually increasing conviction of inbred sin you will be sanctified in a moment. And who knows how soon Why not now May the whole blessing of the gospel be on you and Sister Keene! - I am, dear Arthur, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Arthur Keene, in Dublin. To John Valton YORK, June 25, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER,"I just snatch time to write a line. I hope to be at Dawgreen on July 17 at half hour after six, at Birstall on Sunday and on Monday the I9th in the morning. [He preached in Bingley on July 18 in the morning and afternoon; at Dawgreen, where a new chapel was to be built, on the 24th; at Bitstall ’to several thousands’ on Sunday 25th.] It will, I believe, be better for you to be at Scarborough, because many there are much alive, and hardly any at Bridlington. John Alien may stay at Birstall another year. [Valton was appointed to Bradford, and Alien remained at Bitstall.] Peace be with you all! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton EPWORTH, June 28, 1784. MY DEAR NANCY, - The strong and tender regard which I have for you makes your letters always welcome. Providence has seen good to try you for many years in the furnace of affliction, but all will work together for your good. You shall lose nothing but your dross. I wonder you do not find one person that knows how to sympathize with you. Surely there must be some such in the Society at Witney; although you have not yet found them, perhaps for want of praying for this very thing. I advise you to make it a matter of earnest prayer; and certainly God will give you a friend. Accommodableness is only the art of becoming all things to all men without wounding our own conscience. St. Paul enjoins it in those words, ’Please all men for their good unto edification.’ Bare rules will hardly teach us to do this. But those that have a single eye may attain it, through the grace of God, by reflection and experience. - I am, my dear Nancy, Very affectionately yours. To Miss Bolton, Near Witney, Oxfordshire. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] The converts at Jersey had appealed for a preacher through Jasper Winscorn, and at the Conference of 1783 Wesley read the letter. Brackenbury offered himself, and sailed from Southampton in December, with Alexander Kilham as his assistant and companion. [2] Brackenbury was in Jersey, organizing the scattered members of Society into classes. The Rules of the Society were printed in French. The ruined chapel, Notre-Dame-des-Pas, where it is said the Virgin had appeared, was bought for Methodist services. See Lelivre’s Histoire, p. 188; and letter of January 4 to him. [3] Mrs. ’M.P.’ writes to Wesley on February 23, 1788: ’I often bless God that ever I knew you.’ She tells ’my dear father and friend’ that ’about three years ago the Lord removed my prejudice, which I had for many years retained against Christian Perfection; and likewise showed me the need of it before I could go to heaven.’ She was ’brought into the liberty of God’s dear children’ during a visit to King’s Lynn. She adds: ’Our Society here are in harmony, and increasing both in life and number. I bless the Lord for our preachers, especially Mr. --, [Is this Jeremiah Brettell, Assistant at King’s Lynn] to whom I am indebted under God for the liberty I now enjoy. His talent seems to be that of building up believers in their most holy faith. I think all his preaching leads to the perfection of the soul.’ This probably refers to William Bramwell, then stationed in the Lynn Circuit. See Arminian Magazine, 1792, pp. 552-4. [4] Hopkins was now at Whitby, where he suffered from a malignant fever, and was given up by the medical attendants. After his recovery, he was appointed to York in August 1784. Peacock, the second preacher at Yam, died at Dublin of fever in 1786 in his thirty-fourth year: ’young in years, but old in grace; a pattern of all holiness, full of faith and love and zeal for God’ (Minutes, 1786). [5] At the time of his son’s birth in 1747 John Purdy, a native of Bladon, four miles from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, was away from Bristol, preaching at Rangeworthy, where he boldly faced the mob and made them listen to his message. When he arrived home he said, ’ Then his name shall be called Victory, for this day the Lord hath given me the victory.’ He died in ~759. Victory began to preach in 1771, and was for some time one of Wesley’s itinerants at Bradford (Wilts); but he soon returned home to Fishponds, where he lived, resolved to work for his bread and serve as a local preacher. He says in 1783, ’This year the Rev. John Wesley gave me a suit of his own clothes.’ He died on June 28, 1822. See ’Some Account of the Life, Ministry, and Writings of Victory Purdy, the Kingswood Collier, who for upwards of half a century gratuitously, and with unremitting zeal, preached the Gospel to the Poor’; and also letter of July 29, 1740. [6] Rogers and Bardsley were the preachers at Macclesfield. The division of the circuit caused much ill-feeling, especially at Congleton; but Wesley visited them in August 1783, when ’they were much softened, if not quite reconciled.’ See Journal, vi. 443. [7] Brackenbury had been ill with fever; but his health was re-established, and he continued his work in Jersey. During his illness Alexander Kilham preached with great acceptance. [8] A Free School for forty boys was just opened, and met for seven years in the lobby of Whitefriar Street Chapel. Richard Condy, the first master, had entered the ministry in 1776, and had been compelled to retire for a time on account of health. He was greatly esteemed by Wesley. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 390; and letter of June 21 to Keene. [9] This letter is undated; but Wesley had been seriously ill at Bristol on August 5, 1785. On the 26th he joined fifteen young persons to the Society at Worcester, ’all of them, I believe, athirst for salvation.’ Miss Knapp was probably one of them, and must have known how the recent illness at Bristol had shaken him. He visited Worcester on March 20, 1784. The date of the letter was probably as given here. See letters of March 25, 1781, and March 4, 1788. [10] John Mudin was the Assistant, with William Percival as his colleague. Percival became a preacher in 1773, and died at Rochdale on February 9, 1803. He was very acceptable and useful. [11] Dr. John Witherspoon (1723-94), the Principal of Princeton College 1768, was in England seeking subscriptions for his College. He met with little success, as the feeling against the Americans was strong, and he had supported and signed the Declaration of Independence. Collins had been in communication with him, as to which Dr. Witherspoon writes: ’You may easily suppose that nothing can be more agreeable to me than what is contained in your letter.’ [12] This letter is without a name; and the date given in the Magazine is 1786, which is evidently a mistake for 1784. It was sent to Charles Wesley, jun., when his younger brother became a Roman Catholic. See letter of August 19 to his nephew Samuel. [13] Black had married Mary Gay, of Cumberland, Nova Scotia, on February 17, 1784, and in spring had visited the lower towns and Halifax, where there was a great work among the negroes. The Loyalists removed to other British provinces. They were the most influential laymen in New York. See Findlay and Holdsworth’s History of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, i. 246. [14] Day was the second preacher in the Oxfordshire Circuit, where he was reappointed in 1784 for a second year. He died in 1832. This is Wesley’s shortest letter. See September 15, 1773, and July 1784 (to White). [15] Yewdall was stationed in Liverpool, At the Conference the question of attending feasts or wakes on Sunday was considered. ’Making candles for our own use, without paying duty for them,’ was held to be ’a species of smuggling, not to be practiced by any honest man.’ [16] Entwisle was born in Manchester on April 15, 1767. He preached his first sermon in February 1783, became an itinerant in 1784, and was appointed to Northampton with Joseph Harper. His friend Gordon, who was born at Ballymena in 1757, became an itinerant in 1784, and died in 1799. The two youths had written an account of their conversion and experience, which they sent to Wesley. [17] Andrew Blair had just been appointed. John Pawson went from York to Manchester; and James Rogers, just married to Hester Ann Roe, to Dublin. She says, ’Mr. And Mrs. Blair received us with kindness’ at Whitefriar’s on August 21; and on September 7 writes in her Journal, ’We have also much union with Mr. And Mrs. Blair, and I trust we shall be a family of one heart and mind.’ In six weeks after their arrival many were awakened and they had some wonderful lovefeasts. She sends John Fletcher on December 14 a most encouraging account of the work. See Spiritual Letters of Hester Ann Rogers, No. 22. [18] Miss Bolton had written on June 22: ’Not a day has passed for several weeks that has not yielded me something peculiarly trying; one or other of the family ill, myself poorly, and much tempted to dejection.’ She said she had not found a suitable friend ’always at hand.’ ’I have lately (from the hint you gave me) perused Miss Talbot’s Essays with much pleasure. The new word she begs leave to make, which is "accommodableness," has oft occurred to my mind with instructive influence. The temper it implies or comprehends is a very suitable and needful one "in such a world and such a state as this." To accommodate oneself to every one under trial and distress, to every one’s caprice or cross humor, and to every painful afflictive circumstance one meets with is, I apprehend, a sure way to promote and establish peace of mind. I want to learn how to pass through this world to the greatest advantage, in and through every occurrence wisely to improve time for eternity. In this science or art I know you are able to advise, and the favor is most humbly and earnestly solicited by, dear sir, your ever obliged and affectionate servant.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1791, p. 589. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 84: 82. 1784 ======================================================================== 1784 To Alexander Barry EPWORTH July 3, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - We purpose to consider fully at the Conference the state of our brethren in America, and to send them all the help we can both in Nova Scotia and in other parts. But whoever goes over must voluntarily offer himself for that great work. I not only do not require but do not so much as advise any one to go. His service will do no good there unless it be a free-will offering. I am glad our preachers at Portsmouth do not coop themselves up in the preaching-houses. The work of God can never make any considerable progress but by field-preaching. We do not now make any yearly collection for the payment of debts. All our public debts would have been paid long before now had the Methodists been merciful after their power. - I am Your affectionate brother. To James Barry EPWORTH, July 3, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I. know your brother well, and was at his house the last time I was at Portsmouth, as probably I shall be again in autumn before I return to London. The work of God among the blacks in your neighborhood is a wonderful instance of the power of God; and the little town they have built is, I suppose, the only town of negroes which has been built in America - nay, perhaps in any part of the world, except only in Africa. I doubt not but some of them can read. When, therefore, we send a preacher or two to Nova Scotia, we will send some books to be distributed among them; and they never need want books while I live. It will be well to give them all the assistance you can in every possible way. We purpose to consider fully at the Conference what we can do to help our brethren abroad; not only those that are settled in the southern provinces of America, but those that are in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Indeed, it is an invariable rule with me not to require any one to go over to America-nay, I scruple even to advise them to it. I shall only propose it at the Conference; and then, of those that freely offer themselves, we shall select such as we believe will most adorn the gospel. In teaching school you have an opportunity of doing much good, if you consider that you are called of God to teach those you are entrusted with not only to read and write, but to fear and serve God. Indeed, in order to this you will have need of much courage as well as much prudence and patience. And it may be long before you see the fruit of your labor. But in due time you shall reap if you faint not. I wish you would from time to time send an account of the progress of the work of God among you, and of anything remarkable that occurs, to Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Barry, Shelburne, Nova Scotia. To Arthur Keene NEAR LEEDS, July 23, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It is strange! Two or three weeks ago I was observing,’ I have exactly the same strength and more health at eighty-one than I had at twenty-one.’ This hath God wrought. The Irish preachers have shown both their understanding and their uprightness. I am glad they and you are satisfied with the Declaration, and. see Mr. Hampson’s wonderful Appeal [John Hampson, sen., issued a printed Appeal against the Deed of Declaration which Wesley had executed on Feb. 28 giving a legal constitution to the Conference.] in its true light. Humanly speaking it must do abundance of mischief. But God is over all. I am in great hopes Mr. Rogers will be useful. He is an Israelite indeed. I think a cupboard, secured as you intend, will do full as well as an iron chest. Now, Arthur, I will try if you do love me. If you do, serve my friend, poor Sister Hyden. [’Hide’ in letter of Feb. 17, 1785; probably ’ Hyde.’] Exert yourself to procure employment for her son, who is capable of almost anything. Send me word ’it is done.’-I am, with kind love to Sister Keene, dear Arthur Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Arthur Keene, Near Dublin. To Frances Godfrey LEEDS, July 31, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you for giving me so full an account of that extraordinary deliverance. [Miss Godfrey lived at Gainsborough. See letter of Aug. 5 1788.] I doubt not but those that were called epileptic fits were owing to a messenger of Satan whom God permitted to buffet you. Therefore all human helps were vain. Nothing but the power of God could deliver you. And if you continue to walk humbly and closely with God, He will continue to bruise Satan under your feet, and will add bodily health to the spirit of an healthful mind. Do all you can for so good a Master! And see that you go on to perfection, till you know all that love of God that passeth knowledge. - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To John White [July 1784.] John White, whoever is wrong, you are not right. To Mary Bishop HAVERFORDWEST, August 18, 1784. MY DEAR MISS BISHOP, - From the time I heard you were rejected by Lady Huntingdon, I have had a tender regard for you, and a strong hope that, without regard to the wisdom or spirit or customs of the world, you would (as those at Publow did once) Square your useful life below By reason and by grace. Hitherto you have not at all deceived my hope, and I am persuaded you never will. In some of the young ones you will undoubtedly find your labor has not been in vain. What they will be one cannot judge yet; therefore Solomon’s advice is good, - ’In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand; for thou knowest not which shall prosper.’ It seems God Himself has already decided the question concerning dancing. He hath shown His approbation of your conduct by sending those children to you again. If dancing be not evil in itself, yet it leads young women to numberless evils. And the hazard of these on the one side seems far to overbalance the little inconveniences on the other. Therefore thus much may certainly be said, You have chosen the more excellent way. I would recommend very few novels to young persons, for fear they should be too desirous of more. Mr. Brooke wrote one more (besides the Earl of Moreland), The History of the Human Heart. I think it is well worth reading; though it is not equal to his former production. The want of novels may be supplied by well-chosen histories; such as, The Concise History of England, The Concise History of the Church, Rollin’s Ancient History, Hooke’s Roman History (the only impartial one extant), and a few more. For the elder and more sensible children, Malebranche’s Search after Truth is an excellent French book. Perhaps you might add Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, with the Remarks in the Arminian Magazine. I had forgotten that beautiful book The Travels of Cyrus, whether in French or English. On the 28th instant I hope to be at Bristol, and not long after at Keynsham. - I always am, my dear Miss Bishop, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Miss Bishop, In Keynsham, Somersetshire. To Elizabeth Ritchie TRACWN, PEMBROKESHIRE, August 19, 1784. MY DEAR BETSY, - I was a little surprised at a letter from Sister D----, in which she seems to approve of all that Mrs. Crosby has done; and speaks as if it were just and right and done in obedience to the order of Providence ! I could not help saying, ’There is but one advice which I can give her upon the present occasion: "Remember from whence thou art fallen. Repent, and do thy first works."’ Some years ago I committed a little company of lovely children to the care of one of our sisters at Haverford. [To Miss Warren in 1781. See letter of Oct. 19, 1779.] I was concerned yesterday to find she was weary of well-doing and had totally given up her charge. I hope, my dear Betsy, this will never be your case! You will never leave off your labor of love; though you should not always (not immediately at least) see the fruit of your labors. You may not immediately see Mrs. H - so established in grace as you desire and hope. But in this, as well as many other instances, in due time you shall reap if you faint not. I have been often musing upon this, - why the generality of Christians, even those that really are such, are less zealous and less active for God When they are middle-aged than they were when they were young. May we not draw an answer to this question from that declaration of our Lord (no less than eight times repeated by the Evangelists), ’To him that hath,’ uses what he hath, ’shall be given; but from him that hath not shall be taken away that he hath’ A measure of zeal and activity is given to every one when he finds peace with God. If he earnestly and diligently uses this talent, it will surely be increased. But if he ceases, yea or intermits, to do good, he insensibly loses both the will and the power. So there is no possible way to retain those talents but to use them to the uttermost. Let this never be the case of my dear friend! Never abate anything of your diligence in doing good. Sometimes, indeed, the feeble body sinks under you; but when you do all you can, you do enough. Remember in all your prayers, Yours most affectionately. To his Nephew Samuel Wesley [TRECWN,] August 19, 1784. DEAR SAMMY, - As I have had a regard for you ever since you were a little one, I have often thought of writing to you freely. I am persuaded what is spoken in love will be taken in love; and if so, if it does you no good, it will do you no harm. Many years ago I observed that as it had pleased God to give you a remarkable talent for music, so He had given you a quick apprehension of other things, a capacity for making some progress in learning, and (what is of far greater value) a desire to be a Christian. But meantime I have often been pained for you, fearing you did not set out the right way: I do not mean with regard to this or that set of opinions, Protestant or Romish (all these I trample under-foot); but with regard to those weightier matters, wherein, if they go wrong, either Protestants or Papists will perish everlastingly. I feared you were not born again; and ’except a man be born again,’ if we may credit the Son of God, ’he cannot see the kingdom of heaven’ except he experience that inward change of the earthly, sensual mind for the mind which was in Christ Jesus. You might have thoroughly understood the scriptural doctrine of the new birth, yea and experienced it long before now, had you used the many opportunities of improvement which God put into your hand while you believed both your father and me to be teachers sent from God. But, alas! what are you now Whether of this Church or that I care not; you may be saved in either, or damned in either: but I fear you are not born again, and except you be born again you cannot see the kingdom of God. You believe the Church of Rome is right. What then If you are not born of God, you are of no Church. Whether Bellamine or Luther be right, you are certainly wrong, if you are not born of the Spirit, if you are not renewed in the spirit of your mind in the likeness of Him that created you. I doubt you were never convinced of the necessity of this great change. And there is now greater danger than ever that you never will; that you will be diverted from the thought of it by a train of new notions, new practices, new modes of worship: all of which put together (not to consider whether they are unscriptural, superstitious, and idolatrous, or no) - all, I say, put together, do not amount to one grain of true, vital, spiritual religion. O Sammy, you are out of your way! You are out of God’s way! You have not given Him your heart. You have not found - nay, it is Well if you have so much as sought happiness in God! And poor zealots, while you are in this state of mind, would puzzle you about this or the other Church! O fools and blind! Such guides as these lead men by shoals to the bottomless pit. My dear Sammy, your first point is to repent and believe the Gospel. Know yourself a poor, guilty, helpless sinner! Then know Jesus Christ and Him crucified! Let the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God, and let the love of God be shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto you; and then, if you have no better work, I will talk with you of transubstantiation or purgatory. Meantime I commend you to Him who is able to guide you into all truth; and am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate Uncle. To Robert Jones, of Fenmen Castle CARDIFF, August 27, 1784. DEAR SIR, - If you go abroad, I would by no means advise you to go to France. That is no place to save expense; but it is the only place to make your sons coxcombs and your daughters coquettes. I cannot but think there is no country in Europe which would answer your design so well as Holland; and no place in Holland so well as Utrecht. It is within a day’s journey of Helvoetsluys, whence you go directly by the packet for England. It is an healthful and a pleasant city, and less expensive than almost any city in France. You may have more or less company as you please. There are schools for your children; and if you should choose it, an university for your sons: and I could recommend you to some valuable acquaintance. I speak freely, because I have your interest at heart. Think of it, and send your thoughts to, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To Joseph Taylor BRISTOL, August 30, 1784. DEAR JOSEPH, - On no account whatever can I excuse any preacher in the Connection from using his utmost endeavors for the preachers going to America. [Taylor was at Gloucester. Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey were going to America, and needed help for their passage.] What is the furnishing a room or two in comparison of this especially for one who is well able to do it for herself! I wonder she should desire it or indeed accept of it 1 However, if this be done, the other must not be left undone. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL., August 31, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - Many years ago Mr. Hall, then strong in faith, believed God called him to marry my youngest sister. [Kezia Wesley. See letter of Dec. 22, 1747.] He told her so. She fully believed him, and none could convince one or the other to the contrary. I talked with her about it; but she had ’so often made it matter of prayer that she could not be deceived.’ In a week he dropped her, courted her elder sister, and as soon as was convenient married her. The disappointed one then found exactly the same temptations that you do now. But neither did she keep the devil’s counsel. She told me all that was in her heart; and the consequence was that by the grace of God she gained a complete victory. So will you. And you will be the better enabled by your own experience to guard all, especially young persons, from laying stress upon anything but the written Word of God. Guard them against reasoning in that dangerous manner, ’If I was deceived in this, then I was deceived in thinking myself justified.’ Not at all; although nature, or Satan in the latter case, admirably well mimicked the works of God. By mighty prayer repel all those suggestions, and afterwards your faith will be so much the more strengthened, and you will be more than conqueror through Him that loveth you. Whenever you find yourself pressed above measure, you must make another little excursion. While you help others, God will help you. This may be one end of this uncommon dispensation. You must not bury your talent in the earth. Wishing you more and more of that ’ lovely, lasting peace of mind,’ - I am Yours most affectionately. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, August 31, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It was your part to write to me of the behavior of William Eels, particularly at Warrington, without waiting till I heard of it from so many other persons. Seeing I find I cannot overcome him by love, I am at length constrained to let him drop. Pray inform him he is no longer in the number of our itinerant preachers. I shall to-day send another preacher to supply his place in the Bolton Circuit. I have done all I could to save him; but it is. in vain; so I must at length give him up. - I am Your affectionate brother and friend. To William Pitt, First Lord of the Treasury BATH, September 6, 1784. SIR, - Your former goodness, shown to one of my relations Mr. Thomas Ellison, [For John Ellison, see letter of Sept. 7, 1777; and for Captain Webb, May 25, 1782.] emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice an old friend, Lieutenant Webb. On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North, his lordship was pleased to order him 100 a year. But as it has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in this or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favor. Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by hinting a few things which have been long upon my mind If those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be forgiven and forgotten. New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money be produced by the old ones For instance: 1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know some towns which pay regularly seven- or fivepence. Nay, I know one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no help for this 2. As to window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a hundred windows in his house; he told me he paid for twenty. 3. The same gentleman told me, ’We have above an hundred men servants in this town, but not above ten are paid for.’ 4. I firmly believe that’ in Cornwall alone the King is defrauded of half a million yearly in customs. What does this amount to in all Great Britain Surely not so little as five millions. Is there no way of extirpating those smuggling villains, notwithstanding their Honorable or Right Honorable abettors 5. Servants of distillers inform me that their masters do not pay for a fortieth part of what they distil. And this duty last year (if I am rightly informed) amounted only to 20,000. But have not the spirits distilled this year cost 20,000 lives of His Majesty’s liege subjects Is not, then, the blood of these men vilely bartered for 20,000 not to say anything of the enormous wickedness which has been occasioned thereby; and not to suppose that these poor wretches have any souls! But (to consider money alone), is the King a gainer or an immense loser To say nothing of many millions of quarters of corn destroyed, which if exported would have added more than 20,000 to the revenue, be it considered, ’Dead men pay no taxes.’ So that by the death of 20,000 persons yearly (and this computation is far under the mark), the revenue loses far more than it gains. But I may urge another consideration to you. You are a man. You have not lost human feelings. You do not love to drink human blood. You are a son of Lord Chatham. Nay, if I mistake not, you are a Christian. Dare you, then, sustain a sinking nation Is the God whom you serve able to deliver from ten thousand enemies I believe He is; nay, and you believe it. 0 may you fear nothing but displeasing Him! May I add a word on another head How would your benevolent heart rejoice if a stop could be put to that scandal of the English nation, suicide! The present laws against it avail nothing; for every such murderer is brought in non compos. If he was a poor man, the jurors forswear themselves from pity. If he was rich, they hope to be well paid for it. So no ignominy pursues either the living or the dead, and self-murder increases daily. But what help I conceive this horrid crime might be totally prevented, and that without doing the least hurt to either the living or the dead. Do you not remember, sir, how the rage for self-murder among the Spartan matrons was stopped at once By ordering that the body of every woman that killed herself should be dragged naked through the streets of the city. Would it not have the same effect in England if an Act of Parliament were passed repealing all other acts and appointing that every self-murderer should be hanged in chains Suppose your influence could prevent suicide by this means, and distilling by making it felony, you would do more service to your country than any Prime Minister has done these hundred years. Your name would be precious to all true Englishmen as long as England continued a nation. And, what is infinitely more, a greater Monarch than King George would say to you, ’Well done, good and faithful servant.’ I earnestly commit you to His care, and am, sir, your willing servant. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, September 8, 1784. DEAR SALLY, - You do well to let me know when there is anything wherein it is my power to serve you. But I find you are not much acquainted with poor folks. You must make a little money go a great way among them unless you had a thousand a year. In common I myself gave but sixpence or a shilling to one person (nay, and a nobleman generally does no more). The case must be very peculiar; otherwise I do not rise so high as half a crown, else my stock would soon be exhausted. ’Why is that agreeable young woman,’ one asks me, ’so pale and sickly’ Why, she eats trash; and while she does this, she can’t have health. Is it not your case Do you eat trash - novels, romances, and the like How can you then expect spiritual health And I doubt you eat (that is - read) too much. - I am, dear Sally, Yours very affectionately. To Mrs. Johnson BRISTOL., September 9, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - I sincerely congratulate my good old friend John Johnson and you on your happy union; I am clearly persuaded that it is of God, and cannot doubt but it was His will, and gracious providence, which pointed out to you both the time and the persons. May you be a lasting blessing to each other! But one thing has been much upon my mind. Both Brother Johnson and you love the work of God, and would not easily be induced to take any step that would hinder it; but if so, I advise you by no means to think of leaving Dublin. In the city, indeed, he cannot have health; but you may have an healthy abode in the skirts of it. Pray give my kind love to my dear Sister Freeman. Peace be with your spirits! - I am, my dear sister, Your invariable friend. To ’Our Brethren in America’ BRISTOL, September 10, 1784. 1. By a very uncommon train of providences many of the’ Provinces of North America are totally disjoined from their Mother Country and erected into independent States. The English Government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the States of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the Provincial Assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my advice; and in compliance with their desire I have drawn up a little sketch. 2. Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church [See heading to letter of Dec. 30, 1745, to Westley Hall.] convinced me many years ago that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right by ordaining part of our traveling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace’ sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the established order of the National Church to which I belonged. 3. But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction: in America there are none, neither any parish ministers. So that for some hundred miles together there is none either to baptize or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order and invade no man’s right by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest. 4. I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be Joint Superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s Supper. And I have prepared a Liturgy little differing from that of the Church of England (I think, the best constituted National Church in the world), which I advise all the traveling preachers to use on the Lord’s Day in all the congregations, reading the Litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the Lord on every Lord’s Day. 5. If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and guiding those poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than that I have taken. 6. It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object; (1) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain only one, but could not prevail. [See letter of Aug. 10, 1780.] (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If they would ordain them now, they would likewise expect to govern them. And how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free. To Christopher Hopper BRISTOL, September 11, 1784. The information I received was not from - but from the body of leaders at Warrington and at Liverpool.... If Brother Eels behaves well now, I shall think no more of past things. O exhort the believers to go on to perfection! Perhaps you have been sometimes a little wanting in this. - I am, dear Christopher, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Valton BRISTOL, September 13, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - My last letters from Bolton gave me reason to hope that William Eels is greatly changed, and has for some time past given no offence, but quietly and carefully attended his circuit. [See previous letter. William Butterfield was born near Halifax, and became a preacher in 1784. He died in 1794.] Dr. Coke, on receipt of this information, wrote immediately to Macclesfield that Brother Butterfield might be sent forward, as we have great need of other preachers in the West. You must sacredly abstain from holding watch-nights and from continuing any service above an hour at a time. It is not so much preaching and praying as preaching or praying long that hurts you. [See letter of Oct. 13 to him.] Strongly advise Mr. Crosse [John Crosse had become vicar this year.] not to continue that wretched curate or lecturer at Bradford. Mr. Webster, a pious and learned man near Derby, wrote me just now to offer me his service. I could not receive, because my little salary would not keep a married man. I wish Mr. Crosse would take him. It might be good for both of them. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. The Assistant [Samuel Bradburn. They went on the 18th.] here has given Dr. Coke the money. They expect to sail to-morrow. To John Johnson BRISTOL, September 26, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - There may be a deeper design of Divine Providence in Sister Johnson’s removal to Lisburn than at first appeared. Probably God is about to revive His work there; and being freed from the encumbrance of worldly business, she may be more at leisure to attend it. The more she exerts herself therein the more she will increase both in spiritual and bodily strength. See that you do not cramp but give her full scope for the exertion of all the talents which God hath given her. Pray tell Sister Gayer [See letter of May 27, 1776.] I send her such a sister as she never had before. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Johnson BRISTOL, September 26, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - How wise are all the ways of God! Just before His providence called you to leave Dublin He sent Sister Rogers thither, in the same spirit of faith and love, to step into your place and prevent that scattering of the little flock which might otherwise have ensued; and if He sees it best, after you have finished the work He is preparing for you to do in Lisburn, you will see Dublin again. Meanwhile redeem the time, catch the golden moments as they fly, and continue to love and pray for, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Alexander Surer BRISTOL, October 3, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Others consider the state of one or two circuits only; but I see and consider the state of the whole kingdom, and consequently can more easily judge in what circuit each preacher is likely to be useful. And I doubt not you will be useful in Dundee Circuit, provided you (1) strive to strike out into new places (and you know we may preach anywhere in Scotland without any danger of riots), and (2) constantly visit all the Society in course from house to house. To do this exactly will be a cross; but it will be worth your while to bear it. The house at Arbroath should be settled as near the Conference plan as possible. The way of doing this in Scotland you may learn either from Mr. Smith in Aberdeen or Mr. Grant in Edinburgh. If Joseph Sanderson, Brother Bartholomew, and you act in concert, as was agreed when I was in Dundee, much good will be done; especially if you take care in spite of flesh and blood to keep up the morning meetings. Mr. Watkinson at Edinburgh has now the charge of the books in Scotland, and will provide you with any that you want. He is the General Assistant for Scotland this year. You should send me a full and particular account of that poor man at Inverness. I am to set out for London to-morrow. I hope Dr. Coke and his companions are now near half-way over the Atlantic. Although I dreamed last night (indeed at two o’clock this morning) that he came to me with a calm and placid countenance, but exceeding pale and his hair all wet. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Rodda LONDON, October 13, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I have no objection to your having a third preacher in the circuit. [Birmingham had three preachers next Conference.] But what to say of John Oliver I know not. [Oliver married Elizabeth Booth. See Journal, iv. 70-1; and letter of Oct. 25, 1780.] He has been greatly to blame. But who can tell whether he be inwardly changed or not Your proposal of building a new preaching-house I like well, provided it can be done without bringing any burthen upon the Conference. Complaint is made to me that the preaching is taken from Stourshead. If so, I am sorry for it. Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rodda, At the Preaching-house, In Birmingham To John Valton LONDON, October 13, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Dr. Davison’s advice was good. I desire you would not offer to preach within these four weeks. I was suspended for near four months; but good is the will of the Lord. I suppose nettle tea is the best bracer in the world; and next that, elixir of vitriol (ten drops in a glass of water at ten or eleven in the morning). I am inclined to think that temptation is purely preternatural. I was strongly assaulted by it toward the close of my fever, when I could hardly set a foot to the ground. Many years ago I told you the case of Mr. Colley, who was just in your case. He married and died. And do we not know All the promises are sure To persevering prayer I am ever yours. To William Black LONDON, October 15, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER,--A letter of yours some time ago gave me hopes of meeting you in England, as you seemed desirous of spending some time here in order to improve yourself in learning. [See letter of July 13, 1783.] But as you have now entered into a different state, [His marriage. See letter of May 11.] I do not expect we shall meet in this world. But you have a large field of action where you are without wandering into Europe. Your present parish is wide enough - namely, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I do not advise you to go any further. In the other Provinces [The United States.] there are abundance of preachers. They can spare four preachers to you better than you can spare one to them. [Freeborn Garrettson and James O. Cromwell were appointed to Nova Scotia at the end of the year. See letter of June 26, 1785 (to Garrettson).] If I am rightly informed, they have already sent you one or two; and they may afford you one or two more, if it please God to give a prosperous passage to Dr. Coke and his fellow laborers. Does there not want a closer and more direct connection between you of the North and the Societies under Francis Asbury Is it not more advisable that you should have a constant correspondence with each other and act by united counsels Perhaps it is for want of this that so many have drawn back. I want a more particular account of the Societies in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. And I wish you would give me a full account of the manner wherein God hath dealt with you from the beginning. I am not at all glad of Mr. Scurr’s intention to remove from Nova Scotia to the South. That is going from a place where he is much wanted to a place where he is not wanted. [Mr. Scurr, one of the Methodists in whose house Black preached, bought an estate near Norfolk in Virginia; but almost all his family fell victims to the diseases incident to the climate. He repented too late that he had not taken Wesley’s advice. See Richey’s Memoir, pp. 48, 128.] I think if he got 10,000 thereby, it would be but a poor bargain; that is upon the supposition, which you and I make, that souls are of more value than gold. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Sarah Baker NEAR NORWICH, October 27, 1784. MY DEAR SALLY, - ...This will not and cannot be hindered long by the noise made by the beasts of the people. A person of Mr. Gwinnett’s rank and influence is quite an overmatch for twenty petty rioters; even if they are encouraged underhand (as probably they are) by some wretched gentlemen, so called by the courtesy of England. Throughout England, Wales, and Ireland each of our traveling preachers has three pounds a quarter.... To Mrs. Johnson NORWICH, October 27, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am now in great hopes that the work of God in Dublin will not much suffer by your removal, seeing He just at the time prepared Sister Rogers, who is both able and willing to tread in your steps. You are now happily delivered from worldly cares; but it is to that end that your soul may be vacant for thoughts and cares of a nobler kind, how you may promote the work of God upon earth; your calling is not only to do good, but to do all the good which you possibly can. I doubt not but you will be of use to my friend Sister Gayer [See letter of Sept. 26.] in particular; she has much zeal, and ’let knowledge guide, not cool its fires.’ I hope Brother Johnson or you will send me an account of what occurs in Lisburn. - I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mr. Stonehouse Norwich, October 31, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I had some doubt concerning another person; but I have none at all concerning Dr. Bayley. I believe his eye is single, and that he has no other view than that of promoting the glory of God. If, therefore, the steward and trustees, and upon mature consideration, judge it expedient to invite Dr. Bayley to officiate every Sunday in the new chapel, I have no objection. It seems to me it might be productive of much good. - I am Your very affectionate brother. To Martha Chapman NEAR LONDON, November 3, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER, - I was a little disappointed at your not seeing me at Wallingford, as you used to do, before I went away. [He preached at Wallingford on Oct. 18, and left next morning at 7.30.] But I took it for granted there was some circumstance which I did not know; so I did not blame you, as I am not ready to condemn those I love. I am glad you do not let go your confidence or lose the witness of your sanctification. Take care that you lose not any of the things that you have gained, but that you receive a full reward. Certainly it is a most uncomfortable thing to lose any part of what God hath wrought in us. I wonder how any that have lost the love of God can find any rest in their souls till they have regained it. It was well for you that God did not suffer you to find rest in any creature. He had better things in store for you. One more degree of His love makes you large amends even in the present world for every other loss. - I am, dear Patty, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Chapman, At Wailington, Near Tetsworth, Oxfordshire. To John Mason NEAR LONDON, November 3, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You judge fight. If the people were more alive to God, they would be more liberal. There is money enough, and particularly in Somersetshire; but they are straitened in their own bowels. When I complied with the desire of many and divided the. circuit into two, we were not a jot better. [Mason was in Devon, from which Somerset seems to have been divided in 1777.] You have one thing to point at-the revival and increase of the work of God. Get as many as possible to meet in band. Be exact in every part of discipline, and give no ticket to any that does not meet his class weekly. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore LONDON, November 4, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER,-I am glad you spoke freely to Mr. Collins. He is a good man, but not very advisable. [Brian Bury Collins. Edward Smyth was about to enter on his work at Bethesda Chapel, Dublin] If he should declare open war in England, he will do little or no harm. Mr. Smyth will not be fond of him if he preaches at Plunkett Street. There will not soon be a coalition between Arminianism and Calvinism. This we found even in Holland. If James Rogers and you keep to the Church still, a few, I doubt not, will follow your example. We made just allowance enough for leaving the Church at the last Conference. - I am, with kind love to Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Crosby LONDON, November 7, 1784. MY DEAR SISTER,-To those who know the world, hardly anything that is wrong or foolish in it appears strange. Otherwise we should have thought it strange that so good a woman should take such a step. One would not have expected her to marry at all - at least, none but an eminent Christian. I am more and more inclined to think that there are none living so established in grace but that they may possibly fall. The case of Hetty Rogers was widely different. [Miss Roe had married James Rogers. See letter of May 5, 1784.] I know more of it, beginning, middle, and ending, than most people in England. And I am clear that, first to last, she acted in all good conscience toward God and man. As things stood, it was not a sin for her to marry, but a duty; and to marry when she did. And never was any one woman so owned of God in Dublin as she has been already. T. Brisco, I am persuaded, will do some good. [Thomas Briscoe was stationed in Leeds.] But his wife will do much more if you encourage her and strengthen her hands. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am Your affectionate brother. To John Valton LONDON, November 13, 1784. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Before I read your letter my first thought was, ’He will not recover with spring’; but a second immediately followed, ’Yes, at or before Candlemas.’ And I trust so it will be. But in the meantime you ought undoubtedly to follow the directions of your physician. [See letters of Oct. 13 and Dee. 24 (to Thomas Taylor).] Only I wish you to add daily riding and the daily use of decoction of nettles, which is a nobler restorative than all the quinquiza in Peru, though in many cases that is an excellent medicine. I was confined from the 28th of November [1753.] till the end of February; the Hot Well water completed the cure. You are now God’s prisoner, and are learning that deep lesson, ’Be content to do nothing.’ That God may teach you this and all things is the prayer of Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jonathan Hern LONDON, December 11, 1784. DEAR JONATHAN, - I am heartily glad that our brethren have come to that noble resolution of enlarging the chapel, and also that by removing those pews they will make more room for the poor. I am persuaded this will be greatly for the advancement of the work of God. But when they are about it let it be done thoroughly, in such a manner as will be a credit to them. - I am, with love to Sister Hem, Your affectionate friend and brother. I hope to see you in spring if I live. To Mr. Hem, At the Preaching-house, In Liverpool. To Robert Blake () LONDON, December 24, 1784. DEAR ROBERT, - You have reason to praise God, who has once more lifted up your head above the enemies of your soul. You never need be overcome again by the sin which did so easily beset you. Watch and pray, and you will no more enter into temptation. You may show this to Mr. Myles, and he will give you a guinea on my account. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Jeremiah Brettell LONDON, December 24, 1784. DEAR JERRY,-If I live till the Conference, I shall have no objection to your begging in the Newcastle and Sunderland Circuits. But let them not build a scarecrow of an house like most of those in the North. Copy after that at Newcastle or Yarm, which is one of the prettiest in England. Look at the Minutes of the Conference with regard to the building of preaching-houses, and follow those advices. - I am, dear Jerry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Brettell, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Thomas Taylor LONDON, December 24, 1784. DEAR TOMMY, - In fifty years I have not met with six mothers who did not suffer their children to cry aloud - no, nor seriously endeavored it. So that I see no manner of need to caution them against that extreme. To speak without reserve, I believe John Valton to be a better Assistant than either you or me. I believe he has more of the Spirit of God resting upon him and is more deeply devoted to God than almost any man or woman I know. And I do not think myself a jot better than him because I was born forty years before him. But I earnestly desire he would go to Bristol, and that you would supply his place as Assistant I am of opinion this is the only possible means of restoring his strength. - I am, with kind love to Sister Taylor, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. I corrected the last part of the new Hymn-Book this morning. [A Collection of Pslams and Hymns for the Lord’s Day. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 378.] Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This letter is copied by permission of The Society of Antiquaries from their Cely-Trevilan volumes. There is no name. It may have been to Alexander Barry. (See next letter.) [2] Alexander Barry, of Portsmouth, was probably a trustee of the new house there in which Wesley preached in 1788. William Black visited Shelburne in June 1783. There was no house, but tents pitched amid barren woods. Barry gave Black and his companion his bed, and sat up himself. Black says, ’The rain beat in on us during the greater part of the night.’ Wesley had set apart Coke in September, and at the Baltimore Conference in 1784 Freeborn Garretson and James Cromwell were sent to Nova Scotia. See Early Methodist Preachers, v. 242-95; Smith’s Methodism in Portsmouth, p. 37; and previous letter. [3] This letter was among Adam Clarke’s MSS., with this note: ’A class-leader in the East Priding at an early period of Methodism wanted to make his members submit to his measures. He wrote Wesley complaining of their refractiveness, and asked his advice. Wesley’s reply made him see that he had been acting under the influence of a wrong temper.’ It seems to have been sent to the John White who was Upper Master in the Sunday School at Bingley, into which Wesley stepped on July 18, 1784, when he preached twice in the parish church. There were two hundred and forty children. It had been started a month before Wesley’s visit. White received 2s. 6d. per Sunday, the under-master 2s., and two Assistants 1s. See Journal, vii. 3. [4] Miss Bishop, who had a good school, wrote from Keynsham on August 10: ’They love to hear the Word, and approve things that are excellent; but I fear their minds are not really awakened, and this discourages me. Yet I have lately been comforted by hearing of some who have joined the Society since they left me. My chief exercises with their parents arise from want of dancing.’ Some had agreed to her arrangement to exclude dancing; others were still pressing her on the subject. She wanted to have ’some arguments against their specious reasonings. You know all that can be said for and against dancing. As I find it needful to mix instruction with delight, and in a measure to gratify my young folk’s love of variety, I wish to enlarge my School Library; but I can meet with few books that please me. Will you, sir, oblige me by recommending me some, either French or English, calculated to improve young persons from twelve to twenty Are there any unexceptionable novels besides the Fool of Quality [Henry Brooke’s novel, of which Wesley published an abridgement in 1781. See letter of July 8, 1774.] ’See Arminian Magazine, 1792, pp. 51-2. [5] Miss Ritchie writes on January 10, 1782, that ’on Wednesday the 2nd, when Sister C- met my class, dear Mrs. H. (a person you drank tea with at Liverpool last summer, but who by various interpositions of Providence is now brought to reside amongst us) was clearly delivered from the remains of sin. She broke out in prayer and praise, and the glory of the Lord filled our hearts.’ See Arminian Magazine, 1790, pp. 161-2. [6] Miss Shepherd, who was related to Ebenezer Blackwell and had close literary connection with Sarah Wesley, persuaded Samuel, the younger son of Charles Wesley, to avow openly his adherence to the Church of Rome, which a young French friend had led him to join. That caused no little exultation in Roman Catholic circles; but Samuel was never a Romanist at heart, and a few years later withdrew from that Church, saying he ’did not care a straw for any excommunication that her priesthood could utter.’ See Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 272-3, and letters of May 2, 1784, and March 18, 1788. [7] Robert Jones was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, of Fenmen Castle. His father, who had been at Christ Church at the same time as Charles Wesley, was converted under his ministry in 1741, and died the following year, when the poet wrote a memorial elegy. See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, i. 293-318; letter of July 24, 1787, to Mrs. Jones; and for a letter about Robert being at Kingswood School, February 12, 1748. Wesley had been at Utrecht in July 1783, and was there again in August 1786, when he was not pleased with the lack of control over the University students. See Journal, vi. 427-9, vii. 200-2. [8] Hopper was Assistant at Bolton, with Eels as his colleague. Eels was appointed to Manchester in 1785. He had married ’ a pious woman of considerable property at Bolton-le-Moors, in Lancashire; this, as was supposed by some of his friends, tended rather to puff up his mind; and Mr. Wesley having left his name out of the Deed of Declaration in the year 1784, he was grievously offended.’ In 1788 his name was omitted from the Minutes by mistake, and he left the Connection and joined John Atlay. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 116-7; and letter of September 11. [9] Pitt had become Prime Minister in December 1783, at the age of twenty-four, and had an overwhelming majority at the General Election of 1784. Wesley’s counsels show how keenly he was concerned for the best interests of the country. See letter in July 1790 to Wilberforce for Wesley’s reference to Pitt’s friendship with him. [10] Wesley never gave away less than 1,000 a year. This letter throws light on his methods as a dispenser of his charities. [11] Mrs. King, the daughter of Thomas Garrett, had just married John Johnson, of Lisburn. Mrs. Rogers had been specially commended to her friendship by Wesley and Dr. Coke; and on reaching Dublin she and her husband called on them. ’Truly she is a sweet woman. She expressed a desire to commit her two classes to my care.’ They had breakfast with her on October 20, when Mrs. Johnson told them that she ’rejoiced with us in what the Lord is doing for His people in this city. She says there has not been such a revival for twenty years, nor such a general spirit of expectation and prayer.’ See Journal of Mrs. Hester Ann Rogers, pp. 243-7; and letters of September 26 to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. [12] Wesley had set apart Dr. Coke as General Superintendent for America (Asbury was to be his colleague) at Bristol on September 2. He and his companions, Whatcoat and Vasey, sailed from King’s Road on the I8th. See letter of October 3, 1783, to the Preachers in America; and for The Sunday Service of the Methodists in the United States of America, Green’s Bibliography (and Appendix), No. 376; also letter of June 20, 1789, to Walter Churchey. [13] This letter is incomplete. The name left blank has been crossed out, and is illegible. See letters of August 31 (to Hopper) and September 13. [14] John Johnson, a Somersetshire preacher who through failure of health had settled in Lisburn in 1771, married Mrs. King, of Dublin, on August 31. She became a great blessing to the Society there. Johnson enlarged and improved the old chapel, so that when Wesley visited the place in 1789 he called it ’the new chapel at Lisburn, the largest and best finished in the North of Ireland.’ See Journal, vii. 507; the next letter; and those of June 23, 1760, and September 9, 1784. [15] Alexander Surer had moved from Aberdeen to Dundee, where Thomas Bartholomew (1782-1819) was his colleague. Richard Watkinson was the Assistant at Edinburgh; Joseph Sanderson had been Assistant at Dundee the previous year, but was now a supernumerary. Both the Grants and Smiths were Wesley’s friends. He stayed with Sir Lodovick Grant in June 1779; and dined with Mr. Smith of Aberdeen on May 22, 1790. See Journal, vi. 237, viii. 65. [16] Valton had been appointed Assistant at Bradford at the Conference, and had spent a fortnight at Hurtlepool for the benefit of his health. At the beginning of October he had to give up all speaking; but though this was a sore trial, ’as the fields already began to ripen for the harvest,’ he had not rested too soon. ’My head and breast were sorely afflicted. I frequently lost my memory, and my understanding was often beclouded.’ He went to stay with some friends, and returned to Bradford in the beginning of November; though he ’was obliged to be silent in all for many months.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 94-6; letters of September 13 and November 13, 1784; and for Benjamin Colley, that of September 18, 1773, to Valton. In 1753 Wesley retired to Lewisham in what appeared to be a rapid decline. He preached on November 25, and again, ’for the first time after an intermission of four months,’ on March 26. See Journal, iv. 89-92; letter of January 5, 1754; and for when he ’was at the gates of death’ in Ireland, that of July 28, 1775, to James Dempster. [17] In his Journal for August 15, 1788, Wesley speaks of ’that lovely young woman Sally Baker, who is removed to Cowbridge.’ Miss Baker had lived at Monmouth, where Wesley met her younger sister Elizabeth; to whom he wrote, after a visit to Cowbridge, that ’Sally is a pattern,’ and ’has done unspeakable good’ in the place. See Journal, vii. 425; where Wesley also says, ’Mr. G.----’ (probably Mr. Gwinnett) ’has done with us’; and for Elizabeth Baker, letter of August 26, 1788. [18] The ’new chapel’ was probably Oldham Street, Manchester. On August x Cornelius Bayley had published an Address to the Public on Sunday Schools, which caused a great stir. It urged Manchester to follow the example of Leeds. For Bayley, see letter of October 1778. [19] Henry Moore was born near Dublin in 1752, became a preacher in 1779, and was greatly beloved by Wesley, who appointed him one of his literary executors. He wrote a Life of Wesley, was President of the Conference in 1804 and 1823, and died in 1844. [20] This may have been to Robert Blake, of Athlone, who ’desists from traveling’ in 1784. William Myles was at Leicester. See letter of February 23, 1783. [21] Brettell was Assistant at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The chapel referred to may have been that at Alnwick or South Shields, which is named among ’houses to be built this year’ in the Minutes of 1785. It was felt at the Conference of 1783 that ’the needless multiplying of preaching-houses had been a great evil,’ and it was decided that none were to be built that year save those already begun. No one was to be pertained ’to beg for any house except in the circuit where it stands.’ [22] Thomas Taylor was Valton’s colleague at Bradford. He says, in Wesley’s Veterans, vii. 75, that he ’was laid up almost the whole year. I think he did not go through the circuit once. He was a gracious man, and an exceedingly useful preacher; so that want of his labor was a great check to our success.’ Valton did not go to Bristol, but returned to Bradford for a second year. See letters of November 13, 1784, and September 5, 1785 (to John Valton). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 85: 83. 1785 ======================================================================== 1785 To Dean D-- [1785.] REVEREND SIR, - When Dr. Bentley published his Greek Testament, one remarked, ’Pity but he would publish the Old; then we should have two New Testaments! [Dr. Richard Bentley, the great classical scholar, issued in 1720 proposals for a new edition of the New Testament in Greek with the Latin Version of Jerome.] It is done. Those who receive Mr. Hutchinson’s emendations certainly have two New Testaments! But I stumble at the threshold. Can we believe that God left His whole Church so ignorant of the Scripture till yesterday And if He was pleased to reveal the sense of it’ now, to whom may we suppose He would reveal it ’All Scripture,’ says Kempis, ’must be understood by the same Spirit whereby it was written.’ [Robert Spearman, a pupil of John Hutchinson, published An Enquiry after, Philosophy and Theology in 1755. For William Jones’s Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, see letter of April 17, 1776.] And a greater than he says, ’Them that are meek will He guide in judgment, and them that are gentle will He learn His way.’ But was Mr. Hutchinson eminently meek and gentle However, in order to learn all I could from his Works, after first consulting them, I carefully read over Mr. Spearman, [Book I, chap. v.] Mr. Jones’s ingenious book, and the Glasgow [Edinburgh] Abridgement. I read the last with Mr. Thomas Walsh, the best Hebraean I ever knew. I never asked him the meaning of an Hebrew word but he would immediately tell me how often it occurred in the Bible and what it meant in each place! We then both observed that Mr. Hutchinson’s whole scheme is built upon etymologies; the most uncertain foundation in the world, and the least to be depended upon. We observed, secondly, that if the points be allowed, all his building sinks at once; and, thirdly, that, setting them aside, many of his etymologies are forced and unnatural. He frequently, to find the etymology of one word, squeezes two radices together; a liberty never to be taken where a word may fairly be derived from a single radix. But may I hazard a few words on the points Mr. H. affirms they were invented by the Masorites, only thirteen or fourteen hundred years ago, in order to destroy the sense of Scripture. I doubt this: who can prove it Who can prove they were not as old as Ezra, if not co-eval with the language Let any one give a fair reading only to what Dr. Cornelius Bayley [For Dr. Bayley, see letter of Oct. 12, 1778.] has offered in the Preface to his Hebrew Grammar, and he will be as sick of reading without points as I am - at least, till he can answer the Doctor’s arguments he will not be so positive upon the question. As to his theology, I first stumble at his profuse encomiums on the Hebrew language. But it may be said, Is it not the language which God Himself used And is not Greek too the language which God Himself used And did He not use it in delivering to man a far more perfect dispensation than that which He delivered in Hebrew Who can deny it And does not even this consideration give us reason at least to suspect that the Greek language is as far superior to the Hebrew as the New Testament is to the Old And, indeed, if we set prejudice aside and consider both with attention and candor, can we help seeing that the Greek excels the Hebrew as much in beauty and strength as it does in copiousness I suppose no one from the beginning of the world wrote better Hebrew than Moses. But does not the language of St. Paul excel the language of Moses as much as the knowledge of St. Paul excelled his I speak this, even on supposition that you read the Hebrew, as I believe Ezra if not Moses did, with points; for if we read it in the modern way, without points, I appeal to every competent judge whether it be not the most equivocal. To Mrs. Gait LONDON. January 5, 1785. My DEAR SISTER, - You did well to write. Although I have not much time, yet I am always well pleased to hear from a friend. If outward losses be a means of stirring you up to gain more inward holiness, you will never have need to repent of that loss but rather to praise God for it. How soon will the moment of life be gone! It is enough if we secure an happy eternity. Let Brother Gait and you earnestly seek to be wholly devoted to God; and all things else will be added to you.-I am, dear Becky, Your affectionate brother. To John Johnson LONDON, January 26, 1785. My DEAR BROTHER, - It is plain the time is come for God to lift up the light of His countenance upon poor Lisburn; this is the answer of many prayers offered up by good Sister Gardner and many others. His providence brought both you and Sister Johnson thither in good time; she was more wanted now in Lisburn than even in Dublin, as Hetty Rogers was enabled in a great measure to supply her place there. You will prevail upon more and more to meet in band and more and more backsliders will be healed, I expect; you will in a little time have a Select Society also. If my life and health are continued, I hope to cross the sea about the beginning of April; but how many blessings may you receive before that time! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Johnson LONDON, January 16, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I nothing doubt but the death of that young man will be a means of life to many souls. How admirably was it timed! Just when Brother Johnson and you were returning to Lisburn - here was a divine preparation for your coming, and work ready prepared for you. I hope my poor dear Harriet will run away from us no more. She was unspeakably happy when she was young; but she may be happier now than ever she was. I am in hopes you now will have full employment. But you need not confine yourself altogether to Lisburn; you are a debtor also to our sisters in the neighboring Societies. Go on and prosper! - I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To James Barry February 1785. ... I am in the enjoyment of such health as I have never had before. Mr. Henry said, ’I bless God that I am never tired of my work, yet I am often tired in my work.’ By the blessing of God I can say more: I am never tired in my work. From the beginning of the day or the week or the year to the end I do not know what weariness means. I am never weary of writing or preaching or traveling; but am just as fresh at the end as at the beginning. Thus it is with me to-day, and I take no thought for to-morrow. I am in hopes Dr. Coke will come to you. [See letter of July 3, 1784.] To Mr. Barry, Shelburne, Nova Scotia. To Mrs. Freeman LONDON, February 1, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - So strange things come to pass I I did not expect to hear of Mr. Smyth’s ’living in lodgings.’ I do not remember the person who is so kind as to offer me a lodging; and I know no reason why I should not accept of it if I live to see Dublin again.’ It gives me pleasure to hear that the work of God flourishes among you. I did not doubt but it would when He sent that earnest couple [Mr. and Mrs. James Rogers.] to Dublin. He will send a blessing with them wherever they go. And that you and yours may partake of it more and more is the wish of, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Samuel Bardsley LONDON, February 12, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - Mr. Wesley desires me to inform you that he is glad to find that you go on so well in your circuit, and hopes that the work of the Lord will prosper more and more. Mr. Wesley cannot say anything positive respecting his coming into your circuit, but does intend to contrive to pay you a visit, though his usual way, you know, is but once in two years. I suppose you will know in time before he comes. Peace be with your spirit! - I am Yours affectionately, T. TENNANT. To Adam Clarke LONDON, February 12, 1785. DEAR ADAM, - I do not remember ever to have seen that letter from Norwich, else I should certainly have answered it. If you build at St. Austell, take care that you do not make the house too small. And pray let those directions be observed which are given in the Large Minutes of the Conference. It gives me pleasure to hear that the work of the Lord so prospers in your hands. It will do so as long as you do not shun to declare the whole counsel of God. There is one part of it which seems to be almost forgotten by the Methodists throughout the three kingdoms-that is, the Christian duty of fasting; and yet our Lord annexes a peculiar promise even to secret fasting: ’The Father that seeth in secret, He shall reward thee openly.’ You might begin to recommend this by reading to every Society the sermon concerning fasting. [See Works, v. 344-60.] The blessing would soon follow. - I am, dear Adam, Yours affectionately. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, February 15, 1785. DEAR SIR, - Your having the opportunity of giving them a few discourses in Dover, and then traveling with so pious and friendly a person as Mr. Ireland, I could not but look upon as clear instances of a gracious Providence. [Brackenbury spent some weeks in France in the autumn of 1784 and the following spring in order to perfect his French for the work in Jersey. James Ireland, of Brislington, Bristol, was Fletcher’s and Wesley’s friend.] I cannot doubt but the mild air which you now breathe will greatly tend to the re-establishment of your health; and so will the suspension of your public labors till you are better able to bear them. With regard to perfecting yourself in the French language, it is certain this may be done more speedily and effectually in a family where only French is spoken. And undoubtedly you may learn the purity of the language far better in Languedoc than in Normandy. It is clear that you are not called at present to any public labors. But should not you be so much the more diligent in private to redeem the time to buy up every opportunity Should not you be instant ’in season and out of season’ - that is, to make the opportunities which you cannot find Surely the all-wise and all-merciful Savior did not send you into France for nothing! Oh no! you are at least to pluck one brand (perhaps several) out of the burning. May the Lord whom you serve in all things direct your paths I So prays, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Captain Richard Williams LONDON, February 15, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am exceeding glad at your going to Plymouth Dock. [He had moved from Poldice, near Truro. See letter of Dec. 10, 1783.] I am persuaded that God has sent you. And I should not wonder if you find a greater blessing upon your labors than ever you found before. I pray stay there as long as you can; and send a particular account of what occurs there to, dear Richard, Your affectionate brother. To Arthur Keene LONDON, February 17, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I thank you for the pains you have taken on behalf of poor Robert Hide, [See letter of July 23, 1784.] and am sincerely glad you have at length succeeded. Now, if he continue honest and industrious, he will not want either employment or food. Want of either of the one or the other must have exposed him to a thousand temptations. When several disapproved of my sending Mr. Rogers and his wife to Dublin, supposing them unequal to the task, I was determined to overrule, believing myself to be a competent judge both of their gifts and grace. And the event has answered my expectations. I am not disappointed of my hope; and I am persuaded neither they nor you will ever be weary of well-doing. You have great reason to bless God for the good state of your temporal affairs also. And, indeed, I have always observed whenever the work of God goes on He withholds no manner of thing that is good. It was impossible to keep the present schoolmaster unless his spirit had been entirely changed. He is extremely unfair. But I am afraid another is recommended to you that is likely to prove no better. I have known him from a child, and give you fair warning. Take care what you do. If you are wise, secure Mr. Fox at any price. That man is sterling gold. [For the school, see letter of March 3, 1784, to Keene. Patrick Fox became master.] But you will have no blessing from God and no praise from wise men if you take that vile sordid measure (especially at this time!) of so reducing the salary. You must give 40 a year at the least. As soon after the 10th of April as I can I purpose (God willing) to embark for Dublin. I should be glad to accept of your kind invitation. But it is a great way to go, particularly at night. Otherwise I should be more at home with you than anywhere else. [He stayed at the preachers’ house. See letters of Feb. 1 and April 11.] I commend you and yours to the divine protection; and am, dear Arthur, Your affectionate friend and brother. I abhor the thought of our master’s keeping an evening school. It would swallow up the time he ought to have for his own improvement. Give him enough to live comfortably upon without this drudgery. Feb. 20. - Pray tell Mr. Rogers I hope to see him before the middle of April and to visit the classes. I am glad he has written to Mr. Fox; but I have told you my mind about the salary. To Mr. Arthur Keene, Miltown Road, Near Dublin. To John Broadbent LONDON, February 23, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Take care you do not scream again, unless you would murder yourself outright. It is very probable we must take in some married preachers if we live to see another Conference. The week after next I set [out] for Bristol. From thence (after stopping there a few days) I must make the best of my way to Ireland. Concerning dividing the circuit, [Dewsbury was divided from Birstall at the Conference of 1785. See letter of March 4, 1786, to Samuel Bardsley about division of circuits.] I may answer you and our brother together. I like the proposal well, especially as it would give our preachers a little more walking. But I very rarely divide circuits, unless at a Conference; because I am willing to hear what can be said on both sides. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Broadbent, At the Preaching-house, In Birstall, Near Leeds. To John Baxendale LONDON, February 25, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You send me an agreeable account of the work of God in and near Wigan. Indeed, His work will flourish in every place where full sanctification is dearly and strongly preached. This year I only call on a few Societies on my way. My business is with the Societies in Ireland. hope to call at Manchester on Saturday, April 2; at Bolton, the 4th; Wigan, Tuesday, the 5th. Perhaps I might preach at Wingates on my way thither. [On April 5 at noon he ’preached at Wingates, in the open air. The congregation were quite ripe for all the Gospel blessings, devouring every word.’ See Journal, vii. 65; and letters of Feb. 19, 1784, and April 3, 1787.] - I am Your affectionate brother. To Jonathan Coussins LONDON, February 25, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The Lord will work; and who shall hinder Him Only let us against hope believe in hope and walk in all His appointed ways, whether we see present fruit or not. Now encourage all believers to meet in band and to observe the Band rules exactly. In one thing Dr. Hunt and his people shame us; I mean in fasting, which we have well-nigh forgotten! Let us begin again! - I am, with love to Sister Coussins, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Coussins, At the Preaching-house, In Norwich. To John Stretton LONDON, February 25, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You did well in breaking through that needless diffidence; if you had wrote sooner, you would have heard from me sooner. Although I have not been at Limerick for some years, yet I remember your father and mother well. They truly feared God when I conversed with them. Be a follower of them, as they were of Christ. The last time I saw Mr. Coughlan he was ill in body but in a blessed state of mind. He was utterly broken in pieces, full of tears and contrition for his past unfaithfulness. Not long after I went out of town God removed him to a better place. If that deadly enemy of true religion, Popery, is breaking in upon you, there is indeed no time to be lost; for it is far easier to prevent the plague than to stop it. Last autumn Dr. Coke sailed from England, and is now visiting the flock in the Midland Provinces of America, and settling them on the New Testament plan, to which they all willingly and joyfully conform, being all united, as by one Spirit, so in one body. I trust they will no more want such pastors as are after God’s own heart. After he has gone through these parts, he intends, if God permit, to see the brethren in Nova Scotia, probably attended with one or two able preachers who will be willing to abide there. A day or two ago I wrote and desired him before he returns to England to call upon our brethren also in Newfoundland and perhaps leave a preacher there likewise. About food and raiment we take no thought. Our heavenly Father knoweth that we, need these things, and He will provide. Only let us be faithful and diligent in feeding His flock. Your preacher will be ordained. Go on in the name of the Lord and in the power of His might I You shall want no assistance that is in the power of Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. John Stretton, In Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. To Zechariah Yewdell LONDON, February 25, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad to hear that the work of God goes on at Sheerness, [Sheerness appears in the Minutes for 1785 as one of the houses to be built that year. Compare letter of March 21, 1784.] and that there is such a noble spirit among the people with regard to building. But as we are yet early in the year, I do not advise you to begin till two hundred pounds are subscribed. Try first what you can do in Kent and at Norwich, after keeping a day of fasting and prayer.-I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Brother Charles BRISTOL, March 17, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - I am just setting out on my northern journey; but must snatch time to write two or three lines. I stand and admire the wise and gracious dispensations of Divine Providence! Never was there before so loud a call to all that are under your roof. If they have not hitherto sufficiently regarded either you or the God of their fathers, what is more calculated to convince them than to see you so long hovering upon the borders of the grave [Charles Wesley lived three years longer.] And I verily believe, if they receive the admonition, God will raise you up again. I know you have the sentence of death in yourself; so had I more than twelve years ago. I know nature is utterly exhausted; but is not nature subject to His word I do not depend upon physicians, but upon Him that raiseth the dead. Only let your whole family stir themselves up and be instant in prayer; then I have only to say to each, ’If thou canst believe, thou shalt see the glory of God.’ ’Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.’ Adieu. To Barnabas Thomas BIRMINGHAM, March 25, 1785. DEAR BARNABAS, - I have neither inclination nor leisure to draw the saw of controversy; but I will tell you my mind in a few words. I am now as firmly attached to the Church of England as I ever was since you knew me. But meantime I know myself to be as real a Christian bishop as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet I was always resolved, and am so still, never to act as such except in case of necessity. Such a case does not (perhaps never will) exist in England. In America it did exist. This I made known to the Bishop of London and desired his help. But he peremptorily refused it. All the other bishops were of the same mind; the rather because (they said) they had nothing to do with America. Then I saw my way clear, and was fully convinced what it was my duty to do. [See letter of June 14, 1786.] As to the persons amongst those who offered themselves I chose those whom I judged most worthy, and I positively refuse to be judged herein by any man’s conscience but my own. - I am, dear Barnabas, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Wren BIRMINGHAM, March 26, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you for the clear and circumstantial account you have given me of the manner when God wrought upon your soul. As tie wrought the work both of justification and sanctification so distinctly, you have the less temptation to cast away your confidence. But you cannot keep it unless you are zealous of good works. Be fruitful, therefore, in every good work, and God shall renew you in His whole image. - I am Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton WEDNESBURY, March 28, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - You are in danger of falling into both extremes - of making light of as well as fainting under His chastening. This you do whenever you look at any circumstance without seeing the hand of God in it, without seeing at the same instant, this unkindness, this reproach, this returning evil for good, as well as this faintness, this weariness, this pain, is the cup which my Father hath given me. And shall I not drink it Why does He give it me Only for my profit, that I ’may be a partaker of His holiness.’ I have often found an aptness both in myself and others to connect events that have no real relation to each other. So one says, ’I am as sure this is the will of God as that I am justified.’ Another says, ’God as surely spake this to my heart as ever He spoke to me at all.’ This is an exceedingly dangerous way of thinking or speaking. We know not what it may lead us to. It may sap the very foundation of our religion. It may insensibly draw us into Deism or Atheism. My dear Nancy, my sister, my friend, beware of this! The grace of God is sufficient for you! And, whatever clouds may interpose between His banner over you is love. Look to yourself that you lose not the things that you have gained, but that you may receive a full reward. Adieu! To Mrs. Fletcher MANCHESTER, April 2, 1755. MY DEAR SISTER, - I have nothing to do with Yorkshire this year. After a swift journey through Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool, I must hasten by Chester to Holyhead in order to take the first packet for Dublin. The spring is already so far spent that I shall have much ado to go through all the provinces of Ireland before the end of June. It is well if that inconstant man has not destroyed poor Miss L. body and soul. I am afraid he had long since stole her heart from God. And she had so long persuaded others that their union was the will of God, that it is well if the disappointment does not quite unsettle her and make her turn back to the world. I wish you would write a letter to her on this head. Who knows but it may save a soul alive. The account of Michael Onions is very remarkable and may be of use to the public. Yours most affectionately. To John Fletcher MANCHESTER, April 3, 1785. DEAR SIR, - Our Dublin Conference is appointed to begin the first Tuesday in July, our London Conference the last Tuesday in that month. I am afraid there will be very little time to spare between the one and the other. I have very little hopes of doing any good to either Deists or Socinians. But it’s worth all our labor to prevent their doing mischief - at least, more than they have done already. For this reason I look upon everything with a jealous eye which prevents your answering Dr. Priestley. He is certainly one of the most dangerous enemies of Christianity that is now in the world. And I verily think you are the man whom God has prepared to abate his confidence. Dr. Horseley has good matter; but he is an heavy writer; and perhaps sometimes a little too severe. I believe you will be enabled to speak home, and yet to keep your temper. I really hope the Sunday Schools will be productive of great good to the nation. They spread wider and wider, and are likely to reach every part of the kingdom. It seems to be a great happiness, not a misfortune, that those turbulent men have taken themselves away. Jo. Hampson, jun., is going to the University. He may be an useful clergyman. I hope, if we live, you will not fail to be present at the Conference in London. Do not you stay at home too much Wishing you both to be more and more happy and useful, I am, dear sir, Ever yours. To the Methodist Conference CHESTER, April 7, 1785. MY DEAR BRETHREN, - Some of our traveling preachers have expressed a fear that after my decease you would exclude them either from preaching in connection with you or from some other privileges which they now enjoy. I know no other way to prevent any such inconvenience than to leave these my last words with you. I beseech you by the mercies of God that you never avail yourselves of the Deed of Declaration to assume any superiority over your brethren, but let all things go on among those itinerants who choose to remain together exactly in the same manner as when I was with you so far as circumstances will permit. ’In particular, I beseech you, if you ever loved me and if you now love God and your brethren, to have no respect of persons in stationing the preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood School, in disposing of the Yearly Contribution and the Preachers’ Fund or any other public money. But do all things with a single eye, as I have done from the beginning. Go on thus, doing all things without prejudice or partiality, and God will be with you even to the end.’ To Joseph Taylor LIVBRPOOL, April 7, 1785. DEAR JOSEPH, - I do not see that I can in conscience employ Brother Thomas [Taylor was the Assistant at Gloucester, with Barnabas Thomas as his colleague. Thomas went to Oxfordshire next Conference. See letter of March 25.] as a traveling preacher. Do not you know what I have often said I would not employ an apostle as such if he could not preach in the morning. And this he cannot do. Neither is he able, if he was willing, regularly to keep a circuit. Be faithful to God and the people, and your own soul! And keep an active, zealous man, Mr. McGeary, [See letters of Feb. 25, 1785 (heading to John Stretton), and Feb. 20, 1787.] while you have him. Else there is want of a preacher in the Canterbury Circuit. I thank you for the account of Brother Tregellas [’Some Account of the Death of Mr. John Tregellas, of St. Agnes, in Cornwall,’ who died on April 28, 1784, at the age of twenty-one, appeared in the Arminian Magazine, 1786, pp. 149-50, signed ’Joseph Taylor, Gretton, April 2, 1785.’]; and am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Roger Crane CONWAY, April 9, 1785. DEAR ROGER,-What you observe is true. The new places ought not to be neglected. Therefore it is not expedient to remove William Bramwell yet. So I have sent to Derbyshire, and hope Nathaniel Ward will speedily remove to Chester to assist Mr. Wright. Meantime take care that you be not weary of well-doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. - I am, dear Roger, Your affectionate brother. To George Gibbon HOLYHEAD, April 9, 1785. DEAR GEORGE, - What you said was exactly right, the work of God is undoubtedly instantaneous with regard to sanctification as well as justification, and it is no objection at all that the work is gradual also. Whatever others do, it is our duty strongly and explicitly to exhort the believers to go on to perfection, and encourage them to expect perfect love by simple faith, and consequently to expect it now. This is the preaching which God always has blessed, and which He always will bless to those that are upright of heart. With God’s leave we shall set sail to-night. [For Dublin. See next letter.] - I am, dear George, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Gibbon, At the Preaching-house, Sheffield. To his Brother Charles DUBLIN, April 11, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - I just write a line to let you know that we came to Holyhead on Saturday afternoon, and went on board about ten at night; but we had a dead calm till between ten and eleven in the morning, at which time I began the public service. After sermon I prayed that God would give us a moderate wind, with a safe, easy, and speedy passage. While I was speaking the wind sprung up, and carried us at an average five miles an hour; so that we sailed from Holy-well Bay to Dublin Bay in exactly twelve hours. [See Journal, vii. 66; and letter of Feb. 17.] The sea meantime was as smooth as a looking-glass; so that no creature in the ship was sick a moment. Does not God hear the prayer All is quiet here. Love to all. Adieu! To Thomas Carlill CORK, May 6, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - I desire you and no other preacher out of the Gainsborough Circuit to attend the Conference. I will pay the two guineas to Robert Armstrong. You may take Brother Fish in the place of Samuel Botts. Simon Kilham must in no wise be removed from Epworth. Encourage James Christie to read, and his gifts will increase. We cannot allow a baker to remain in our Society if he sells bread on the Lord’s Day. But if he only bakes pies, as they call it, we do not exclude him; although we are convinced that to abstain even from this is the more excellent way. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jasper Winscom CORK, May 9, 1785. DEAR JASPER, - You are in the right: that ground would be too small. Either have a proper place or none at all. If you have any magistrate that is resolved to do justice, he will soon make those rioters afraid to move a finger; and those that support them will soon be weary of the expense. The Justice will quickly make an end of your valorous women; for they may send women rioters to jail as well as men. The law makes no distinctions. But if you have no resolute magistrate you have another way. Let any man that was struck order a King’s Bench writ against him that struck him, and arrest him immediately. And he may refuse an insufficient bail. This will soon make them weary of their bad work. But you must take particular care not to make it up with the rioters till they have made good all the damage which has been done by any person whatever from the beginning and given sufficient security for their future good behavior. Unless you do that, you do nothing at all.’ Prosecute them not on the Toleration Act, which allows only twenty pounds’ damage, but on the Riot Act, which brings their wishes in question. - I am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles CORK, May 12, 1785. DEAR BROTHER,-Twice I have wrote to Dr. Coke concerning the Journal. I suppose one, if not two, of his letters have miscarried. I will not sentence him till he answers for himself. All I can say, and all I will say, is, I do not intend ever to publish your picture in the Magazine. At Dublin I was informed Mr. Barnard, the present Bishop’s son, is dead. In the North I may learn more. [See letter of May 2, 1785, to his brother.] I speak of myself, as of other men, with a single eye. I am glad you have been at Newgate. All we have heard in England of danger from Ireland is pure invention. We have been humbugged by the patriots. There is no more danger from Ireland than from the Isle of Man. If Sally wants the sinews of war, give me an hint. John Atlay has not complained to me of poverty for above this month, I am fully persuaded that the measure of peace which enables me to go on cheerfully in my work and to employ all my time and strength therein is not from Satan, nor from nature, but from God. To save tenpence postage I will write a few lines to Patty in your letter. Peace be with you all! Adieu. To Zachariah Yewdall WHITEHAVEN. May 26, 1785. DEAR ZACHARY, - You should always write to me without reserve. I observe nothing much amiss in your behavior. Truth and love you may hold fast, and courtesy will increase insensibly. Godfathers promise only that they will see that a child be taught, as soon as he is able to learn, what he ought to do in order to his soul’s health. And this it is certain they may perform. You did not read that little tract [Serious Thoughts concerning Godfathers and Godmothers, 1752. See Works, x. 5o6-9; Green’s Bibliography, No. 157.] with sufficient care; otherwise you could not but have seen this. I commend you for being exceedingly wary with respect to marriage. [See letter of Nov. 11.] St. Paul’s direction is full and clear: ’If thou mayest be free, use it rather’; ’Art thou loosed from a wife’ ’Seek not a wife.’ Two of our small tracts you should read with much prayer: Thoughts on a Single Life and A Word to Whom it may Concern. You need not be backward to write when you have opportunity. There is no fear of my thinking your letters troublesome. - I am, Your affectionate brother. Mr. Zach. Yewdart, At Mr. Colley’s, In Cardiff, South Wales. To his Brother Charles KILLRMAN, NEAR ARMAGE, June 2, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - So the good man will know pain no more! [The Vicar of Shoreham died on May 9. Charles Wesley buried him on the Sunday and preached twice.] But I suppose he died without disclosing that his son Vincent charged him not to reveal till he came to die! If it had been of any consequence to the cause of God, he could not have died without disclosing it. Pray talk with as well as inquire concerning the clergyman you mention. [Peard Dickinson, curate to Vincent Perronet, seemed likely to be his successor, but became Wesley’s clerical helper at City Road in Aug. 1786. See letter of June 19.] Many times you see further into men than I do. I suppose you have before now received my Journal, [See letter of May 12.] as well as preceding letter. Probably the first ship that sails after the 6th of July will bring me to Holyhead. I hope to see Dr. Coke in London before the end of it. About once a quarter I hear from Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher. I grudge his sitting still; but who can help it I love ease as well as he does; but I dare not take it while I believe there is another world. [Fletcher died on Aug. 14.] The patriots here are nobody. [See letter of May 12.] They are quite scattered, and have no design, bad or good. All is still in Ireland; only the work of God flourishes, spreading and deepening on every side. Peace be with all your spirits! Adieu! To Alexander Knox COLERAINE, June 8, 1785. DEAR ALLECK, - Having now deeply considered your case, I send you my matured thoughts; which I beg you and Mrs. Knox impartially to consider in the presence of God. But beware you do not fix your judgment before you hear the cause; otherwise I shall lose my labor, and you may lose your life, if not your soul. You say: ’The reason why I do not go out is this, I am afraid of falling in the street; and I do not attend the church or the preaching-house for fear I should fall down there and disturb the congregation.’ This is the clear state of the case. The question is, then, Is this reason sufficient, or is it not I am fully persuaded it is not For, (1) you are by no means sure that you shall fall down in the church or in the congregation. You have great reason to hope you shall not; although I should not wonder if your fits were now both more frequent and more severe than they are. But (2) Does not common sense teach us e malls minimum Now, I insist upon it that your falling in the street or the congregation once every month is a less evil than the shutting yourself up: so that - were it pronouncedly a voice from heaven, ’Either shut thyself up, or endure this shame once a month, or even once a week; take thy choice’ - it would be wisest to choose the latter, for it is incomparably the less evil of the two. It is indisputably plain to every impartial person that, by thus cooping yourself up, you hurt your body; by want of air and exercise you weaken it continually. I wonder you have not fits every day. And you hurt your soul by neglecting the ordinances of God, which you have no authority to do unless you were sick in bed. My dear Alleck, let there be no delay! Break through! at all hazards, break through! Go out this very day, and trust God! If your mother hinders you, she will kill you with kindness; and I am not sure that it will not cost her the life of another child, though God tries milder methods first. I say again, go out to-day, and every day. It will help both your body and your soul, as well as remove a great burthen from the mind of Yours in tender affection. To Francis Wrigley LISBURN, June 11, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad you are so far recovered. Do as much as you [can] and no more. You that are upon the spot are the best judges concerning William Ellis. I refer it wholly to you whether he should preach or no till I come into Cornwall myself. You cannot suffer any one to preach either at St. Austell or elsewhere that is tainted with Calvinism or Antinomianism. ’Tis far easier to prevent the plague than to cure it. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Wrigley, At Mr. Flamank’s, In St. Austell, Cornwall. To his Brother Charles DUBLIN, June 19, 1785. DEAR BROTHER,-I came hither (as I proposed when I set out) yesterday. This week I am to meet the classes. Next week we have our little Conference. The week following I hope to cross the Channel. The work of God, almost in every part of the kingdom, is in a prosperous state. Here is a set of excellent young preachers. Nine in ten of them are much devoted to God. I think, number for number, they exceed their fellow laborers in England. These in Dublin particularly are burning and shining lights. [James Rogers and Andrew Blair. See letters of Feb. 1 and June 26 (to Elizabeth Ritchie).] I am glad you have paid them one more visit at Shoreham. What the poor people will do now I know not; but the Great Shepherd knows, and will order all things well. But what becomes of Betsy Briggs [Miss Briggs stayed at Shoreham for a time, where she was very useful. She then moved to Hoxton Square, and married Peard Dickinson on April 30, 1788. See letter of Sept. 24, 1786; also letters of March 1771, and June 2, 1785.] Would not her shortest way be to marry him But I doubt he hangs back. The letter from Rome is curious enough. Fine words! And you know the Italians are famous for sincerity. I should be sorry indeed if Sammy Tooth [See letter of Sept. 27, 1778.] were a sufferer; but surely he knows his own business. Many here know and love you well. My love to all. Adieu! To Zachariah Yewdull NEAR DUBLIN, June 22, 1785. DEAR ZACHARY, - Let him not be afraid; I will take care that not one word of that affair shall be mentioned at the Conference. Let him come up thither in the name of God, and it will be a blessing to him. Let Brother Foster likewise come that he may have the advice of Dr. Whitehead. I shall have no objection, unless some particular objection arise, to your going to Sunderland. I think you will do well to bring Brother Adamson with you to the Conference. You will both be acceptable to, dear Zachary, Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles ATHLONE, June 23. 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - Certainly you have heard from me; for I sent you one, and intended to send you two Journals; only George Whitfield [Afterwards his Book Steward.] made a blunder, and directed the second to Henry Moore. Several months since, I wrote to Dr. Coke concerning the extract he had taken from your Journal. I will write to him again. But he must bring it, not send it by post. My letters to-day cost me eighteen shillings. I promise you not to publish your picture in the Magazine before midsummer 1785. I think that is long enough to look forward. Mr. Barnard is dead. [Son of the Bishop of Killaloe.] I know nothing of Miss Freeman. Ireland is full as quiet as England; and our Societies were never so much alive as they are now. I cannot believe that history. If Sally is ill, why does she not go into the country Peace be with all your spirits! Adieu! To Freeborn Garrettson DUBLIN, June 26, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Dr. Coke gives some account of you in one of his Journals; so that, although I have not seen you, I am not a stranger to your character. By all means send me, when you have opportunity, a more particular account of your experiences and travels. It is, though, not improbable that God may find out a way for you to visit England; and it might be a means of your receiving more strength as well as more light. It is a very desirable thing that the children of God should communicate their experience to each other; and it is generally most profitable when they can do it face to face. Till Providence opens a way for you to see Europe do all you can for a good Master in America. I am glad Brother Cromwell and you have undertaken that labor of love, the visiting Nova Scotia, and doubt not but you act in full concert with the little handful who were almost alone till you came. It will be the wisest way to make all those that desire to join together, thoroughly acquainted with the whole Methodist plan, and to accustom them from the very beginning to the accurate observance of all our rules. Let none of them rest in being half Christian. Whatever they do, let them do it with their might; and it will be best, as soon as any of them find peace with God, to exhort them to go on to perfection. The more strongly and vigilantly you press all believers to aspire after full sanctification as attainable now by simple faith the more the whole work of God will prosper. I do not expect any great matters from the Bishop. I doubt his eye is not single; and if it be not, he will do little good either to you or anyone else. It may be a comfort to you that you have no need of him. You want nothing what he can give. It is a noble proposal of Mr. Marchington’s; but I doubt it will not take place. You do not know the state of the English Methodists. They do not roll in money, like many of the American Methodists. It is with the utmost difficulty that we can raise five or six hundred pounds a year to supply our own contingent expenses. So that it is utterly impracticable to raise five hundred pounds among them to build houses in America. It is true they might do much; but it is a sad observation that they that have most money have usually least grace. The peace of God be with all your spirits! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Garrettson, At Mr. Philip Marchington, Shelburne, Nova Scotia. To Elizabeth Ritchie DUBLIN, June 26, 1785. MY DEAR BETSY, - Our Lord has, indeed, poured out abundance of blessings almost in every part of this kingdom. I have now gone through every province and visited all the chief Societies, and I have found far the greater part of them increasing both in number and strength. Many are convinced of sin, many justified, and not a few perfected in love. One means of which is that several of our young preachers, [See letter of June 19.] of whom we made little account appear to be (contrary to all expectation) men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost; and they are pushing out to the right hand and the left, and wherever they go God prospers their labor. I know not whether Thomas Walsh will not revive in two if not three of them. Many years ago I was saying, ’I cannot imagine how Mr. Whitefield can keep his soul alive, as he is not now going through honor and dishonor, evil report and good report, having nothing but honor and good report attending him wherever he goes.’ It is now my own case: I am just in the condition now that he was then in. I am become, I know not how, an honorable man. The scandal of the Cross is ceased; and all the kingdom, rich and poor, Papists and Protestants, behave with courtesy - nay, and seeming goodwill! It seems as if I had wellnigh finished my course, and our Lord was giving me an honorable discharge. My dear Betsy, have you not something to do in Dublin If so, the sooner you visit our friends the better. Peace be with your spirit! Adieu! Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wesley considered Hutchinson’s hypothesis ’very ingenious, but quite precarious,’ and was convinced that his theories had ’no foundation in Scripture or sound reason.’ Hutchinson’s emendations of the Old Testament were built on analogies, and he thought that the Hebrew points were invented by the Masorites. He claims in A New Account of the Confusion of Tongues to be ’the first who has dared to show the excellences and beauties of the Hebrew tongue and the imperfections of the rest,’ and to have ’cleared many of the blunders in the present translations.’ See letter of November 26, 1756. [2] Wesley was at Lisburn in June: ’I was now with the most lively Society that I have seen for many days; owing chiefly to the good providence of God bringing Sister Johnson hither.’ See Journal, vii. 91; and next letter. [3] The only child of Mr. and Mrs. John Wilson at the age of nineteen was killed in a moment by a fall from his horse. The parents were inconsolable till Mrs. Johnson came to Lisburn. She visited them, and brought them comfort. Both rejoined the Society, and were more in earnest for salvation than they had been for many years. See previous letter. [4] Wesley reached Dublin on April 11: ’I found such a resting-place at our own house as I never found in Ireland before; and two such preachers [James Rogers and Andrew Blair] with two such wives I knew not where to find again.’ See Journal, vii. 66; and February 17. [5] Wesley dictated this letter to Thomas Termant, who was in the London Circuit and probably acting as his amanuensis. Bardsley was second preacher at Nottingham, which Wesley did not visit that year. See letter of November 12, 1783. [6] Adam Clarke, the son of a schoolmaster near Coleraine, was born in 1760 or 1762. He entered the itinerancy in 1782, and was now stationed at Cornwall East. He was a powerful preacher, his fame as a scholar became national, and his Commentary had a great reputation. He was employed by the Public Record Office in editing State papers, and was the intimate friend of the Duke of Sussex He became President of the Conference in 18o6, and died on August 26, 1832. [7] Coussins was the Assistant in Norwich. Dr. J. Hunt, an eccentric but deeply pious surgeon, founded and endowed Ebenezer Chapel in Ber Street, Norwich, and died at Gissing on June 16, 1824, aged eighty-six. Wesley dined with him in October 1783 and November 1784; and was at his house in October 1785 and November and December 1786. See Journal, Index; Charles Mackie’s Norfolk Annals, vol. i.; and letter of September 16. [8] John Stretton had been a respectable merchant and local preacher in Ireland. He went to Carbonear about 1770; and the next year removed to Harbour Grace, four miles away, where he built a Methodist Chapel at his own expense. It was the first in Eastern British America; and he preached in it. He was a correspondent of Mrs. Benhis, who had spoken to him about his soul when he visited Waterford in 1765. That led to his conversion. He tells her on June 29, 1785: ’I suppose you have lately seen Mr. Wesley, and possibly have had some conversation with him about me. I wrote to him last fall, to send a preacher to this place, as the work of God seems to be at a stand here, and superstition and profaneness greatly increasing. He answered my letter, told me of Dr. Coke being in America, and said he would write to him to call here before he returned to England; but he has not yet arrived.’ In other letters he speaks of her kindness to him in Waterford; and in November 1773 thanks her for her’ delicate manner in disclosing the death of my dear mother.’ The preacher sent in October was John McGeary. See Crookslaank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 169; letter of February 27, 1789; and for Mrs. I3ennis, letter of August 23, 1765. After his return to London in 1773 Coughlan was some time minister at Cumberland St. Chapel, London. [9] Barnabas Thomas (when stationed at Hull) is named in the Deed of Declaration. He was now at Gloucester. He was ’a very sensible man, possessed a fertile mind and a retentive memory.’ He died of fever at Leeds in 1793. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 416; and letters of January 27, 1770 (to John Whitehead), and April 7, 1785 (to Thomas Taylor). [10] Mrs. Wren, who had been a Methodist in York for some years, married John Pawson on August 14, 1785. Pawson, who had been in Manchester in 1784, then moved to Edinburgh. [11] This letter is addressed to the Rev. John Fletcher. Miss L. is evidently Ann Loxdale, whom Wesley had warned about her intended marriage. His letter of October 8 shows how she bore her disappointment. See letter of December 9, 1783. The account of the death of Michael Onions signed ’Mary Fletcher, March 22, 1785,’ appears in the Arminian Magazine, 1785, pp. 522-5. He lived at Madeley, and began to sicken of a decline the previous Christmas when he was about sixteen. He had been very careless concerning religion, but was completely changed, and a few minutes before he died said, ’There is the most glorious place of all I and I am going up the ladder to it.’ [12] Fletcher died on August 14, 1785 He had been at the Conference of 1784, when he acted as mediator in the discord produced by the Deed of Declaration. Both the Hampsons, father and son, left the Connection. Dr. Priestley’s History of the Corruptions of Christianity, published in 1782, and other works, called loudly for an answer; and though Dr. Horsley answered them with great ability, Wesley .felt that Fletcher might do conspicuous service by dealing with the subject. See letter of March 10, 1787. [13] This letter was intended to allay fears lest the Legal Conference might use its power unjustly. It was entrusted to Joseph Bradford to be opened and read at the Conference after Wesley’s death. The following resolution was then passed: - ’The Conference have unanimously resolved that all the preachers who are in full connection with them shall enjoy every privilege that the members of the Conference enjoy, agreeably to the above-written letter of our venerable deceased father in the gospel. ’It may be expected that the Conference make some observations on the death of Mr. Wesley; but they find themselves utterly inadequate to express their ideas and feelings on this awful and affecting event. ’Their souls do truly mourn for their great loss; and they trust they shall give the most substantial proofs of their veneration for the memory of their most esteemed father and friend by endeavoring with great humility and diffidence to follow and imitate him in doctrine, discipline, and life.’ See W.H.S. i. 39-41. [14] Crane was the chief supporter of Methodism in Preston. His sisters married Charles Attoore and Michael Emmett. Ward was in the Derby Circuit, and Duncan Wright Assistant at Chester. Bramwell was admitted on trial in 1786. He was apprenticed to a currier in Preston. Crane tried to persuade him to attend Methodist services; but his father had exacted a promise that he would not hear any of this ’despicable community.’ He afterwards became a member, and was made a class-leader and local preacher. He was now in business and thinking of marriage; but Dr. Coke persuaded him to go as an itinerant to Kent in the winter of 1785. See John Taylor’s Apostles of Fylde Methodism, p. 26; Benjamin Moore’s Methodism in Burriley, p. 33. [15] Gibbon, the third preacher in Sheffield, was born at Stockton in 1744, became a preacher in 1780, and died in 1815. [16] Carlill was Assistant at Gainsborough, with Botts as the third preacher. Christie was a supernumerary at Grimsby. William Fish went to Jamaica at the request of Dr. Coke, returned in 1805 through failure of health, became a supernumerary in 1816, and died at Guernsey in 1843. Wesley here evidently mixed Kilham’s name with his father’s. Alexander, born at Epworth in 1762, was received on trial in July 1785 and appointed to Grimsby. He separated from the Connection in 1797, when he formed the New Itinerancy. The father and brother, both called Simon, are buried in Epworth Churchyard. Alexander Kilham was probably too useful at Epworth to be spared. He had been converted in 1782, and began to visit from house to house all round the neighborhood, and went to several of the towns near Epworth ’kindling the same fire.’ See W.H.S. v. 122-3. [17] Winscom had reported that the site offered in Winchester was only thirty feet long instead of forty, as the carpenter from whom he had arranged to buy it had stated. It also had a street at each end. He therefore felt that he could not purchase, and was looking for another site. See letter of September 13. There had been much opposition to Methodist services at Sutton Scotney, between Winchester and Whirchurch. They had applied to a justice for redress, and the opposers had been reprimanded and ordered to pay the costs. The rioting grew worse, and the Methodists had to appeal to the Justices again. The rioters were ordered to appear at the Quarter Sessions. See Stamp’s manuscript History of Methodism in Hampshire; and letter of June 17, 1786. [18] Charles Wesley spent much time visiting the prisoners in Newgate. He had become friendly with the Rev. Mr. Villette, the Ordinary, and had free access to the prison. He told John Fletcher on May 24: ’A fortnight ago I preached the condemned sermon to about twenty criminals. Every one of them, I have good grounds to believe, died penitent. Twenty more must die next week.’ See Telford’s Charles Wesley, pp. 276-7; Bulmer’s Memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Mortimer, p. 101. For other matters referred to, see letter of June 23. [19] Wesley had been at Londonderry from June 3 to 6. On the 8th his Diary says, ’Prayed, letter.’ It was evidently the only one written that morning; and no wonder when one reads it. Mrs. Knox is his mother. See Journal, vii. 87-9; and letter of July 10. [20] The Conference began in London on July 26. Henry Foster (an excellent young man, wholly devoted to God, who died in 1787) and William Adamson were in Sussex. Yewdull did not move from Kent. [21] This letter is dated June 23 in the original; but Wesley was in Dublin then, and at Athlone on April 23. At the back Charles Wesley wrote ’elusive,’ then crossed the word out and put ’Promise ambiguous.’ See letter of May 12. [22] Garrettson was a man after Wesley’s own heart. He had become an itinerant in 1775, and in February 1785 embarked for Halifax, Nova Scotia, with James O. Cromwell, to help in the work begun by William Black. They were welcomed by Mr. Marchington, who had hired a house at ten dollars a month, which held about three hundred and was filled at the services. Garrettson labored there till April 1787. Dr. Buckley says, ’Garrettson’s influence in Nova Scotia was almost equal to that of Wesley in Europe and Asbury in the United States.’ On April 20 he sent Wesley an account of his conversion and labors. See Bangs’s Memoir of Garrettson, pp. 144, 146; and letters of October 15, 1784, and September 30, 1786. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 86: 84. 1785 ======================================================================== 1785 To Ann Bolton DUBLIN, July 8, 1785. MY DEAR NANCY, - It is undoubtedly expedient for you to have a friend in whom you can fully confide that may be always near you or at a small distance, and ready to be consulted on all occasions. The time was when you took ma to be your friend; and (to speak freely) I have loved you with no common affection. I ’have loved you’ - nay, I do still; my heart warms to you while I am writing. But I am generally at too great a distance, so that you cannot converse with me when you would. I am glad, therefore, that a good Providence has given you one whom you can more easily see and correspond with. [Probably Hannah Ball.] You may certainly trust her in every instance; and she has both understanding, piety and experience. She may therefore perform those offices of friendship which I should rejoice to perform were I near you. But wherever you can, give me the pleasure of seeing you. You know, while I have an house, you will always be welcome to it. I desire Brother Day [Simon Day, then in the Oxfordshire Circuit. The Conference opened that day in London.] to meet me in London, on the 16th instant. I do not know how you can have more preaching by the traveling preachers unless you had more preachers; which, indeed, might easily be if your moneyed men did not love their money more than they do their souls. I hope neither marriage nor business makes Neddy [Edward Bolton, her brother, whose daughter, Mrs. Marriott, gave the letter to Miss J. Ayliff at Witney in 1861.] less zealous for God or less active in his work. Peace be with all your spirits! - I am, my dear Nancy, Ever yours. To Thomas Wride DUBLIN, July 8, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - I wonder at nothing in poor Nicholas, but I wonder much at James .Kershaw. Unless our preachers had already left their preaching-house, surely he would not have let it to any others! I love John Fenwick well; but I know he was a faulty man that once or twice. However, if there be no fresh matter of complaint, what is past shall go for nothing. I desire you to come to the Conference. A Conference while I live is ’The preachers whom I invite to confer with me.’ Many years ago one informed me at London, ’ The stewards have discovered they are not your stewards, but the people’s, and are to direct, not be directed by you.’ The next Sunday I let them drop, and named seven other stewards. No contentious persons shall for the future meet in any Conference. [The Deed of Declaration had disturbed some of the preachers. See letter of July 17.] They may dispute elsewhere if they please. - I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. I never said a word of publishing that account. To Alexander Knox DUBLIN, July 10, 1785. DEAR ALLECK, - ...What I advise you to is this: every fair day walk to, if not round, the churchyard. When you are a little hardened by this, you may venture at a convenient opportunity (suppose on a Sunday morning) to attend the public worship. [See letter of June 8.] Till you do I cannot say you are in God’s way, and therefore I am not sure you will find His blessing.... Peace be with all your spirits! We axe to sail to-night. My dear Alleck, adieu! To Arthur Keene LONDON, July 16, 1785. DEAR ARTHUR, - I forgot to show you a letter from Mr. Beardmore which I received when I was in Dublin, wherein he says, ’I wrote a letter in January 1783 to Mr. Deaves, [2 James Deaves had been a preacher, and was now settled in Dublin. He removed to Wexford in Sept. 1784. Wesley was his guest at Waterford in 1785. See Crook-shank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 313, 391, and letter of June I6, 1772, to Mrs. Bennis.] to whose son-in-law, Mr. Featherstone, I sent power to recover a debt of upwards of 119lb. from Mr. Neill, now of Ballinasloe, who is well able to pay it.’ Has Mr. Featherstone received that power And what has he done in consequence thereof I wish you would ask him and send me word directly, that Mr. B. may know how to proceed. And pray send me word how my poor Amelia does [See letter of July 31.] I have been much troubled concerning her. She appeared so much affected on Sunday evening when I took my leave, that I was afraid lest it should bring back her fever. Sister Blair [Andrew Blair moved from Dublin to Birmingham.] bore her journey admirably well. She is most comfortably situated at Chester; and all our sisters cleave to her as if they had known her seven years, just as they would to my Bella Keene [Isabella (Mrs. Keene).] if they had her among them. Don’t think you have all the love in Ireland. We have a little in England too. For God is here! To Him I tenderly commend you and yours, and am, dear Arthur, Ever yours. To Mr. Arthur Keene, In Dublin. To Alexander Surer LONDON, July 26, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I told you in Scotland that you might come to the Conference; but it is no great matter. Mr. Watkinson does not come; but Mr. Ingles and Rob. Johnson are come in his place. [Richard Watkinson was in Edinburgh, with Andrew Inglis as his Colleague, Robert Johnson at Inverness. Johnson was appointed to Edinburgh, McAllum to Dundee.] According to their own desire, I will station both Brothers McAllum and Johnson in the Dundee Circuit. ’Tis pity that Brother Sanderson should be buried alive in one town. God has qualified him for more extensive usefulness. Since this time twelvemonth what has he done in comparison of what he might have done! Perhaps slipped out for a month once or twice! Oh, why does he not rather choose to ’receive a full reward’! But why do you quarrel with poor Agnes Ramsey Is there no living at Dundee without quarrelling O follow peace with all men, and holiness! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Surer, At the Preaching-house, In Dundee. To Mrs. Christian LONDON, July 17, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I sailed from Dublin Bay on Monday morning, came into Holyhead Bay about noon, and on Friday in the afternoon (stopping only a few hours at Chester) was brought safe to London. After the Conference (at which I should be glad to see Mr. Pugh or Mr. Dodwell, or both [Mrs. Christian was a friend of William Dodwell and John Pugh, for whom see letter of Aug. 14, 1782,]) I shall with God’s help visit the West of England. The gravel may be easily prevented by eating a small crust of bread the size of a walnut every morning, fasting. But your nervous disorders will not be removed without-constant exercise. If you can have no other, you should daily ride a wooden horse, which is only a double plank nine or ten feet long, properly placed upon two tressels. This has removed many distempers and saved abundance of lives. [See letters of March 13, 1788 and Aug. 18, 1790.] I should advise you likewise to use nettle tea (six or eight leaves) instead of foreign tea for a month, and probably you will see a great change. No person will hereafter be present at any Conference but whom I invite by name to come and confer with me. So we will have no more contention there. [The contention seems to have been due to the omission of certain names from the Deed of Declaration. See letter of July 8 to Thomas Wride.] - I am, with love to Brother Christian, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. Our Conference begins on Tuesday the 26th instant; but the first two days only traveling preachers are present. To Arthur Keene LONDON, July 31, 1785. MY DEAR ARTHUR, - Yours of the 23rd instant gave me great satisfaction. I am glad that Mr. Featherstone has wrote to Mr. Beardmore, [See letter of July 16.] who will easily concur in his judgment that it is very imprudent to sue a man for what he is not able to pay. I suppose it was some ill-minded man who informed Mr. Beardmore that Mr. Neill was in so flourishing circumstances; which was not likely to be the case while he was only a common clerk to a person in business. And it showed great honesty and generosity in Mr. Featherstone to give so impartial advice. I hope he is diligently engaged in the little affair you entrusted him with in respect of Sister Jaques’s legacy. If that be pressed in earnest, it may turn out well; otherwise it will drop into nothing. I must charge you with another little business. At the Conference it was judged proper that the married preacher should live in our preaching-house at Athlone. But our brother William Rayner writes me word ’He has convinced Brother Joyce [Matthias Joyce was a Papist in early life. He was remarkably loving, and his memory was precious to all who knew him; he was now Assistant at Athlone, and died in 1814. Walter Griffith, who had been appointed to Waterford at the Irish Conference in July, was by Wesley’s wish moved to Athlone. See Arminian Mug. 1786, p. 132; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 404.] that it cannot be.’ Be so kind as to write a line to Brother Joyce and inquire how this matter stands; and desire him to tell Brother Rayner at the same time that I thank him for his letter. You give me pleasure by talking of my dear Isabella. I love to see her, and I love to hear of her. I love likewise to hear of her twin soul, my precious Amelia. [See letter of July 16.] I was afraid she would grieve too much when I went away, especially as she did not shed a tear - I mean while I was in the room. I rejoice so much the more to hear that our blessed Lord undertook her cause and sent her help in time of need. It would give me pain, indeed, if one that is as my own soul should receive hurt from me. O may we always meet for the better and not for the worse. May we always’ love one another with a pure heart fervently.’ I hope both she and you and my Isabella will not forget to pray for, dear Arthur, Yours most affectionately. Amelia does well in spending a little time in the country. Nothing will restore her like air and exercise. When is Mrs. Blachford [See letter of Oct. 15, 1777.] to come hither I had forgot to mention that that excellent woman Sister Cox desired, when there is room, to be admitted to the Widows’ House [See Journal, v. 406, vii. 484. It had about twenty-four inmates.]; I think no one is more worthy. To John Ogilvie LONDON, August 7, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - As long as you are yourself earnestly aspiring after a full deliverance from all sin and a renewal in the whole image of God, God will prosper you in your labor, especially if you constantly and strongly exhort all believers to expect full sanctification now by simple faith. [Ogilvie was in the Isle of Man. He died in 1839.] And never be weary of well-doing; in due time you shall reap if you faint not! - I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles PLYMOUTH DOCK, August 19, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - I will tell you my thoughts with all simplicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with me, well; if not, we can (as Mr. Whitefield used to say) agree to disagree. For these forty years I have been in doubt concerning that question, ’What obedience is due to "heathenish priests and mitred infidels"’ [From Charles Wesley’s ’Elegy on the Death of Robert Jones.’ See his Journal, ii. 299. ]I have from time to time proposed my doubts to the most pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But they gave me no satisfaction; rather they seemed to be puzzled as well as me. Some obedience I always paid to the bishops in obedience to the laws of the land. But I cannot see that I am under any obligation to obey them further than those laws require. It is in obedience to those laws that I have never exercised in England the power which I believe God has given me. I firmly believe I am a scriptural έπίσκοπος, as much as any man in England or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove. But this does in no wise interfere with my remaining in the Church of England; from which I have no more desire to separate than I had fifty years ago. I still attend all the ordinances of the Church at all opportunities; and I constantly and earnestly desire all that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. Smyth [The Rev. Edward Smyth.] pressed us to ’separate from the Church,’ he meant, ’Go to church no more.’ And this was what I meant seven-and-twenty years ago when I persuaded our brethren ’not to separate from the Church.’ But here another question occurs: ’What is the Church of England’ It is not ’all the people of England.’ Papists and Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of England except Papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a glorious Church indeed! No; according to our Twentieth Article, a particular Church is ’a congregation of faithful people’ (coetus credentium, the words in our Latin edition), ’among whom the word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered.’ Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a Church. What, then, according to this definition, is the Church of England Does it mean ’all the believers in England (except the Papists and Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly administered among them’ I fear this does not come up to your idea of ’the Church of England.’ Well, what more do you include in that phrase ’Why, all the believers that adhere to the doctrine and discipline established by the Convocation under Queen Elizabeth.’ Nay, that discipline is wellnigh vanished away, and the doctrine both you and I adhere to. I do not mean I will never ordain any while I am in England, but not to use the power they receive while in England. [This sentence is quoted in the manuscript Life of Benson, ii. 1388.] All those reasons against a separation from the Church in this sense I subscribe to still. What, then, are you frighted at I no more separate from it now than I did in the year 1758. I submit still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to ’mitred infidels.’ I do, indeed, vary from them in some points of doctrine and in some points of discipline - by preaching abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming societies; but not an hair’s breadth further than I believe to be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high-day of my blood is over. If you will go hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me if you will not help. [Charles was unconvinced. See letter of Sept. 13.] Perhaps, if you had kept dose to me, I might have done better. However, with or without help, I creep on. And as I have been hitherto, so I trust I shall always be, Your affectionate friend and Brother. To Christopher Hopper REDRUTH, August 27, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The utmost that can be done at present is to permit him to preach as a local preacher [Hopper was now at Bolton.]; for I will not run my head against all the Conference by reversing what they have determined. I cannot, with either decency or prudence, go any further yet. If his behavior is unblameable in this lower station, by-and-by he may rise higher. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Costerdine BRISTOL, September 4, 1785. DEAR ROBERT, - All I can say at present is, If matters be as you represent, the thing shall be set right at the next Conference, and the [money] paid you. [Costerdine was third preacher in the Birmingham Circuit.] But our friends at Wednesbury are afraid lest you should inflame the old quarrel. O beware of this! Meddle not with Francis Whitehead. Live peaceably with all men! - I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate brother. To John Valton BRISTOL, September 5, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Neither Sister Brisco nor her husband ever made application to me for money. Now and then I have given her a guinea; but, I think, never more at a time. We could not regularly give her any more for her child; but I would have given her five pounds at a word speaking. Now she must take some trouble to get it. [Thomas Brisco was stationed at Thirsk, and was evidently in financial straits.] Our preachers (I mean many of them) are unable as yet to judge and undervalue each other. Henry Foster is a weak man, but by no means a weak preacher. This was never objected to him before in any circuit where I have followed him. He is a sound, judicious man and one of deep piety. I am thinking that her best way is, if any one will give T. Brisco five guineas, I will repay it. Consider, a person that was very happy and good is now less happy than he was. Then he thinks, ’I should be happier if I was married.’ Is not this feeling Love’s all-sufficient sea to raise With drops of creature happiness [Poetical Works, i. 132.] I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, At Captain Robinson’s, In Bridlington Key, Yorkshire. To Thomas Wride BRISTOL, September 5, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - When you do what you can, you do enough. I trust you will now use every possible means of redeeming the time. I wish you would never neglect sleeping early and rising early. Beware of anything like lightness or trifling. Wherever you are be obliging and be serious. Disappoint those who wait for your halting. - I am, with love to Sister Wilde, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Wride, At the Preaching- house, In Norwich. To Mary Cooke BRADFORD[-ON-AVON], September 10, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - While I had the pleasure of sitting by you I quite forgot [what] I intended before we set out. [Two days previously Wesley had been at Trowbridge, where Miss Cooke lived, See letter of Sept. 24 to her.] Considering the bent of your mind, I cannot doubt but you have many copies of verses by you. Probably you have some (beside those on Mr. Turner) made upon affecting subjects. Will you favor me with two or three of them Do, if you have any desire to oblige, my dear friend, Yours affectionately. To his Brother Charles BATH, September 13, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - I see no use of you and me disputing together; for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say I separate from the Church; I say I do not. Then let it stand. Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England than you do, and I find few exceptions to it. I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from covetousness. He has done nothing rashly that I know; but he has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him of it. To publish as his present thoughts what he had before retracted was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and will save as many souls as I can while I live without being careful about what may possibly be when I die. I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London. You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly weaken your own. - I am Your affectionate Brother. [The following answer, sent by Charles on the 19th, is given at the foot of his brother’s letter:] DEAR BROTHER, - I did not say, You separate from the Church; but I did say, If I could prove it, I would not. That ’sad truth’ is not a new truth. You saw it when you expressed in your Reasons such tenderness of love for the unconverted clergy. Of the second T. Walsh we had better talk than write. How ’confound their intellects’ How ’weaken your hands’ I know nothing which I do to prevent the possible separation but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to pray for the Church of England and for you while any breath remains in me. - I am Your affectionate Brother. To Jasper Winscom BRISTOL, September 13, 1785. DEAR JASPER, - I think I can serve you as far as 100 will go. If you can pay me in a year, you may; if not, I shall not quarrel with you about it. I want no interest. You may draw upon John Atlay for it, to whom I shall write this morning. - I am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Fletcher BRISTOL, September 16, 1785. My DEAR SISTER, - I wanted much to hear from you, being desirous to know whether you have thought where you should settle if God should please to prolong your life. I should love to be as near you as I could; and on that account should be glad if you chose Bristol or London. I expect to be in town on Monday fortnight, October the 1st. Mr. Ireland has printed a thousand or two of your Letters, [About her husband’s last illness.] with some little variations, I think for the worse! Peace be with your spirit! - I am, my dear sister, Ever yours. I am glad the people desire to join us. I shall reprint your letter when I come to London. To Mrs. Fletcher, at Madeley, Near Shifnal, Salop. To Thomas Wride KINGSWOOD, September 16, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - Your next will, I suppose, find me in London, where I hope to be in about a fortnight. We know not what stops our northern schoolmaster, and expect to see him every day. As soon as he comes, Mr. Jones [Thomas Jones was his colleague, just admitted on trial. He does not seem to have been able to leave Kingswood, and James M. Byron was sent. See letter of Nov. 8 to Wride.] will make the best of his way to Norwich. I leave it wholly to you whether and how far you should accept of Dr. Hunt’s offer. [See letter of Feb. 25.] With regard to Mr. Proud and your capital singer, you acted exactly right; but I expect you will hear of it at both ears. Those doggerel verses [A monument had been placed in Norwich chapel in memory of Mr. Turner, and the doggerel verses on it greatly displeased Wride.] must not remain in the chapel. I wish Zac. Houlton [See letter of Oct. 8 to Wride.] would spend two or three weeks with you. He is not eloquent, but he is useful. You do well in insisting on every person showing his ticket. I wonder Jon. Coussins [Jonathan Coussins had been Assistant the previous year.] did not. It is of importance to mind the Select Society; that, I apprehend, he never neglected. If the leaders and the bands are closely attended to, they will do well; otherwise not. - I am, with love to Sister Wride, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Locke BRISTOL, September 19, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - The matter of Shepton Mallet is at an end. But I should have been glad to see you on other accounts. I wanted to know what was become of you Now you in some measure inform me. Pity but you had informed me before. Then much evil might have been either prevented or remedied. Instead of hiding everything you ought to have hid nothing from me. But tell me all or nothing. I will never bring your name into question, if you tell me who those four blessed preachers are. It is good for them that I should know them. [Wesley was with Locke at Almondsbury on Sept. 18. This letter throws light on their ’talk.’ See Journal, vii, 117d.] Any service that is in my power you may expect from Your affectionate brother. To Robert Cart Brackenbury BRISTOL, September 24, 1785. DEAR SIR, - It is well that the Lord sitteth above the water-floods and remaineth a King for ever. It is no wonder that Satan should fight for his own kingdom when such inroads are made upon it. But Beyond his chain he cannot go; Our Jesus shall stir up His power And soon avenge us of our foe. After we have observed a day of fasting and prayer, I have known the most violent commotions quelled at once. But doubtless all probable means are to be used. One in particular it might be worth while to attempt - namely, to soften the spirit of that angry magistrate. [See letter of Nov. 24.] God has the hearts of all men in His hand; and if the heart of that warrior was once turned, then those who have hitherto been encouraged by him would vanish away like smoke. It is not improbable but your answer to that scandalous libel may be one means of abeting his prejudice. - I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Cooke BRISTOL, September 24, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - It is highly probable my letter to you was intercepted by some person of the same name, who, opened it (likely by a mistake) was afterwards ashamed to send it you. However, as you have now favored me better information, I hope there will be no such mistake the time to come. But I beg, when you write to do not write as to a stranger, but a friend. Be not afraid me because I have lived so much longer than you. I nothing upon that account, but wish to stand upon ground with you and to converse without either disguise reserve. I love you all three and not a little, especially your sisters spoke so freely to me; yet I do not say in the same degree. There is a mildness and sweetness in your spirit, such as I wish to find in one that is more to me than a common friend. Not that I impute this to nature; whatever is truly amiable is not of nature, but from a higher principle. Cultivate this, my dear friend, to the uttermost. Still learn of Him who was meek and lowly in heart. Oh, what a blessing it is to be little and mean and vile in our own eyes! You are an amiable woman, it is true; but still you are a sinner, born to die! You are an immortal spirit come forth from God and speedily returning to Him. You know well that one thing, and one only, is needful for you upon earth - to ensure a better portion, to recover the favor and image of God. The former by His grace you have recovered; you have tasted of the love of God. See that you cast it not away. See that you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end! And how soon may you be made a partaker of sanctification! And not only by a slow and insensible growth in grace, but by the power of the Highest overshadowing you in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, so as utterly to abolish sin and to renew you in His whole image! If you are simple of heart, if you are willing to receive the heavenly gift, as a little child, without reasoning, why may you not receive it now He is nigh that sanctifieth; He is with you; He is knocking at the door of your heart! Come in, my Lord, come in, And seize her for Thine own. This is the wish of, my dear friend, Yours in tender affection. I pray be not so brief in your next. To Simon Day BRISTOL, September 24, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I expect to see James [Tosmer] next week, and I am in hopes he will be induced to keep his promise. [Day was second preacher in the Bradford (Wilts) Circuit.] But if he loves his money more than h’ls conscience, we shall find another way. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Francis Asbury BRISTOL, September 30, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It gives me pleasure to hear that God prospers your labors even in the barren soil of South Carolina. [Asbury had visited Chariestown on Feb. 24.] Near fifty years ago I preached in the church at Charlestown and in a few other places, and deep attention sat on every face. But I am afraid few received any lasting impressions. At the next Conference it will be worth your while to consider deeply whether any preacher should stay in one place three years together. I startle at this. It is a vehement alteration in the Methodist discipline. We have no such custom in England, Scotland, or Ireland. We [allow no one] except the Assistant, who stays a second, to stay more than [one year]. I myself may perhaps have as much variety of matter as many of our preachers. Yet, I am well assured, were I to preach three years together in one place, both the people and myself would grow as dead as stones. Indeed, this is quite contrary to the whole economy of Methodism: God has always wrought among us by a constant change of preachers. Newly awakened people should, if it were possible, be plentifully supplied with books. Hereby the awakening is both continued and increased. In two or three days I expect to be in London. I will then talk with Mr. Atlay on the head. Be all in earnest for God. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Fletcher BRISTOL, October 2, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - There is much of Divine Providence in this, that the people are permitted to choose their own curate. I believe Mr. Horne to be a sound Methodist, and think he will serve them well if he can procure ordination. If he cannot, Mr. Dickinson may do near as well - a very pious and sensible young man, who has for two or three years served good Mr. Perronet at Shoreham, but expects to be turned away by the new vicar. Surely your thought of spending much of your time in London is agreeable to the will of God. I never thoroughly approved of your going so far from it, although much good was drawn out of it. I hope to be there to-morrow. Should not you now consider me as your first human friend I think none has a more sincere regard for you than, my dear sister, Yours most affectionately. To Ann Loxdale LONDON, October 8, 1785. MY DEAR MISS LOXDALE, - Not once but many times I have been making all the inquiries I could concerning you; the rather as I was afraid you might suffer loss by the severe trials you had met with. I should not have wondered if you had contracted a degree of suspicion towards all who professed either friendship or religion; I rather wonder how you have escaped. But, indeed, as long as you can say from your heart, ’Lord, not as I will, but as Thou wilt,’ no weapon formed against you shall prosper. You unquestionably did enjoy a measure of His pure and perfect love. And as you received it at first by naked faith, just so you may receive it again; and who knows how soon May you not say, If Thou canst so greatly bow, Friend of sinners, why not now You send me comfortable news concerning Mrs. Eden. And certainly this gracious visitation is designed for a blessing not only to her, but likewise to her poor husband. You should lose no opportunity of speaking a word to him whenever Providence throws him in your way. Let not a voluntary humility hinder you. God can bless a few and ordinary words. Nay, and let it not hinder you from praying with as well as for your friends. I advise you, my dear Nancy, to begin without delay. Why not this very day Make haste, my friend, to do whatever may be for the good of your own or any other soul. I thank you for writing freely to me. If I had you now by the hand, I would tell you you can never write or speak too freely to, my dear Miss Loxdale, Yours most affectionately. To Thomas Wride LONDON, October 8, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - On Monday se’nnight, the 17th instant, I hope to be at Norwich (coming by the mail-coach); on Tuesday at Yarmouth; on Wednesday and Thursday at Lowestoft, preaching everywhere at half-hour past six in the evening. On Friday noon at Beecham, or where you please; in the evening at Loddon; and on Saturday evening at Norwich. The verses [See letters of Sept. 16 and Dec. 14.] must be effaced some way before I come down. Be as exact in discipline as you please. Luke Houlton [See letter Sept. 16.] was on the road; but one met him and told him he was not wanted. I always lodge in our own houses. I think those sermons may stop bottles. - I am, with love to Sister Wride, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Wride, At the Preaching-house, In Nonrich. To Charles Atmore LONDON, October 15, 1785. DEAR CHARLES, - If God gives you and your fellow laborers union of spirit, He will surely bless you together. When you build at Blackburn, do not build a scarecrow of an house. But take either Keighley or Colne House for your pattern. Observe in this and in all things the Large Minutes of the Conference. If I live till spring, I shall probably spend more time there than I have done hitherto. As long as you feel your own weakness and helplessness you will find help from above. - I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Fletcher NORWICH, October 22, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - This morning I received and read over your papers. You have done justice to the character of that excellent man as far as you could be expected to do in so small room. I do not observe any sentence that need be left out, and very few words that need to be omitted or altered; only I omit a very little, which I had inserted before I received yours, in that part of my sermon which I had transcribed I hope to procure some more materials in order to the writing of his Life. May the Lord bless you, and keep you! - I am, my dear sister, Yours in tender affection. To Mrs. Fletcher, At Madeley, Near Skifinal, Salop. To Joseph Benson LONDON, October 30, 1785. DEAR JOSEPH, - You have given me a clear and satisfactory account of Mr. Fletcher’s behavior at Trevecca and of the reason of his leaving it; the same in effect but far more full than that which he gave me himself. I hope to glean up many more circumstances of his life from a few of his surviving friends, particularly Mr. Ireland, if he is as willing as he is able to inform me. Your caution as to the manner of writing is very proper. For no one should write or speak of him in any other spirit than he wrote and spoke. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Cooke LONDON, October 30, 1785. My dear Miss Cooke leans to the right-hand error. It is safer to think too little than too much of yourself. I blame no one for not believing he is in the favor of God till he is in a manner constrained to believe it. But, laying all circumstances together, I can make no doubt of your having a measure of faith. Many years ago when one was describing the glorious privilege of a believer, I cried out, ’If this be so, I have no faith.’ He replied, ’Habes fidere, sed exiguam: "You have faith, but it is weak."’ The very same thing I say to you, my dear friend. You have faith, but it is only as a grain of mustard-seed. Hold fast what you have, and ask for what you want. There is an irreconcilable variability in the operations of the Holy Spirit on the souls of men, more especially as to the manner of justification. Many find Him rushing upon them like a torrent, while they experience The o’erwhelming power of saving grace. This has been the experience of many; perhaps of more in this late visitation than in any other age since the times of the Apostles. But in others He works in a very different way: He deigns His influence to infuse, Sweet, refreshing, as the silent dews. It has pleased Him to work the latter way in you from the beginning; and it is not improbable He will continue (as He has begun) to work in a gentle and almost insensible manner. Let Him take His own way: He is wiser than you; He will do all things well. Do not reason against Him; but let the prayer of your heart be, Mould as Thou wilt Thy passive clay I commit you and your dear sisters to His tender care; and am, my dear friend, Most affectionately yours. To William Robarts LONDON, November 8, 1785. DEAR BILLY, - Yesterday I read your tract, which I thoroughly approve of, but I dare not depend on my own single judgment. I will desire someone that has more judgment to read and consider it, and then send you word what I think is best to be done. But I apprehend that debt will never be paid, because the numerous villains who gain by its continuance will never consent to the abolishing of it. I should apprehend your best way would be to sell the estate which you purchased some years ago. What if you sold it for only half the value It seems this would be better than to remain in such perplexities. [See letters of Aug. 16, 1783, and Dec. 6, 1785, to him.] - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride LONDON, November 8, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - I suppose James Byron is now in the Circuit, as he set out from Thirsk on the 3rd instant. He is an amiable young man, at present full of faith and love. If possible guard him from those that will be inclined to love him too well. [Byron was admitted on trial at the next Conference. See letter of Nov. 17.] Then he will be as useful a fellow laborer as you can desire. And set him a pattern in all things. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, November 11, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I hope Sister Yewdall and you will be a blessing to each other. [See letter of May 26.] I think it a pity to remove you from Kent. Otherwise Oxford Circuit is nearer to London than Canterbury Circuit; for High Wycombe is nearer to it than Chatham. I cannot visit all the places I want to visit in Kent in one journey. I purpose (God willing) to begin my first journey on the 28th instant. Shall I visit Margate or Sheerness first - I am, dear Zachary, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Tattershall LONDON, November 13, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - I heard all the complaints in Norfolk face to face, and trust that they will go on well. The affair of Derby House should be mentioned at the Conference; that is the proper time. You must immediately drop any preacher that gives any countenance to Nathaniel Ward. While I live I will bear the most public testimony I can to the reality of witchcraft. Your denial of this springs originally from the Deists; and simple Christians lick their spittle. I heartily set them at open defiance. I know of no extracts from novels; but I publish several excellent extracts from the Spectator; and I am certainly a better judge of what is fit to be published than those little critics. But let them pass over what they do not like. There never was so useful a plan devised as that of the Methodists. But what is this James Desyes says that you received 10 and a guinea towards building an house at Waterford and carried it away. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Bredin LONDON, November 16, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I hope James Rogers will exert himself in behalf of G. Penington and ..; who should send me a particular account of the .. I will give them ten pounds, and I am in hopes of procuring a little more in London, and I advise Molly Penington [See letters of Sept. 16, 1780, and April 20, 1787.] to write to Miss March. I trust God will .. It will be my part to replace her books. You must not expect much health [See letters of Nov. 30, 1781, and June 1, 1789, to him.] on this side the grave; it is enough that His grace is sufficient for you. In the Minutes of the Conference as well as in the Magazine there is a clear account of all that concerns the late ordination. [For America.] It is a wonder the High Churchmen are so silent; surely the bridle of God is in their mouth. Whatever you judge would be proper for the Magazine, send. You can comprise much in a sheet. - I am Your affectionate brother. [On the fly-leaf of the above letter appears the following one, in Wesley’s handwriting:] To Matthew Stuart LONDON, November 16, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It is very probable the desire you have of going to America comes from God. If it is, you may very possibly (if you are a single man) go over with Dr. Coke at the late end of next summer. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride LONDON, November 17, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - Deal plainly yet tenderly with James Byron, and he will be a very useful laborer. But none can be a Methodist preacher unless he is both able and willing to preach in the morning, which is the most healthy exercise in the world. I desire that none of our preachers would sing oftener than twice at one service. We need nothing to fill up our hour. [See letters of Nov. 8 to him, and Dec. 14 to McKersey and Byron.] In every place where there is a sufficient number of believers do all you can to prevail upon them to meet in band. Be mild, be serious, and you will conquer all things. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, November 24, 1785. DEAR SIR, - God will hearken to the prayer that goeth not out of feigned lips, especially when fasting is joined therewith. And, provided our brethren continue instant in prayer, the beasts of the people will not again lift up their head. [See letters of Sept. 24, 1785, and Jan. 18, 1786, to him.] The work of God still increases in Ireland, and in several parts of this kingdom. I commend you and all our brethren to Him who is able to preserve you from all evil and build you up in love; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Pawson LONDON, November 26, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you for the dear and circumstantial account you have given me of the manner wherein God wrought upon your soul. As He wrought the work both of justification and sanctification so distinctly you have the less temptation to cast away your confidence. But you cannot keep it unless you are zealous of good works. Be fruitful, therefore, in every good work, and God shall see very soon His whole image. - I am Yours affectionately. To the Rev. Mr. Pawson, At the Preaching-house, In Edinburgh. To Walter Churchey LONDON, December 6, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - If affliction drives you nearer to God, it will prove an unspeakable blessing. You are welcome to send your children to Kingswood, and to pay for them when and as it is convenient for you.--I am, with love to Sister Churchey, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Walter Churchey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To William Robarts LONDON, December 6, 1785. DEAR BILLY, - I am glad it was in my power to give you some little assistance, and should have rejoiced if I had been able to do more. [He was on the verge of bankruptcy when he owed Wesley 70. See letters of Nov. 8, 1785, and Sept. 25, 1786, to him.] Mr. Atlay will answer your demands. Your tract is the most sensible I have seen on the subject. But all the booksellers here say it will never sell; so I will deliver it to whom you please. Wishing all happiness to Sister Robarts and you, I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Winscom NEAR LONDON, December 10, 1785. DEAR MRS. WINSCOM, - When Mr. Winscom went up into the chamber with me, he told me with tears in his eyes that although he had no enmity to you, yet he did not dare to invite you to his house, because he was afraid it might be an encouragement to his other children to act as their brother had done; and who can convince him that this is a needless fear I am not able to do it. But as long as this remains I do not see how he can act otherwise than he does. I know no way you have to take but this: behave as obligingly to him as you can; never speaking against him, for whatever you say will come round to him again. Then you will gain him by little and little. - I am, dear Jenny, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Jane Winscom, At Mr. Tiller’s, In Winton. To Mary Cooke LONDON, December 14, 1785. I love to see the handwriting of my dear Miss Cooke even before I open the letter. The thinking of you gives me very sensible pleasure ever since you spoke so freely to me. There is a remedy for the evil of which you complain--unprofitable reasonings; and I do not know whether there is any other. It is the peace of God. This will not only keep your heart, your affections, and passions as a garrison keeps a city, but your mind likewise, all the workings and all the wanderings of your imagination. And this is promised: ’Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find.’ Though it seem to tarry long, True and faithful is His word. A small measure of it you have frequently found, which may encourage you to look for the fullness. But if you were to give scope to your reasonings, there would be no end: the further you went the more you would be entangled; so true it is that, to our weak apprehension, The ways of Heaven are dark and intricate, Puzzled with mazes, and perplexed with error. [The Spectator.] But that peace will silence all our hard thoughts of God and give us in patience to possess our souls. I believe, at the time that any first receive the peace of God, a degree of holy boldness is connected with it, and that all persons when they are newly justified are called to bear witness to the truth. Those who use the grace which is then freely given to them of God will not only have the continuance of it, but a large increase; for ’unto him that hath’ (that is, uses what he hath), ’shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly.’ We shall grow in boldness the more, the more we use it; and it is by the same method, added to prayer, that we are to recover anything we have lost. Do what in you lies, and He will do the rest, My best service attends Mr. L----, who I hope will be holier and happier by means of his late union. He certainly will if Mrs. L---- and he provoke one another to love and to good works. I do not despair of having the pleasure to wait on them at the Devizes. My best wishes wait likewise on Miss S----. I hope you two are one. Indeed, I am, my dear Miss Cooke, Yours in tender affection. To John McKersey and James Byron LONDON, December 14, 1785. If you do not choose to obey me, you need not: I will let you go when you please and send other preachers in your place. If you do choose to stay with me, never sing more than twice, once before and once after sermon. I have given Mr. Wride directions concerning the singers; pray assist him in seeing these directions observed. You are young; I am in pain for you. Follow his advice. He is older and wiser than you. You would do well to meet the children and the select society, though it be a cross. I will thank you if you will do all you can to strengthen Mr. Wride’s hands. Beware of strengthening any party against him. Let you three be one. Nothing will give greater satisfaction than this to Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Wride LONDON, December 14, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - Have patience with the young men, and they will mend upon your hands. But remember! soft and fair goes far. For twenty years and upwards we had good morning congregations at Norwich; but they might begin at six till Lady Day. I desire Brother Byron [See W.H.S. i. 140-5; and previous letter.] to try what he can do: better days will come. I pray let that doggerel hymn be no more sung in our chapel. [See letter of Oct. 8.] If they do not soon come to their senses at Norwich, I will remove you to Colchester Be mild! Be serious! - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Editor of the ’Gentleman’s Magazine’ CITY ROAD, December 24, 1785. MR. URBAN, - If you will insert the following in your Magazine, you will oblige your humble servant. This morning a friend sent me the Gentleman’s Magazine for last May, wherein I find another letter .concerning my eldest brother. I am obliged to Mr. Badcock for the candid manner wherein he writes, and wish to follow his pattern in considering the reasons which he urges in defense of what he wrote before. [See ’Some Remarks on Article X of Mr. Mary’s New Review for December 1784’ in Works, xiii. 408-11; and heading to letter of June 17, 1724.] 1. Mr. B. says: ’His brother cannot be ignorant that he always bore the character of Jacobite, a title to which I really believe he had no dislike.’ Most of those who gave him this title did not distinguish between a Jacobite and a Tory; whereby I mean ’one that believes God, not the people, to be the origin of all civil power.’ In this sense he was a Tory; so was my father; so am I. But I am no more a Jacobite than I am a Turk; neither was my brother. I have heard him over and over disclaim that character. 2. ’But his own daughter affirmed it.’ Very likely she might; and doubtless she thought him such. Nor is this any wonder, considering how young she was when her father died especially if she did not know the difference between a Tory and a Jacobite; which may likewise have been the case with Mr. Badcock’s friends, if not with Mr. Badcock himself. 3. Mr. W. says, ’He never published anything political.’ This is strictly true. ’He never wrote, much less published, one line against the King.’ He never published one. But I believe he did write those verses entitled ’The Regency,’ and therein, ’by obliquely exposing the Regents, exposed the King himself.’ In this my brother and I differed in our judgments. I thought exposing the King’s Ministers was one way of exposing the King himself. My brother thought otherwise; and therefore without scruple exposed Sir Robert Walpole and all other evil Ministers. Of his writing to Sir Robert I never heard before, and cannot easily believe it now. 4. From the moment that my mother heard my brother and me answer for ourselves she was ashamed of having paid any regard to the vile misrepresentations which had been made to her after our return from Georgia. [See letter of July 31, 1742.] She then fully approved both our principles and practice, and soon after removed to my house, and gladly attended all our ministrations till her spirit returned to God. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, December 29, 1785. DEAR JOSEPH, - I advise you: (1) Till March do not preach more than twice a day. (2) Never preach above three-quarters of an hour. (3) Never strain your voice. (4) For a month (at least) drink no tea: I commend you if you take to it no more. The wind is not an original disease, but a symptom of nervous weakness. (5) Warm lemonade cures any complaint in the bowels. (6) If you have a bathing-vessel, put a gallon of boiling water into the cold water. Then you might bathe thrice a week. And send me word next month how you are. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Joseph Taylor, In Aberdeen. To Mrs. Bradburn [December 31, 1785.] MY DEAR BETSY, - I write you a few lines because I think you stand in need of comfort; and I would give you all in my power, as I know you would me on a like occasion. I will tell you how to do it then: Look kindly on them that have wronged you most. Speak civilly, yea affectionately, to them; they cannot stand it long: Love melts the hardness that in rocks is bred; A flint will break upon a feather-bed. I have set my heart upon your being a happy woman and overcoming all your enemies by love; and then I shall be more than ever, my dear Betsy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Fletcher LONDON, December 31, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you for the papers. It was not needful that you should copy them over again, as they are very legibly written and I am well acquainted with your hand. I love to see it. Indeed, I love everything that belongs to you, as I have done ever since I knew you. A few more materials I have procured from Mr. Vaughan and some more from Joseph Benson. I am willing to glean up all I can before I begin putting them together. But how am I to direct to Mr. Ireland Or would your writing a line be of more weight to induce him to give me what assistance he can by the first opportunity I thank you for mentioning that mistake in the Sermon. I doubt not but you and Mr. Ireland may set me right in many other particulars wherein I have hitherto been mistaken. But it would be pity to stay till next year. Was it in London he met with the honest Jew That is a very remarkable circumstance. Do you know any particulars of his ill usage at the Custom House Where was this Custom House Tenderly commending you to Him who will make all things work together for your good, I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. From and to John Gardner REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, - A few of us are subscribing a penny a week each, which is to be’ carried on the Sabbath by one of ourselves, who read and pray with the afflicted, who, according to the rules enclosed, must be poor strangers, having no parish, or friend at hand to help them. Our benevolent plan is opposed by my class-leader; therefore we are constrained to seek your approbation before we proceed. We are very poor, and our whole stock is not yet twenty-shillings: will thank you, therefore, for any assistance you may please to afford your very humble servant, JOHN GARDNER. [This is Wesley’s reply. It marks the beginning of the Strangers’ Friend Society, which has done such service to the poor in London and elsewhere. Gardner became a doctor, and is buried in the churchyard of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch. His tomb bears the curious inscription-- Dr. John Gardner Last and Best Bedroom. 1807] HIGHBURY PLACE, December 31, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I like the design and rules of your little Society and hope you will do good to many. I will subscribe threepence per week, and will give you a guinea in advance if you call on me Saturday morning. - I am Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wride was readmitted as a preacher in 1783, and appointed to Gainsborough, where Thomas Corbet was his superintendent. Wride sent a letter to Wesley on July 3, 1784, by John Cawkwell, ’on whose information Brother Corbit accused me of preaching about sparrows going to church without being converted. Brother Cawkwell remembers his speaking about it to Brother Cotbit: but it was in a way of free conversation, not as any fault in me; much less did he think it would be made an article of accusation. If you, sir, please to be at the trouble to ask them, you will from his own mouth be informed which bears the highest place in the esteem of Brother Cawkwell, whether it be Brother Corbit or him who in sincerity subscribes himself, reverend sir, your dutiful son, Tho. Wride.’ Wride was at Epworth when he received this letter. He went to the Conference, which met on July 26 in London, and wrote to Wesley on the 23rd, forwarding ’a curiosity’ which he had received from someone, to whom it had been sent by post, and who disapproved of the proposal. There is nothing to show what it was. [2] Charles Wesley had written on August 14 to say he had been reading over again his brother’s Reasons against a Separation (printed in 1758), and his Works, and entreated him to read them again himself. Charles says: ’When once you began ordaining in America, I knew, and you knew, that your preachers here would never rest till you ordained them.’ See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, it. 394. [3] At the Conference in July, Valton had consulted Dr. Whitehead, who advised him to preach little. He says: ’But my honored and much-esteemed friend Mr. Fletcher gives me advice of another kind--namely, to follow his example, and look out for a suitable companion to nurse mo in the retreat and under the infirmities of life. That, however, must bo a subject of prayer.’ Fletcher recommended Mrs. Purnell, whom he afterwards married. Valton adds a note to Wesley’s ’I should be happier if I was married’: ’Blessed be my God that this is a mistake of my ever dear and truly venerable father.’ He wrote to her; and though she did not refuse, she would ’not consent to travel.’ When compelled to become a supernumerary about two years later, he asked her again, and they were married in Bristol. ’Our reciprocal love, I believe, increased to the last.’ She died on November 16, 1795; and Valton wrote a beautiful account of her for the Arminian Magazine, 1794, P. 141. Valton died on March 23, 1794. See Wesley’s Veterans, vt. 97, 101-4; and letter of December 24, 1784, to Thomas Taylor. [4] Wride was appointed Assistant at Norwich. In a letter from Chatham in 1786 he refers to his wife’s bereavements, and nursing her mother. ’These things, together with the usage she met with at Norwich, has exceeded her ability to bear.’ It is said in the History of Norwich Methodism, p. 27, that Wride’s eccentricities were of the most ludicrous description, both in and out of the pulpit, and there were destructive disputes in the Society. [5] On September 8 Charles replied to his brother’s letter of August 19, saying, ’That juvenile line of mine, I disown, renounce, and with shame recant. I never knew of more than one "mitred infidel," and for him I took Mr. Law’s word.’ He speaks of the present friendliness of some of the bishops, and does not dispute that John is a scriptural έπίσκοπος, ’and so is every minister who has the cure of souls.’ He says he is frightened at Dr. Coke’s rashness and his brother’s supporting him in his ambitious pursuits. [6] Winscom had bought some old ruinous buildings in that part of Winchester called Silver Hill. The chapel was erected here at a cost of 400. 50 was raised in the neighborhood. 250 was borrowed, and the interest provided by letting the old preaching-room for 12 10s. per year; other places connected with the purchase were let for 2 10s.; seat rents yielded 5 10s.; and these amounts, with a yearly collection, yielded the 12 10s. required. On November 24 Wesley opened the chapel for which he made this loan. See Journal, vii. 127; and letters of May 9, 1785, and October 23, 1786. [7] John Fletcher died at Madeley on August 14 at the age of fifty-six. His widow wrote to Wesley on the 18th. She continued to live at Madeley till her death on December 9, 1815, See Journal, vii. 106n; Moore’s Mrs. Fletcher, pp. 169-79, 410. [8] Mrs. Cooke was the widow of a prosperous clothier at Trowbridge. She had five daughters, three of whom were members of the Methodist, Society in the town. Mary, the eldest, married Adam Clarke at the parish church on April 17, 1788; and another sister married Joseph Butterworth, M.P., the law stationer, who belonged to Great Queen Street Chapel, and became the lay treasurer of the Missionary Society in 1819, in succession to Thomas Thompson, M.P. See letters of September 10, 1785, and July 2, 1786. [9] This letter was found in the Scientific Museum of Dickinson College, Pennsylvania, about 1924. It measures 6 inches by 8, and is written on both sides. It has been torn, so that the close of the second paragraph is fragmentary. The letter is given in Emory’s Defense of Our Fathers (New York, 1854), p. 121. It shows how jealous Wesley was of anything that was like to interfere with the itinerancy of his preachers, and how much he relied on religious books to continue and increase the spiritual awakening among his people. [10] Mrs. Fletcher thought she would have to leave the Vicarage; but Mr. Kenerson, the patron, wrote that she might rent it. His son became vicar; and Melville Horne, who had been one of Wesley’s preachers, and whom Fletcher wanted to be his successor, became curate. See letter of April 6, 1786. [11] Wesley wrote the sermon referred to at Norwich on October 22-4, and delivered it in London on November 6. He quoted Mrs. Fletcher’s account at great length. See Journal, vii. 121, 124; Works, vii. 431-49. For A Short Account of the Life and Death of the Rev. John Fletcher, which was published in December 1786, see Journal, vii. 211; Works, xi. 271-365; W.H.S. vi. 95; and next letter. [12] Benson had supplied Wesley with various particulars about Fletcher, and offered some suggestions as to the Life he was preparing. James Ireland replied to his request for material that he would send whatever information he could to Mrs. Fletcher, and leave her to use it as she thought best. See Tyerman’s Wesley’s Designated Successor, p. 569; and letter of December 31. [13] An interesting epitome of the work of grace in the heart, based on Wesley’s large and long experience. See his conversations with Peter Bhler in 1738 (Journal, i. 454-5). [14] This letter was published in an anonymous hostile Life of Wesley (20 pages, 1842), p. 7. The original is there said to be ’preserved as a curiosity in the Pottery Mechanics Institute Exhibition.’ Tattershall, in 1784 the Assistant at Waterford, where Desyes lived, was now at Derby; in which circuit Ward had been the previous year, but had now retired. See letters of July 16, 1785 (to Arthur Keene), and August 2, 1788 (to Mrs. Ward). [15] James Stuart who began to travel in 1792, was perhaps a brother. [16] This letter bears the Government frank on the back, and is dated. ’Mrs. Winscom was a poetess residing in Bristol in that period.’ Wesley was at Winchester on November 24, when he probably had the conversation with Jasper Winscom. On October 13, 1783, he had interceded with her husband’s father, but with little effect. [17] McKersey and Byron were Wride’s colleagues at Norwich. See next letter and that of November 17. [18] Joseph Taylor had been ordained for the work in Scotland. See letter of August 19, and Journal, vii. 101. [19] There is no date or address to this letter. Mrs. Bradburn was ill and died on February 28, 1786. She was buried at the Temple Church, Bristol. She was an old friend of Wesley’s, who did much to meet the opposition to her marriage; and this letter may have been sent to her. [20] Vaughan was an Excise officer whom Fletcher met at Atcham, where he preached his first sermon. He took to Lord Dartmouth Fletcher’s political pamphlet referred to in the letter of December 24, 1775. The Custom House was in London, and there Fletcher met the honest Jew. See Wesley’s Designated Successor, p. 353; and for Wesley’s treatment by a Government official, letter of November 14, 1790. Wesley said in the sermon that Fletcher came to England to be tutor to Thomas Hill’s sons. In the Life he states that he had been in England eighteen months when he was recommended by Mr. Dechamps to Mr. Hill. See Works, xi. 28o-x; and letters of October 22 and 30 to Joseph Benson. [21] In December 1785 Wesley received the following letter from John Gardner, 14 Long Lane, Smithfield: ======================================================================== CHAPTER 87: 85. 1786 ======================================================================== 1786 A DELIGHTFUL OLD AGE JANUARY 2, 1786, To DECEMBER 27, 1787 To Rev. Mr. Root LONDON, January 2, 1786. DEAR SIR, - I am glad you are connected with so good a man as Dr. Stonhouse and that you do not want employment. But I am not at all of your mind that you will be useless therein, although you do not immediately see the fruit of your labor. I could send you a clergyman directly, but I won’t, because he is a dead man. But I have another in my eye whom I will send to immediately to know if he is willing to accept the offer. [Peard Dickinson.] If I can get time in going to or returning from Bristol, I will call upon you at Cheverell. Peace be with your spirits! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev, Mr. Root, At Great Cheverell, Near the Devizes. To Joshua Keighley LONDON, January 8, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Poor James seems to have lost al] conscience. You may speak of him in the congregation pro. vided you do not name his name. But I think he will soon have spent his fire. Go you calmly and steadily on your way. Brother Hoskins is a good man and not a bad preacher. He may change with Brother Warrener for a month or two. - I am, dear Joshua, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Keighley, At the Preaching-house, In Carmarthen. To Mrs. Fletcher LONDON, January 13, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER, - When I receive letters from other persons, I let them lie perhaps a week or two before I answer them; but it is otherwise when I hear from you. I then think much of losing a day, for fear I should give a moment’s pain to one of the most faithful friends I have in the world. The circumstance you add respecting the behavior of those Custom House officers is very well worth relating. Oh, what pity that it was not then made known to their superiors, that those inhospitable wretches might have been prevented from misusing other strangers! I think your advice is exactly right. With the materials I have already, or can procure in England, I will write and publish as soon as I conveniently can. - I am, my very dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Mrs. Fletcher, At Madeley, Near Shifnal, Salop. To Samuel Mitchell LONDON, January 24, 1786. DEAR SAMMY, - George Dice desired to be heard face to face with his accusers. I ordered it should be done; but are all the people out of their senses Why does not either he or someone else send me an account of the issue You say, ’The strength of my colleague and brother is almost exhausted.’ What wonder, if you continue the service four hours! A mere trick of the devil’s to make you murder yourselves. Keep sacredly to the Methodist rules. Conclude the service in an hour. Then your strength will not be exhausted, and then you will have leisure to write down from time to time all the remarkable particulars of the work of God. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Sam. Mitchell, of Maguiresbridge, Near Lisnaskea, Ireland. To Robert Cart Brackenbury LONDON, January 28, 1786. DEAR SIR, - We have great reason to praise God for giving you so open a door in Guernsey: this was, indeed, more than could have been expected, as undoubtedly the father of lies had taken care to send that virulent pamphlet before you. If John Wills continues alive to God, I make no question but he will be useful there. I am in great hopes that the labors of Dr. Coke (though his time is short) will be attended with a blessing. As long as we insist on the marrow bf religion, Christ reigning in the heart, He will certainly prosper our labors, to His care I commit you; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. R. C. Brackenbury, Esq., St. Helyar’s, Isle of Jersey. Forwd by yr Hble Servt, 5d. T. Dunn. To Adam Clarke LONDON, February 3, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER,-You do well in insisting upon full and present salvation, whether men will hear or forbear; as also in preaching abroad, when the weather permits, and recommending fasting, both by precept and example. But you need not wonder that all these are opposed not only by formalists but by half Methodists. [Clarke was second preacher at Plymouth.] You should not forget French [See letter of Feb. 21.] or anything you have learned. I do not know whether I have read the book you speak of; you may send your translation at your leisure. Be all in earnest, and you shall see greater things than these. - I am, my dear Adam, Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn LONDON, February 14, 1786. DEAR SAMMY,-It is well we know that trouble springeth not out of the dust, but that the Lord reigneth. But still, even when we can say, ’It is the Lord,’ it is hard to add, ’Let Him do what seemeth Him good.’ I remember formerly, when I read these words in the church at Savannah, ’Son of man, behold, I take from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke.’ [See letters of Dec. 23, 1782, and Feb. 12, 1789.] I was pierced through as with a sword, and could not utter a word more. But our comfort is, He that made the heart can heal the heart. Your help stands in Him alone. He will command all these things to work together for good. To His tender care I commend you; and am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Adam Clarke LONDON, February 21, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I like the extract from Mr. Bridaine’s Sermon well. Probably it may have a place in the Magazine. It is well you have broken into Stonhouse. Now enlarge your borders while I am with you. Probably you will have rougher weather when I am gone. You may come to the Conference. You and your fellow laborers should spend some time in consulting together how you may enlarge your borders. This mild weather is almost as good as summer; I preached abroad last Monday. Oh let us snatch every means of redeeming the time! Eternity is at hand! - I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate brother. In a few days I shall set out for Bristol. To Mr. Adam Clarke, At Mr. Walters, In Plymouth Dock. To J. Dobson WEST STREET, February 21, 1786. My DEAR BROTHER, - If you do not choose to act as steward for our School any longer, give the money which remains in your hands to George Whitfield, who will take the labor upon himself. If you do choose it, pay Sister Mitcham her week’s salary, - I am Your affectionate brother. To John Ogilvie LONDON, February 21, 1786. My DEAR BROTHER, - You see God orders all things well. You have reason to thank Him both for your sickness and your recovery. [He had been ill soon after his appointment to the Isle of Man, but was now recovered.] But whether sick or in health, if you keep in His way you are to prepare your soul for temptations. For how shall we conquer if we do not fight Go on, then, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. Fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life! Salvation is nigh ! Seek, desire nothing else! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Taylor LONDON, February 21, 1786. DEAR TOMMY, - Mr. Madan was the person who informed me that adding new stamps is sufficient. Probably other lawyers would deny this. Why To make work for themselves. ’Why can’t these gentlemen,’ said wise Bishop Gibson, [The Bishop of London. See letters of June 11, 1747, and June 14, 1786.] ’leave the Church Then they could do no more harm.’ Read ’no more good,’ I believe, if we had then left the Church, we should not have done a tenth of the good which we have done. But I do not insist upon this head. I go calmly and quietly on my way, doing what I conceive to be the will of God. I do not, will not concern myself with what will be done when I am dead. I take no thought about that. If I did, I should probably shut myself up at Kingswood or Newcastle and leave you all to yourselves. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peter Walker LONDON, February 21, 1786. DEAR PETER, - Our Lord saw it good to humble you first, and then in due time to lift up your head. But the increase of His work which you have hitherto seen you may look upon as only the promise of a shower. If you and your fellow laborers are zealous for God, you will see greater things than these. Only exhort all that have believed to go on to perfection, and everywhere insist upon both justification and full sanctification as receivable now by simple faith. - I am, dear Peter, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Peter Walker, At the Preaching-house, In St. Ives, Cornwall. To Mrs. Middleton LONDON, February 21, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER, - If it please God to continue my health and strength, I hope to be at Yarm about the 10th of May and the next day at Darlington. But I shall be obliged to make the best of my way from thence via North of Scotland. I have now so many places to visit that the summer hardly gives me time for my work. How differently does it please Him, who orders all things well, to dispose the lot of his children! I am called to work: you are called to suffer. And if both these paths lead to the same parish, it is enough; only let us take heed that we lose not the things which we have gained, but that we insure a full reward. To be under the same roof with you, whether in a palace or a cottage, will be a pleasure to, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Moon LONDON, February 22, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER, - I expect (if it pleases God to continue my health and strength) to be at York from the 4th to the 8th; of May. On Monday the 8th I shall probably be at Thirsk, and the next day (Tuesday) at Potto and Hutton. [See Journal, vii. 159-60.] My business is continually increasing, [See letter of Feb. 25.] so that I am obliged to hasten along. It is a satisfaction to me to think of our meeting once more on earth, for I sincerely love you; and am glad you have not forgotten, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Emma Moon, At Potto, Near Yarm, Yorkshire. To Mary Cooke LONDON, February 23, 1786. By your manner of writing you make me even more desirous of seeing my dear friend than I was before. I hope to have that pleasure next week. On Tuesday evening I expect to be at Bath (probably I shall preach about six o’clock), and on Wednesday noon at Trowbridge. And remember what I told you before! You are not to have a jot of reserve about you. I have frequently observed the passage to which you refer in the 3rd chapter to the Romans; and I have always thought there is no manner of difference between by faith and through faith. So that I still believe the meaning is, It is one God who will show mercy to both, and by the very same means. I shall be glad if it should be in my power to do any service to Miss Martins. If it was convenient for you to be at Bath on Tuesday, I could take you with me to Trowbridge on Wednesday. Peace be with all your spirits. Adieu! To Elizabeth Ritchis LONDON, February 24, 1786. MY DEAR BETSY,-It is doubtless the will of the Lord we should be guided by our reason so far as it can go. But in many cases it gives us very little light and in others none at all. In all cases it cannot guide us right but in subordination to the unction of the Holy One. So that in all our ways we are to acknowledge Him, and He will direct our paths. I do not remember to have heard or read anything like my own experience. Almost ever since I can remember I have been led in a peculiar way. I go on in an even line, being very little raised at one time or depressed at another. Count Zinzendorf observes there are three different ways wherein it pleases God to lead His people: some are guided almost in every instance by apposite texts of Scripture; others see a clear and plain reason for everything they are to do; and yet others are led not so much by Scripture or reason as by particular impressions. I am very rarely led by impressions, but generally by reason and by Scripture. I see abundantly more than I feel. I want to feel more love and zeal for God. My very dear friend, adieu! To William Sagar BRISTOL, February 25, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I expect to be at Manchester on Wednesday, April 5; at Chester, Monday, 10th; at Liverpool, Wednesday, 12th; at Warrington, Saturday, 15th; at Preston, Monday, 17th; at Blackburn, Tuesday, 18th; Wednesday, 19th, at Padiham; Burnley, 12 [o’clock], Colne 6 [o’clock]: so as to lodge with you on Thursday, 2oth. I am to be in the evening at Keighley. I am obliged to make haste. [See letter of Feb. 22 to Mrs. Moon.] Concerning building and other matters, I hope we shall have time to talk when we meet. [ Sager was the principal means in building the chapel at Burnley. See letter of March 12, 1780.] - I am Your affectionate brother. If you know how to mend my plan, send me word Manchester. To John Stretton LONDON, February 26, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It pleases God that my health and strength are just the same now that they were forty years ago. But there is a difference in one point: I was then frequently weary, my body sunk under my work; whereas now, from on week or month to another, I do not know what weariness means. By removing such instruments as Arthur Thorney [Arthur Thorney, or Thomey, appears to have fallen a victim to hardship and persecution.] and Mr. Fletcher, our Lord puts us in mind of what we are eve prone to forget - that the help which is done upon earth He doeth it Himself, and that He has no need of man. The pillars fall, yet the building stands. Why The hand of the Most High supports it. ’If an angel,’ says one, ’could be sent down from heaven, and were to dwell in a body threescore years, and in that time converted but one immortal soul, it would be worth all his labor.’ But you have now seen more than one sinner converted to God. Probably the number now is not small Of those who are translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Go on, my brother! Be your present success more or less, be not weary! In due time you shall reap if you faint not! I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Stretton, Harbor Grace, Newfoundland. To Charles Atmore BRISTOL, March 3, 1786. DEAR CHARLES, - Mr. Sagar, I doubt not, has shown you before this what places I propose visiting in the Colne Circuit. [See letter of Feb. 25.] If you think it best that any alteration should be made, you may send me word in time. I expect to be at Birmingham on Saturday, the 25th instant, and the day after at Manchester. I will administer the Lord’s Supper wherever you see good. O be zealous, especially in enforcing Christian perfection! - I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Atmore, At the Preaching-house, In Colne, Lancashire. To Samuel Bardsley BRISTOL, March 4, 1786. DEAR SAMMY, - I am glad to hear that God has been pleased to enlarge His work in Scarborough, where I hope to be (on my return from Scotland) about the 14th of June. How the circuits may be more advantageously [divided] is proper to be considered at the Conference. [Pocklington Circuit was formed in 1786. See letter of Feb. 23, 1785.] The alteration which has been made in America and Scotland [The ordinations of 1784.] has nothing to do with our kingdom. I believe I shall not separate from the Church of England till my soul separates from my body. The Life of Mr. John Fox [The Life of John Foxe the Martyrologist, bearing his son’s name, was prefixed to the 1641 edition of Acts and Monuments.] is really remarkable. I do not know but it may be worth while to republish it. If Mr. Fletcher [See letter of Sept. 15, 1785.] had traveled like you or me, I believe he would have lived these twenty years. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Bardsley, At Capt. Robinson’s, In Bridlington Quay, Yorkshire. To Mrs. Bowman BRISTOL, March 4, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER, - I write freely to you because I love you. While you are providentially called to this confinement, it will be sanctified to you, and will prove a greater blessing than it would prove if you had more liberty. In this case private exercises will supply the want of public; so that you will see our Lord does all things for your profit, that you may be a partaker of His holiness. You have only one thing to do - leaving the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, go on to perfection. Expect continually the end of your faith, the full salvation of your soul. You know, whenever it is given, it is to be received only by naked faith. Therefore who knows but you may receive it now The Lord is nigh at hand, my dear Hannah. Trust Him and praise Him! - I am Yours affectionately. To Dr. Coke BRISTOL, March 12, 1786. DEAR SIR, - I greatly approve of your proposal for raising a subscription in order to send missionaries to the Highlands of Scotland, the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey, the Leeward Islands, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. It is not easy to conceive the extreme want there is, in all these places of men that will not count their lives dear unto themselves, so they may testify the gospel of the grace of God. - I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Tattershall March 20, 1786. DEAR TOMMY, - I expect to be at Macclesfield, April 1; Manchester, Wednesday, 4; Warrington, Saturday, 15; Halifax, Monday, 24; York, Thursday, May 4; Newcastle, Friday, 12; at Newcastle again June 3; at Nottingham, Saturday, July 8. Then I am to visit Derby, Hinckley, and Birmingham. I allow two nights for Derby. Dispose of them in the manner you think best. But I am apt to imagine it would be most advisable to preach at Belper about noon. [Tattershall was Assistant at Derby. See Journal, vii. 185, for the arrangement as to Belper made without Wesley’s knowledge.] But is it not best to take Derby in my way from Sheffield to Nottingham - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. PS.-Blessed is the man that endureth temptation. To his Brother Charles MANCHESTER, April 6, 1785. DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad you are again able to officiate at the chapels. Let us ’ anage wisely the last stake.’ [See letter of June 27, 1755.] For some years John Davis was a mere mule; he would neither lead nor drive. But it is enough that he finished his course well; and we are sure Nancy Sharland did so. [See letter of Nov. 15, 1780.] Sammy Bradburn thought of going further with me. But the frost and snow drove him back. I believe the loss of his wife will be one of the greatest blessings which he has ever met with in his life. [On March 13 he had taken Bradburn to travel with him. On the 2ist at Gloucester he proposed marriage to Sophia Cooke (who suggested to Raikes his Sunday-School efforts), and they were married on Aug. 10. See letters of Feb. 14 and June 20.] Mrs. Fletcher will not be in haste to remove from Madeley, though her light is there almost hid under a bushel. Mr. Ireland will give me no help with regard to writing Mr. Fletcher’s Life, ’because he intends to publish it himself!’ [He was at Madeley on March 26. See letters of Oct. 2 and Dec. 31, 1785.] Let him do it, and I will follow him. Where is your elegy [See letter of Dec. 9 to Mrs. Fletcher.] You may say as my father in his verses on Mr. Nelson [Robert Nelson, the Nonjuror, who did much to promote schools and parochial libraries. See letter of June 13, 1733, n.] Let friendship’s sacred name excuse The last effort of an expiring muse. Can you or I ever have such another subject Melville Horne hopes to be ordained on Trinity Sunday. Indeed, I love the Church as sincerely as ever I did; and I tell our Societies everywhere, ’The Methodists will not leave the Church, at least while I live.’ I doubt I shall not half agree with our friends in Scotland; but I shall know more and you will hear more when I see them. While I live Dr. Coke and I shall go through Ireland by turns. He will have work enough this year with gentle Edward Smyth. [Smyth opened Bethesda Chapel, Dublin, on June 25.] I doubt Edward ’needs a bridle’; but who can put the bit into his mouth I am not sorry your concerts are come to an end. [The concerts given by his sons in their father’s house; Wesley attended one on Jan. 25, 1781. Samuel had become a Roman Catholic; his father’s dream probably had been on this subject, and the text points to Wesley’s hope of a coming restoration. See Journal, vi. 303; and letters of Aug. 19, 1784, and March 18, 1788, to his nephew.] Remember ’your dream concerning Sammy! ’The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth!’ Mr. Pennant’s I know, and Dr. Johnson’s I know; but I know nothing of Mr. Boswell’s Tour to the Hebrides. [Boswell’s Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides was published in 1786.] I should imagine it was worth reading. Peace be with all your spirits! Adieu! To Hannah Ball LIVERPOOL, April 13, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad to hear that your Society prospers and that the work of God continues to increase in the town. It always will if prayer-meetings are kept up (without interfering with the classes and bands). These have been and still are attended with a blessing in every part of England. And Sister Coussins, [Jonathan Coussins was now Assistant in Oxfordshire.] joining heart and hand with you, may greatly forward the work of God. See that there never be any shyness or coldness between you, Still provoke one another to love and to good works. But I am sorry that you do not love me. You did once, or I am much mistaken. But if you did so still, you would not barely tell me, and that in general terms only, that you had been in distress, but you would have enlarged upon it and told me all the particulars. [Miss Ball’s journal shows that she was passing through much anxiety and spiritual struggle at this time. See Memoir, p. 156.] What! Do you think I do not care for you that my love to my dear friend is grown cold! Nay; surely I am as much interested in your happiness now as I was ten years ago. Therefore use as a friend, my dear sister, Yours as ever. My kind love to Nancy. [Her sister Ann. See letter of Aug. 14, 1771.] To Lancelot Harrison BLACKBURN, April 17, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - When I return out of Scotland, I shall be able to fix my journey through Lincolnshire, of which you will have notice time enough. You may be at the Conference. I would be glad if you would take as particular an account as you possibly can of the disturbances at Brother Wilson’s house from the beginning till now. When these accounts are sufficiently attested, they may be of great use. I expect to be at York from May the 4th to the 8th. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Lancelot Harrison, At Mr. Robert Green’s, In Louth, Lincolnshire. To his Brother Charles KEIGHLEY, April 18, 1786. DEAR BROTHER, - My fever lasted hardly three days, and then went away in a violent fit of the cramp. [He was ill after reaching Manchester on Friday afternoon, April 7, and slept much; on Monday he was able to resume his work. See Journal, vii. 154d.] So did a fever I had a year ago. Eight or ten preachers, it is probable (but I have not reel with one yet), will say something about leaving the Church before the Conference ends. It is not unlikely many will be driven out of it where there are Calvinist ministers. The last time I was at Scarborough I earnestly exhorted our people to go to church; and I went myself. But the wretched minister preached such a sermon that I could not in conscience advise them to hear him any more. They will ordain no one without my full and free consent. It is not true that they have done it already. As to the Scots, I have no hopes of winning them by fair means. If I see Scotland again, I shall fight with a flail. The work of God goes on gloriously in many places, and most of the preachers are much devoted to God. Peace be with you and yours! To Thomas Carlill NEAR BIRSTALL, April 30, 1786. DEAR TOMMY, - (1) Where will you get five hundred pounds (2) I like the Gainsborough proposal well. (3) We are not a little obliged to Mrs. Fisher; but advise her that she may not build a [fine] house. Epworth House is the prettiest I remember in Lincolnshire. If I live till June I hope to see both Gainsborough and Epworth.-I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Thomas Carlill, At Gainsborough. To his Brother Charles LEEDS, May 3, 1786. DEAR BROTHER, - If there be a man in England who understands Mrs. Horton’s case, it is Dr. Wilson. I advise John Horton to find him out if he be above ground. [Mary, daughter of Henry Durbin, a chemist in Bedminster and a Bristol preacher, whom Wesley married to John Horton, of Highbury Place, London, on Sept. 21, 1780. Her husband was a merchant and on the Common Council. He was one of the executors of Wesley’s Will. Mrs. Horton died on May 26, 1786, at the age of thirty-four. Charles Wesley wrote a long poem on his friend: And through a blameless life expressed The tempers of the Lamb. See Journal, vii. 295; C. Wesley’s Journal, if. 412-18; letter of May 18, 1786; and for Dr. Andrew Wilson, Oct. 13, 1770, to Lowes.] I do not know that anyone opens your letters. They come to me with the seal unbroken. As you observe, one may leave a church (which I would advise in some cases) without leaving the Church. Here we may remain in spite of all wicked or Calvinistical ministers. [See letter of April 18.] Commonly, when I am in London, I am so taken up, that I cannot often spare time to go three miles backward and forward. That was the πρώτον ψεύδος, [’The first false step.’ Charles lived in Marylebone, where Mrs. Gumley had given him the lease of her house in Chesterfield Street. See letter of May 18.] the getting you an house so far from me as well as hr from both the chapels. I cannot help it if people have no docity. Seven guineas Patty has had from me within this month, besides ten or eleven which she has worried me to give Nancy Jervas this winter. [Mrs. Hall had a small income of her own, but was a good deal dependent on her brother. See Stevenson’s Wesley Family, pp. 380-1.] It is a bad dog that is not worth whistling for. In the times I have been at Bedford, Mr. Barham [Charles Wesley mentions Mr. Barham in a letter to his son Charles from Bristol in 1782. See his Journal, ii. 273.] never owned me, much less invited me to his house. I do not know him if I meet him. Perhaps he loves me - at a distance. Peace be with you and yours! Pray tell Brother Horton and Kemp [Richard Kemp, one of the original trustees of City Road Chapel, had a large business as a framework-knitter in Whitecross Street. He died on Sept. 4, 1787, aged sixty-six. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 530.] I have had two letters from Mrs. Holmes (Mr. Holmes’s widow) informing me that John Price has been for some time quite sober and very diligent in attending the school. In consequence of which she pleads hard for payment of his salary. My route is: Monday, 8, Thirsk; Wednesday, 10, Barnard Castle; Saturday, 13, and Wednesday, 17, Edinburgh; and Wednesday, 31, Tuesday, 23, Aberdeen. Adieu. To the Earl of Leven RICHMOND, May 9,1786. MY LORD, If it be convenient, I purpose to wait upon upon [sic] your Lordship at Melville House about two in the afternoon on Friday on the 22nd .instant. Wishing all happiness to your Lordship and all your good family. - I am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s obedient servant. To Mrs. Brisco () RICHMOND, May 10, 1786. DEAR SISTER, - The work of God is, I am afraid, much hindered in Thirsk by the misunderstanding between Mr. Oastler and Mr. Taylor. If it be possible, an end should be put to this. They should in any wise meet and compromise matters. That things should stand as they are is a scandal to religion. I have known you for many years. You love to do good. Forward this reconciliation, and you will oblige many, as well as, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To James Copeland GLASGOW, May 14, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - There is no reasonable doubt you had at the time you mention a real blessing from God. I make no question but He did then give you a taste of His pardoning love; but you was not then thoroughly convinced of inbred sin - of the sin of your nature. God is now convincing you of this in order to give you a clean heart; and Satan strives hereby to drive you to despair. But regard him not. Look unto Jesus; dare to believe I On Christ lay hold! Wrestle with Christ in mighty prayer. Yea, A sigh will reach His heart; a look Will bring Him down from heaven. He is at hand! - I am Your affectionate brother. To his Brother Charles NEAR EDINBURGH, May 18, 1786. DEAR BROTHER, - So Sister Horton is in peace. This may be a blessed visitation for Mr. Horton. Perhaps it will prove in the event one of the greatest blessings which he ever receive in his life. I hope you have wrote to Mr. Durbin. Alas what do riches avail him! [See letter of May 3.] Certainly Providence permitted injudicious men to you three miles from me, who should rather have been always at my elbow. [See letter of May 3.] I doubt whether there be not an anachronism in the of John Price i; whether they do not now impute to him what was done long ago. My Journal should have been sent several days since but Joseph Bradford trusted another person to transcribe it. [The portion ready for the printer. The 1779-82 extract was dated end ’Newington, Jan. 19, 1786.’] This Society flourishes much. I hope to be here again the 31st instant. Peace be with you all! Adieu. To Lancelot Harrison NEWCASTLE, June 4, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I hope to be at Epworth on Wednesday, the 21st instant, at Grimsby on Thursday the 22d, at Horncastle on Friday 23d, and at Gainsborough on Saturda the 24th. You will take care that timely notice be given every place. Strongly and explicitly exhort all the believers to go on perfection: then their soul will live. - I am, with love to Sister Harrison, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Kitty Warren SUNDERLAND, June 8, 1785. MY DEAR SISTER, - I am glad our brethren are aware, that bold, bad man who has bid adieu both to conscience and shame. Their wisdom is now not to think of him or talk of him at all. I am afraid he would turn Calvinist, Turk, or anything for food and idleness. Mr. Valton has not been able to preach in two years so much as he used to do in eight or ten months. Every year I have many applications for the continuance of profitable preachers more than two years in a circuit. I have had several such within these two or three months: as well as the continence of two preachers in the same circuit. But I dare not comply. I advise Mr. Cole [The second preacher in the Pembroke Circuit. He remained there Assistant at the next Conference.] to instruct the next preachers thoroughly in the nature of the case, and to encourage them to persist in the whole Methodist discipline. I hope you are not weary of well-doing, and that you will never bury your talent in the earth. Your labor has not been in vain, [See letter of July 31, 1782.] and in due time you will reap if you faint not. It is always a pleasure to me to see you, and I love to converse with you. But sometimes it has been a concern to me that I could see you so seldom. There is something in your spirit that is exceedingly agreeable to me. I find in you sprightliness and sweetness joined together. May you be filled, my dear Kitty, with the whole fruit of the Spirit! This is the constant wish of Yours most affectionately. To Henry Brooke WHITBY, June 14, 1786. DEAR HARRY, - I will give you an answer to your heart’s content. In the year 1729 four young gentlemen joined together at Oxford, all zealous members of the Church of England, and all determined to be Bible Christians. In six years they increased to sixteen, and were exactly of the same mind still. In 1738, only two of these were left together; but a few more joined them, who continually increased till some hundreds were joined together. But they still constantly attended the Church; only if any Dissenter desired to unite with them they had no objection to his attending that worship to which he had been accustomed. But in 1740 Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of London, said, ’Cannot Messrs, Wesleys leave the Church Then they could do no more harm.’ This we well understood. It meant,’ They could do no more good; for not one in ten of their present hearers would hear them.’ [See letter of Feb. 21 to Thomas Taylor.] But, whether they would or no, we would not leave it; our conscience would not permit. In 1743, the Rules of our Society were published; one of which was, ’to attend the Church and Sacrament.’ This all our members (except Dissenters) were required to do, or they could not remain with us. In 1744, at our first Conference, we considered ourselves (Methodist preachers), as extraordinary messengers whom God had raised up to provoke to jealousy the ordinary messengers, the clergy; to preach the gospel to the poor, and to call all men of every denomination to worship Him in spirit and in truth. But it did not once come into our mind to separate from the Church or form ourselves into a distinct party. And herein was a new phenomenon in the earth, a thing never seen before - a body of men highly favored of God, who yet chose to abide in their own religious community, and not to separate themselves, from this very motive, that they might be servants of all. But it was not easy to keep to this resolution. For those among us who had been Dissenters were frequently urging those words, ’Come out from among them, and be ye separate.’ And many of the clergy strengthened their hands either by their railing and lying accusations or by their wicked lives or false doctrines; whereby many were hardened in sin, and many who began to run well returned as a dog to his vomit. These objections were so frequently and strongly urged, that in the year 1758 it was fully considered in the Leeds Conference’ whether we should separate from the Church or no.’ After weighing the whole matter calmly, we determined upon the negative. Mr. Ingham, being present, commended our determination in very strong terms; concluding whenever the Methodists leave the Church God will leave them. [See letter of Aug. 19, 1785.] To prevent it we all agreed (1) to exhort all our people constantly to attend the church and sacrament; and (2), still to preach on Sundays, morning and evening, not in the church hours. Indeed, by taking the contrary steps, by exhorting our people not to go to Church, or (which came to the same thing) by appointing to preach in the church hours, we should separate from it at once. Last year the case of our brethren in North America was considered, wholly cut off both from the English Church and State. In so peculiar a case I believed it my duty to take an extraordinary step in order to send them all the help I could. [See letter of Sept. 10, 1784.] And I bless God it has had an admirable effect. ’But why,’ say some, ’should not you take the same step here ’Because it is not the same case. They separate from nobody. They had no Church! alas! no King! We have both. ’Well, but weigh their reasons. Should we go to church to hear ourselves abused, by railing, yea and lying accusations ’What said that blessed man Philip Henry, [See letter of Oct. 18, 1778.] when his friend said (after hearing such a sermon), ’I hope, sir, you will not go to church any more’ ’Indeed, I will go in the afternoon; if the minister does not know his duty, I bless God I know mine.’ We are members of the Church of England, we are no particular sect or party, we are friends to all, we quarrel with none for their opinions or mode of worship, we love those of the Church wherein we were brought up, but we impose them upon none; in some unessential circumstances we vary a little from the usual modes of worship, and we have several little prudential helps peculiar to ourselves; but still we do not, will not, dare not separate from the Church till we see other reasons than we have seen yet. Till then I say with St. Austin (only taking the word ’Heretic’ in the scriptural sense, which has nothing to do with opinions), Errare possum, hreticus esse nolo.-I am, dear Harry, Yours very affectionately. To Jasper Winscom EPWORTH, June 17, 1786. DEAR JASPER, - I am afraid your attorney at the Assizes was greatly wanting either in skill or honesty. Otherwise why did he not move the court for costs of suit. These ought to be borne by those that are cast in any trial. As to commencing another prosecution, I know not what to say. I can neither advise one way nor the other. [See letters of May 9, 1785, and Sept. 30, 1788.] --I am Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn CROWLE, June 20, 1786. DEAR SAMMY, - As soon as I saw you and Sophy Cooke together at Gloucester it came into my mind at once, There is a wife for Bradburn (though I did not tell anybody). [See next letter.] I was therefore nothing surprised the other day when I received hers and your letters, and I am inclined to think London will be the best place both for you and her. It will be safer for you to visit Gloucester now and then than it would be to reside there. As to your children, two of them may be kept abroad, as they are now; and I imagine that, as our family is not very large, Sophy would very well supply the place of an housekeeper. But this should be a time of much prayer to you both. - I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Sophia Cooke CROWLE, June 20, 1786. Surely you never can have need to use any ceremony with me. You may think aloud and tell me all that is in your heart. As soon as ever I saw Mr. Bradburn and you together I believed you would be more nearly united. His former wife never wanted anything; neither need any of our preachers’ wives. They neither want nor abound. They have all things needful for life and godliness. But I am not a fair judge. I am partial. I long so much to have you under my own roof that I cannot divest myself of prejudice in the matter. I can only say,’ Give yourself to prayer; and then act, in the name and in the fear of God, as you are fully persuaded in your own mind.’ - I am Yours affectionately. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Sir James Stonhouse, M.D., founded the county hospital at Northampton. He took Orders in 1749, but continued his medical practice. He became Rector of Little Cheverell in 1764, with Great Cheverell in 1779. He lived in Bristol; and succeeded to the baronetcy in 1792. See W.H.S., vii. 45-6; and letter of February 14, 1787, to Rev. Mr. Cursham. [2] Joshua Keighley was born at Halifax, became an itinerant in 1780, and was now Assistant at Pembroke, with William Hoskins as his colleague. William Warrener, then at Brecon, spent eleven years ministering to the negro slaves in the West Indies, and died in 1825. Wesley ordained Keighley in 1786, and sent him to Inverness. He was appointed to Edinburgh in 1787; and gave the sacrament at Elginton, July 29, of which a friend writes, ’Such another day my eyes never saw nor my heart ever felt before.’ Keighley became ill the same evening and died of fever there on August 10. He was to have been married the next month. The brief obituary in the Minutes for 1788 describes him as ’a young man deeply devoted to God and greatly beloved by all that knew him.’ See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 227; and letter of February 19, 1787. [3] Fletcher and other young gentlemen, who could none of them speak English, were ’treated with the utmost surliness and ill-manners by some brutish Custom House officers,’ who jumbled all the things in their portmanteaus and took away their letters of recommendation. See Wesley’s Life of Fletcher in Works, xi. 280. [4] Samuel Mitchell was in the Enniskillen Circuit. George Dice, who was at Sligo, was converted at Old Cleens about 1771, and became art itinerant in 1780. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 251-2; and letter of February 19, 1788. [5] Dr. Coke had spent the first two weeks of the year in Jersey, and had also organized the work recently begun in Guernsey, to which John de Queteville was now appointed and arrived in Guernsey on February 18. Coke writes on the fly-leaf to say that he hopes to be at St. Helier on the 21st. See letter of November 24, 1785. [6] Bradburn wrote on January 12 that his wife was not able to stand alone and that he looked for her departure every hour. She died on February 1. He says: ’Despair and killing anguish have drunk up my spirits and nearly consumed my body.’ He met Wesley at Bath on the 28th, and went with him to Trowbridge and Bristol. Wesley got Bradbum to help him in meeting the classes and took him with him when he left, ’as I judged a change of place and of objects would be a means of calming his mind, deeply affected with the loss of a beloved wife.’ See Journal, vii. 145; Bradburn’s Memoirs, pp. 101-2; and letter of April 6. [7] Clarke had been keeping up his French, and was thus being prepared for his appointment to the Channel Islands in October. Jacques Bridaine, or Brydane (1701-57), was a famous preacher whose sermons made a deep impression in Paris in 1744. See letter of February 3. [8] Wesley preached for the Charity School on November 12, 1786. Silas Told had been master of the Foundcry School; and after City Road Chapel was opened, a house was taken behind it for a school at 27 Providence Row. Wesley dined with Dobson several times. See Journal, vii. 222; Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, pp. 41, 88, 333; and for Dobson, Journal Index. [9] Mrs. Middleton’s granddaughter, Charlene Middleton, married Joseph Pechey, Wesleyan minister, 1838-57. See Journal, viii. 72d; and letter of January 18, 1788, to William Simpson. [10] Miss Ritchie observes in her diary in March: ’While asking direction from above respecting my providential course, that often-applied word was given me, "I will guide thee by Mine eye." . . . Thus will I watch my Lord’s eye. His providence shall point out my way, and His Spirit guide me, according to that sacred rule, His Holy Word.’ See Bulmer’s Memoirs, pp. 101-2. [11] This letter was evidently sent to John Stretton. On it Dr. Cc :e has written saying he hopes to arrive at Nova Scotia near the end of September. At the back appears, ’A gift from Widow Stretton to N. Barr, being the handwriting of Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke, February 27, 1818. The Rev. Ninian Barr (1816-55), the grandfather of the Rev. A. W. Barr, spent some years in Newfoundland. See letter of February 25, 1785, to Stretton. [12] Hannah Bowman, of Melbourne, Derbyshire, was an earnest class-leader. ’In her family she met with many difficulties; nevertheless in the midst of them all she continued to act with strict propriety, meekness, patience, and real affection.’ She died in May 1800. See Methodist Magazine, 1801, pp. 205-7; and letter of March 14, 1789. [13] Coke had been in communication with Charles Grant, of the East India Company, as to a mission to the East Indies; but the plan had to be delayed owing to the ’present extraordinary calls from America.’ In March he issued ’An Address to the Pious and Benevolent, pro-prosing an annual subscription for the support of Missionaries in the Highlands and adjacent Islands of Scotland, the isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and Newfoundland, the West Indies, and the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec’; to which was prefixed this letter by Wesley. [14] Harrison was third preacher in the Grimshy Circuit. It seems as though some disturbances like those at Epworth had been troubling Mr. Wilson’s family. Wesley preached at Louth on June 22: ’I never saw this people affected before.’ [15] On July 27 the Conference at Bristol ’weighed what was said about separating from the Church. But we all determined to continue therein, without one dissenting voice, and I doubt not but this determination will stand, at least till I am removed into a better Dr. Coke thought that in the large towns Methodist services be held in church hours, and urged the necessity of this because all the converted clergymen in the kingdom were Calvinists. Journal, vii. I92; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 478; and letter of May 3. Wesley attended church at Scarborough on June 20, 1784, ’a keener sermon I never heard. So all I have done to persuade people to attend the church is overturned at once! And all preach thus will drive the Methodists from the Church in spite of that I can do.’ See Journal, vi. 518. [16] Wesley preached at Grantham on November 9, 1781, in a yard or paddock behind premises occupied by Mrs. Fisher. She had been converted amongst the Methodists, and made generous use of her annuity of 100. She had followed the gaieties of the world till she heard Wesley preach at Moorfields or Kennington Common. In 1785 she bought a small stone barn at Great Gonerby, where she then lived, and had it fitted up as a Methodist Chapel. She moved to Lincoln at the end of 1787. See Journal, vii, 412-13; Cocking’s History of Wesleyan Methodism in Grantham, pp. 217-22; and letter of April 11, 1789. [17] Wesley visited Melville House on May 19, 1784, and dined there on May 17, 1790. See Journal, vi. 509; viii. 65d. [18] This letter was probably written to Mrs. Brisco, whose husband was preacher in Thirsk. Her work among children is warmly recognized in the Journal, vi. 5x4; vii. 69. Wesley had preached at Thirsk on May 8 and spent the night there. He had opened the new house on April 29, 1766. In its deeds, dated August 9 of that year, John Oastler (gentleman), William Taylor (bridle-cutter), Samson Oastler (yeoman) appear as trustees. In 1771 George Sheppard and William Taylor had left the Society, and Robert Oastler (grocer) and William Wells were added to the trust in their place. See Ward’s Methodism in the Thirsk Circuit, pp. 14-15. [19] Wesley stayed with James Copeland at Lisbellaw, near Enniskillen on May 29, 1787. He had been settled in the town nine years. See Journal, vii. 282-3; W.H.S. vi. 46n. [20] A large folio circular dated Dublin, February 20, 1815, says that Henry Brooke wrote to Wesley from Dublin on June 4, 1786, enclosing an address and remonstrance from the Dublin Society, ’signed by the stewards and leaders, who were at that time unanimous (as now) in expressing their decided aversion to the measure of separating from the Established Church.’ The last sentence of Brooke’s letter runs: ’Why then shall we, after now forlqr years’ experience of the blessedness of the way of peace and subordination to the ruling power, renounce at once this glorious characteristic, turn mere Dissenters or arrant seceders, and fritter the little flock to pieces in endless independencies, divisions, and subdivisions.’ See letters of June 21, 1788, and July 8, 1774. [21] Miss Cooke married Samuel Bradburn on August 10, and went with him to live in Wesley’s house at City Road, London. See previous letter, and that of April 6, n. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 88: 86. 1786 ======================================================================== 1786 To Adam Clarke SHEFFIELD, July 2, 1786. DEAR ADAM, - I really know not what to say. Many desire that you should be in Bradford Circuit next year; but I imagined it was your own desire, which, therefore, I intended to comply with. But if you think you could do more good in another place you may be in another. I commend you for staying in the Dock during the Conference. [That is, in his circuit at Plymouth Dock. John King was his colleague. Clarke was appointed to Jersey at Conference. He was in love with Mary Cooke, of Trowbridge. See letters of Sept. 14, 1785, and May 17, 1787.] Brother King may either come or stay with you, as you shah agree. Be much in prayer, and God will direct you right. - I am, dear Adam, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Adam Clarke, At the Preaching-house, In Plymouth Dock. To Francis Wrigley NOTTINGHAM, July 7, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You are to stay in Redruth Circuit another year. [Wrigley was Assistant there.] I think C. Bond [See letter in Jan. 1791 to Richard Rodda.] need not come to the Conference. You should not have paid for M. Moorhouse’s [See letters of Sept. 28, 1779, and Sept. 10, 1789.] letters, but redirected them to him. I expect immediately after the Conference to go and take leave of my friends in Holland. [See letter of Aug. 8.] There is a considerable increase of the work of God this year almost in every part of the kingdom. Indeed, we have good encouragement to put forth all our strength. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Wrigley, At the Preaching-house, In Truro, Cornwall. To Mr. ---- LONDON, July 15, 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - For fear I should have less leisure when I come to Bristol, I write a few lines now. I shall be glad to see you and our brothers at the Conference the week after next. On the Wednesday or Thursday in that week we shall have finished our temporal business. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Sarah M’Kim BRISTOI., July 21, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER, - You do well to write. I am well pleased to hear you do not let go the blessing which God has given you. See that you hold fast the beginning of your confidence steadfast unto the end. And you know there are still greater blessings behind I There is no end of His goodness. If any of our brethren in Sligo [’I presume it was to Sarah M’Kim, of Sligo’ (C. H. Crookshank).] will give you a guinea, he may receive it again of Mr. Rogers in Dublin. - I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To the Mayor of Liverpool BRISTOL, July 29, 1786. SIR, - Some preachers in connection with me have thought it their duty to call sinners to repentance even in the open air. If they have violated any law thereby, let them suffer the penalty of that law. But if not, whoever molests them on that account will be called to answer it in His Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench. I have had a suit already in that court, with a magistrate (Heap), and if I am forced to it am ready to commence another. - I am, sir, Your obedient servant. To Mr. Torry BRISTOL, July 30, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - We [Conference met in Bristol on July 25 and closed on Aug. 1.] entirely disapprove of such a division of the Hull Circuit as has been sent to us. We totally reject the thought of a preacher staying a fortnight together in one place. There is no precedent of this in England, nor shall be as long as I live. I have desired those of our Brethren who are acquainted with this and the neighboring county to draw up a Methodist Plan. [The following is the Plan, with the original spelling: Hull, Wednesday. Shorley, Thursday. Wo’thering, Week Friday. Ross or Remswell, Saturday. Paterington, Sunday. Melton, Munday. Cave, Tuesday. Gilberdike, Wednesday. Laxton, Thursday. Esterington, Friday. Newbold, Saturday. Beverley, Sunday & Munday. Theton, Tuesday. Hull, he that is in Hull. Skitby, Tuesday. Cottingham, Wednesday. Newland, Thursday. Hasel, Friday. Pocklington, Saturday & Sunday. Br. Wilton,} Munday. Grimston,} Tuesday. Acklam, Wednesday. Bugthorp, Thursday. Fankioss, Friday. Assalby, Saturday. Howden, Sunday noon. Spanden, Sunday night. Hoggerthorp, Munday. Seetown, Tuesday. Holm, Wednesday & Thursday. Numberaura, Friday. Shipton, Saturday. Weigton, Sunday noon & night. Drifteld, Monday. Gatton, Tuesday. Frodingham, Wednesday. Nafferton, Thursday. Reeston, Friday. Burlington, Saturday, Sun. Mony. Hunmanby or Rudston, Tuesday. Kilham, Wednesday. Witewand, Thursday Huggitt, Friday. Millington, Saturday.] They have done so, and I like it well. No one of our preachers must be still while I live. - I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Torry, In Hull. To Josiah Dornford BRISTOL, August 1, 1786. DEAR SIR, - Go on in the name of God and in the power of His might. If He sees, and when lie sees best, He will put more talents into your hands. In the meantime, it is your wisdom to make the full use of those which you have, only taking care not to trust in yourself but in Him that raiseth the dead. - I am Your affectionate brother. To Josiah Dornford0 Esq., In Philpot Lane. To Elizabeth Briggs [LONDON, August 7, 1786.] MY DEAR BETSY, - You may do me a considerable piece of service by informing me of all you know concerning Mr. Fletcher, chiefly when he was abroad. Perhaps you can give me light from some letters or papers of your brother William’s; as I suppose all his papers are in your hands. Perhaps you may have some valuable letters which he (Mr. F.) wrote to your good father. [See letter of Sept. 24; and for William Perronet (who died in 1746 at the age of twenty-two), Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 320-1.] I think both for my sake and for Mr. F.’s sake you will give all the help you can herein to, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To Miss Briggs. To Mrs. Fletcher LONDON, August 7, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER, - Several of the fragments may be of use. I purpose to insert them in the Magazine. Some of the letters I think to insert in the Life. As to dates, you can probably help me: (I) In what year did Mr. Fletcher come to England (2) In what year did he go to Germany (3) In what year did he go to Madeley (4) In what year did he travel with me (5) In what year did he go to Newington (6) In what year did he go to Switzerland (7) In what year did he return to England (8) In what month and year did he marry In what year did he go to Trevecca Return home To-morrow we are to set out for Holland. I hope to return before the end of this month; and am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Samuel Bradburn HARWICH, August 8, 1786. DEAR SAMMY, - I beg there may be no preaching at Deptford in church hours before my return. What need of any innovation there The case does not fall under any of those four that were allowed at the Conference. And pray give an hint to Benj. Rhodes. I do not take it kindly that he should run his head against me. I fear he has underhand abetted the malcontents there. If he loves me, he should bid them ’know when they are well.’ We expect to sail in a few hours. [See letter of July 7.] - I am, with kind love to Sophy, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Dr. Coke LONDON, September 6, 1786. DEAR SIR, - I desire that you would appoint a General Conference of all our Preachers in the United States, to meet at Baltimore on May the 1st, 1787. And that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed Superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury. To Mrs. Fletcher LONDON, September 6, 1786. MY VERY DEAR SISTER AND FRIEND, - Excuse me if write just as I feel. I have not of a long season felt so tender an affection for you as I have done in reading your last. If love you much for the care you have taken of my dear Miss Ritchie. If she is worse, send me word to Bristol, where I hope to be on Monday. I would travel day and night to see her before she is called home. But as God has already heard the prayer, I trust He will permit her to stay a little longer with us. If the vomiting returns, apply half a slit onion warmed to the pit of her stomach. The children of traveling preachers only are sent to Kingswood School. David Evans has had uncommon help. I gave him five-and-twenty pounds at once. Peace be with your spirit! - I am, my dear Sister, Yours most affectionately. Tuesday afternoon. I have just received your last, and am glad to hear that my dear sister Ritchie is not worse. My dear friend, Adieu. To Mary Cooke BATH, September 9, 1786. It gives me much satisfaction, my dear friend, to observe you are happier than when you wrote last. I do not doubt but you have at some times a rich foretaste of the state which your soul pants after. And even These wandering gleams of light And gentle ardors from above Have made you sit, like seraph bright, Some moments on a throne of love. But you know you are not to rest here; this is but a drop out of the ocean. Only this has been known again and again, that one of those happy moments has been the prelude of pure love. It has opened into the full liberty of the children of God. Who knows but this may be your happy experience - but the next time your soul is so caught up He that loves you may touch your nature clean, and so take you into the holiest, that You may never leave the skies, Never stoop to earth again I am now intent upon my own work, finishing the Life of Mr. Fletcher. This requires all the time I have to spare; so that, as far as it is possible, I must for two or three months shut myself up. Two weeks I give to Bristol; after that time I return to London. I cannot, therefore, have the happiness of seeing Trowbridge this autumn. But might I not see you or your sisters at Bristol If I am invisible to others, I would not be so to you. You may always command everything that is in the power of, my very dear friend, Yours in life and in death. To Walter Churchey BRISTOL, September 20, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - At length Jenny has broke through, and given me the satisfaction of exchanging a few words with her. You send us strange news that the lions of Wales are become lambs! I really think a spirit of humanity and benevolence is gone forth upon the earth, perhaps intimating that the time is drawing near when men shall not know war any more. Mr. Wrigley has been detained here by a sore face ever since the Conference; but is now also on the mending hand, though he is not yet able to go abroad. [Francis Wrigley, Assistant at Redruth.] I am glad to hear that Dr. Powell, of Brecon, continues in the good way. He seems to be of a frank, open temper, and to be skilful in his profession. I am rather gaining than losing ground as to my health. I think Mr. Cowper has done as much as is possible to be done with his lamentable story. I can only wish he had a better subject. [The Task was published in June 1785. See letter of July 22, 1788, to Churchey.] Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate brother. I set out for London on Monday. To Elizabeth Briggs BRISTOL, September 24, 1786. MY DEAR BETSY, - I thank you for the letters which you sent, and shall be glad to see those which you mention. There is no doubt but Shoreham is the place which God at present points out for your residence, and it is well that you have such an assistant there as honest Sampson Staniforth. Great care should be taken to preserve a perfect good understanding between him and the traveling preachers. I know not who in Shoreham is able to give me a night’s lodging now. Tomorrow I expect to set out for London. - I am, my dear Betsy, Yours affectionately. To William Robarts BRISTOL, September 25, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I doubt not but you could say in the hour of trial, ’The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: blessed be the name of the Lord!’ Still, I really think you are not in your place. You are called to better things than standing behind a counter. Your spirit, your understanding, your gifts of various kinds, point out to you a more excellent way! O when will you break loose, and join heart and hand with, [See letters of Dec. 6, 1785, and Dec. 9, 1786, to him.] dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. I set out for London this afternoon. To Freeborn Garrettson LONDON, September 30, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I trust before this comes to hand you and Dr. Coke will have met and refreshed each other’s bowels in the Lord. I can exceedingly ill spare him from England, as I have no clergyman capable of supplying his lack of service; but I was convinced he was more Wanted in America than in Europe. For it is impossible but offences will come, and ’of yourselves will men arise speaking perverse things’ and striving ’to draw away disciples after them.’ It is a wonderful blessing they are restrained so long, till the poor people are a little grounded in the faith. You have need to watch over them with your might. Let those that have set their hands to the plough continually ’pray to the Lord of the harvest that He would send forth more laborers into His harvest.’ It is far better to send your journals as they are than not to send them at all. I am afraid it is too late in the season to send books this year, but I hope Dr. Coke has brought some with him to serve you for the present. I was far off from London when he set sail. Most of those in England who have riches love money, even the Methodists - at least, those who are called so. The poor are the Christians. I am quite out of conceit with almost all those who have this world’s goods. Let us take care to lay up our treasure in heaven. Peace be with your spirit! - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To George Merryweather LONDON, October 9, 1786. DEAR GEORGE, - Do not wish to have a grain less of sensibility than you have. I love you the better for it; and so does He that is greater than all. That family I know and love well; we will help them all we can. I have no access to Mr. Thornton: the Calvinists take care to keep him to themselves. [John Thornton, of Clapham, the friend of Wilberforce and the Venns.] But ff you will give them five pounds from me, John Atlay will answer your draft here. - I am, with best wishes to all the family, dear George, Your affectionate brother. To John Valton LONDON, October 9, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I know not but I mentioned to you before that Jas. Timhock of Bath hates Jo. Fowler as he hates the devil and has for several years been constantly laboring to prejudice both preachers and people, against him and his wife. Therefore I desire of you three things: (1) that you will go to his house either seldom or not at all; (2) that you will talk largely with him and Sister Fowler, and give them opportunity of speaking for themselves; (3) that if the traveling preachers, as was agreed, fill up the Monday evenings, he may preach at some other time, whoever is offended. For God has owned his preaching more than that of most local preachers in England. One thing more. Unless Mrs. Pitt asks [See letter of Oct. 29.] Sister Fowler’s pardon, I require you to expel her the Society. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Valton, At the New Room, Bristol. To Thomas Carlill LONDON, October 21, 1786. DEAR TOMMY, - I apprehend those deeds cannot be altered without the consent of all the trustees. But do not say one word about enrolling them. They will probably let the time slip, and then they will be null and void. So new ones may be drawn without any lawyer at all.-I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. Now procure all the subscribers you can for Mr. Fiefchef’s Life. [Wesley was busy finishing the Life. See letters of Oct. 22, 1785, and Nov. 11, 1786 (to Taylor).] To Mr. Carlill, At the Preaching-house, In Derby. To Jasper Winscorn LONDON, October 23, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHR, - The sooner the affair is settled the better. I desire, therefore, that Mr. Ashman will receive what is in Mr. Smith’s hands. You say you can borrow as much more than Mr. Gifford’s ten pounds as will make up the hundred. As soon as this is paid the house may be transferred to five or more trustees on the Conference plan. I forbid engaging any attorney. [The new chapel at Winchester had been opened the previous November. See letter of Sept. 13, 1785.] You have the form of conveyance in the Minutes, which anyone may transcribe. - I am Your affectionate brother. To the Rev. Mr. L. --- LONDON, October 25, 1786. Last night I had a long conversation with a few sensible men concerning going to church. [The conversation was evidently at Deptford. See Journal, vii. 217.] I asked them what objection they had to the hearing of Mr. L---. They answered, ’They could not hear him. He generally spoke so low that they lost a good part of what he said; and that what they could was spoken in a dead, cold, languid manner, as if he did not feel anything which he spoke.’ This would naturally disgust them the more, because Dr. C[oke] leaned to the other extreme. I doubt there is some ground for their objection. But I should think you might easily remove it. I asked again, Have you any objection to anything in his behavior ’They answered, ’One thing we cannot approve of - his being ashamed of the Methodists. His never recommending or defending them at all, we think, is a full proof of this; for everyone knows his near relation and his many obligations to you. They know how you have loved and cherished him from a child.’ They might have added, ’You owe your whole education to him; and therefore, in effect, your ordination, your curacy, your school, yea, and your wife: none of which you would in all likelihood have had had it not been for him.’ I would add a word upon this head myself. I do not think you act wisely. Not one of your genteel friends can be depended on: they are mere summer flies. Whereas, had you condescended to make the Methodists your friends, they would have clave to you, one and all. And they are already no inconsiderable body of people; besides that they are increasing more and more. Suffer me now to speak a word between you and me. Is not the reason of your preaching so languidly and coldly, that you do not feel what you say And why not Because your soul is not alive to God! Do you know that your sins are forgiven I fear not. Can you say, ’I know that my Redeemer liveth’ I doubt, if you did know it once, whether you know it now Have you fellowship with the Father and the Son Alas! ’tis well if you know what it means! And are you content to have your portion in this world Do you favor only earthly things Then I do not wonder that you are shy to the Methodists; for they are not to your taste! O think and pray to-day! For I do not promise you that you shall live another year! I now give you a full proof that I am Your truly affectionate. To John Valton LONDON, October 29, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - Striking a woman in the street, and crying amain, Strumpet, strumpet! was enough to enrage a woman, even to madness. It had not been strange if, instead of scolding, she had shot her husband or herself. I wonder she can sustain life. Do not cast water upon a drowning man; and take care of receiving anything upon Joseph Brundrell’s testimony. Speaking is not the thing, but revealing what is spoken in band, had it been true. Unless Sister Pitt [See letter of Oct. 9 to Valton.] be convinced of this sin, I will expel her the Society the first time I come to Bath. I must do justice if the sky falls. I am the last resort. A word to the wise! I am sure Michael Griffith [See letter of Dec. 22.] is good enough for the place, if he is not too good. I hope Mr. Jones is set out for Brecon. [Thomas Jones had been appointed there.] See that Michael have fair play. John Atlay knows nothing about the hundred pounds; neither do I. I am afraid it is a castle in the air, I am glad to hear you have so fair a prospect in the circuit. You will find all things work together for good. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Wride LONDON, October 29, 1786. DEAR TOMMY, - I am entirely of your mind. If any man (to waive everything else) can make me sleep without touching me, he may call the matter what he pleases; I know it is not magnetism, but magic. Mr. Mears did not tell me (that I know) anything about letters one, two, three. Women told me at Chatham. ’We called on Mrs. Wride and offered her any service in our power; but she was so sullen and surly, we had not the heart to go again.’ But is it true, Tommy, that you have an estate left you I fear it is not so large as the Duke of Bedford’s! I should be glad to bring you all to a good agreement. If I knew how. - I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore LONDON, Novernber 4, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am glad you spoke freely to Mr. Collins. He is a good man, but not very advisable. If he should declare open war in England, he will do little or no harm. Mr. Smyth will not be fond of him if he preaches at Plunkett Street. There will not soon be a coalition between Arminianism and Calvinism. This we found even in Holland. If Brother Rogers and you keep to the Church still, a few, I doubt not, will follow your example. We made just allowance enough for leaving the Church at the last Conference. At all hazards let there be a free and open correspondence between Jeremy Rogers and you. I hope your Sister Becky is gaining ground, and that Nancy is not losing any. I have an affectionate letter from Mrs. Slack at Annadale. To save expense I send a few lines which you will forward to her. I hope your lawsuit is almost or quite at an end. - I am, with kind love to Nancy, dear Henry, Yours affectionately. To the Society at Epworth LONDON, Nouernber 5, 1785. MY DEAR BRETHREN, - You did not well understand the case of John Fenwick; though I got down the name of James Watson before his. Yet I told him, ’You are to act as Assistant and to change the stewards in every place.’ This deeply resented, and set himself to blacken him in every place and to prejudice the people against him; in which he has been but too successful. The fault of John Fenwick was the doing the right thing in the wrong manner. And I know not but when he was hunted like an hare he might be hurried to say something that was not strictly true. But what then In every circuit where he has been he has been one of the most useful assistants in England. I can remove him. But I have no preacher to send in his place. Therefore I would advise you for a time to make the best of him. But I desire those stewards may stand whom I appointed. - I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. Till that man who shut the preaching door owns his fault I desire none of our preachers will preach at Crowle. I dare not submit in such a case. To Mr. Simon Kilham, In Epworth, Near Thorne, Yorkshire. To William Simpson NEAR LONDON, November 11, 1785. DEAR BILLY, - Busy as I am, I snatch time to write a few lines, as I judge you had rather see my handwriting than John Broadbent’s. You must in any wise write a few loving lines to Brother Inglis, and tell him I desired you so to do. It may induce him to be a little more careful for the time to come. The Sunday preaching may continue at Jervas for the present. I suppose the Society at Jervas is as large as that at Northallerton; and this is a point which is much to be considered. You must needs expel out of the Society at Knaresborough those that will be contentious. [See letter of Nov. 23.] - I am, with love to Nancy, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Joseph Taylor NEAR LONDON, November 11, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - I am not afraid of your doing too little, but of your doing too much, either by preaching oftener than your strength will yet bear or by speaking too long or too loud. [See letter of Feb. 14, 1787.] Our preachers have as great need of temperance in preaching as in eating or drinking; otherwise our grand enemy will carry his point, and soon disable us from preaching at all. I hope my dear friends Mr. Smith and his wife [See letter of Oct. 3, 1784.] continue in the good way; and that you still earnestly exhort all the believers to go on to perfection. - I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. PS. - I have nearly finished Mr. Fletcher’s Life [See letters of Oct. 21 and Dec. 9.]; now let Brother Watkinson and you exert yourselves and procure as many subscribers as you can. To Jasper Winscom LONDON, November 12, 1786. DEAR JASPER, - I am glad to hear so good an account of the work of God in Witney. If the Lord will work, who shall hinder This should encourage you to still greater zeal and activity. The death of that miserable backslider was a signal instance of Divine Providence, and very probably might excite some others to flee from the wrath to come. - I am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Warwick NEAR LONDON, November 16, 1785. DEAR TOMMY, - Whoever is pleased or displeased (as some win certainly be), it is your duty to remove every leader whom you judge to be unprofitable to the people, or indeed less profitable than another that lives at a convenient distance. [Warwick was Assistant at Burslem.] Some will likewise be displeased if you diligently exhort the believers to go on to perfection. But you need only secure one point - to please God. - I am, with love to Sister Warwick, Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Simpson LONDON, November 23, 1786. DEAR BILLY,-YOU have taken in this intricate affair the very best method that could be taken. When you have to do with those stubborn spirits, it is absolutely necessary either to mend them or to end them; and ten persons of a quiet temper are better than thirty contentious ones. [The contentions were at Knaresborough. See letter of Nov. 11 to him.] Undoubtedly some of the eloquent men will be sending me heavy complaints. It is well, therefore, that you spoke first. - I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Black LONDON, November 26, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - It is indeed a matter of joy that our Lord is still carrying on His work throughout Great Britain and Ireland. In the time of Dr. Jonathan Edwards there were several gracious showers in New England, but there were large intermissions between one and another; whereas with us there has been no intermission at all for seven-and-forty years, but the work of God has been continually increasing. The same thing I am in hopes you will now see in America likewise. [Black wrote from Halifax on Aug. 7 giving a pleasing account of the work. See Richey’s Memoir, pp. 156-8.] See that you expect it, and that you seek it in His appointed ways - namely, with fasting and unintermitted prayer. And take care that you be not at all discouraged, though you should not always have an immediate answer. You know His manner and His times are best. Therefore pray always! Pray, and faint not. I commend you all to our Great Shepherd; and am Your affectionate brother. To Francis Wrigley LONDON, November 26, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER,-Now is the very time wherein you should earnestly exhort the believers to go on to perfection. Those of them that hunger and thirst after righteousness will keep their ground; the others will lose what God has wrought. You may certainly give a note to the serious [house-keeper] tin you can do more. I look upon that very common custom to be neither better nor worse than murder. I would no more take a pillow from under the head of a dying person than I would put a pillow upon his mouth. - I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Freeborn Garrettson LOWESTOFT, November 30, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You have great reason to be thankful to God that He lets you see the fruit of your labors. Whenever any are awakened you do well to join them together immediately. But I do not advise you to go on too fast. It is not expedient to break up more ground than you can keep, to preach at any more places than you or your brethren can constantly attend. To preach once in a place and no more very seldom does any good; it only alarms the devil and his children, and makes them more upon their guard against a first assault. Wherever there is any church service, I do not approve of any appointment the same hour; because I love the Church of England, and would assist, not oppose, it all I can. How do the inhabitants of Shelburne, Halifax, and other parts of the province go on as to temporal things Have they trade Have they sufficiency of food and the other necessaries of life And do they increase or decrease in numbers It seems there is a scarcity of some things - of good ink, for yours is so pale that many of your words are not legible. As I take it for granted that you have had several conversations with Dr. Coke, I doubt not you proposed all your difficulties to him, and received full satisfaction concerning them. Commending you to Him who is able to guide and strengthen you in all things, I am Your affectionate friend and brother. PS.-Probably we shall send a little help for your building if we live till Conference. Observe the rules for building laid down in the Minutes. I see nothing of your Journal yet. I am afraid of another American Revolution. I do not know how to get the enclosed safe to Dr. Coke; probably you know. On second thoughts I think it best not to write to him at present. To Samuel Bradburn December, 1786. DEAR SAMMY, - You know I love you. Ever since I knew you I have neglected no way of showing it that was in my power. And you know how I esteem you for .your zeal and activity, for your love of discipline, and for your gifts which God has given you - particularly quickness of apprehension, and readiness of utterance, especially in prayer. Therefore I am jealous over you, lest you should lose any of the things you have gained, and not receive a full reward; and the more so because I fear you are wanting in other respects. And who will venture to tell you so You will scarce know how to bear it from me unless you lift up your heart to God. If you do this, I may venture to tell you what I fear without any further preface. I fear you think of yourself more highly than you ought to think. Do not you think too highly of your own understanding of your gifts, particularly in preaching, as if you were the very best preacher in the Connection of your own importance, as if the work of God here or there depended wholly or mainly on you and of your popularity, which I have found, to my surprise, far less, even in London, than I expected May not this be much owing to the want of brotherly love With what measure you mete, men will measure to you again. I fear there is something unloving in your spirit - something not only of roughness, but of harshness, yea of sourness! Are you not also extremely open to prejudice, and not easy to be cured of it so that whenever you are prejudiced you commence bitter, implacable, unmerciful If so, that people are prejudiced against you is both the natural and the judicial consequence. I am afraid lest your want of love to your neighbors should spring from want of love to God, from want of thankfulness. I have sometimes heard you speak in a manner that made me tremble; indeed, in terms that not only a weak Christian but even a serious Deist would scruple to use. I fear you greatly want evenness of temper. Are you not generally too high or too low Are not all your passions too lively, your anger in particular Is it not too soon raised And is it not too impetuous, causing you to be violent, boisterous, bearing down all before you Now, lift up your heart to God, or you will be angry at me. But I must go a little further. I fear you are greatly wanting in the government of your tongue. You are not exact in relating facts. I have observed it myself. You are apt to amplify, to enlarge a little beyond the truth. You cannot imagine, if others observe this, how it will affect your reputation. But I fear you are more wanting in another respect: that you give a loose to your tongue when you are angry; that your language then is not only sharp but coarse and ill-bred. If this be so, the people will not bear it. They will not take it either from you or me. To Mrs. Fletcher LONDON, December 9, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER, - The book is now finished; I have the last proof now before me. Two of the three accounts you give I have at large. I only wait a few days, to see if my brother will write his Elegy. [See letter of April 6. Charles did not write anything.] I am clearly satisfied that you will do well to spend a considerable part of your time at Madeley. But I can by no means advise you to spend all your time there. I think you are a debtor to several other places also, particularly to London and Yorkshire. Nay, and if we live I should rejoice if you and I can contrive to be in those places at the same time; for I feel a great union of spirit with you. I cannot easily tell you how much. I am, my very dear sister, Yours invariably. To William Robarts LONDON, December [9], 1785. MY DEAR BROTHER, - In all probability you would now have been a wealthy man; and if so, your money would have paved your way to hell. God saw this, and prevented it. It is certainly the best way now to make a fair surrender. Place that money either in mine or any other name; it is little matter which. Undoubtedly this is the best, if not the only way for the salvation of your soul. But it is plain. God seeth not as man seeth. He judges by far other measures. Oh that you had continued an itinerant I Never man was better qualified for it. I commend you to Him who can make all things work together for good; and am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Mary Cooke LONDON, December 12, 1786. MY DEAR SISTER AND FRIEND, - Once or twice I have been a little out of order this autumn; but it was only for a day or two at a time. In general my health has been better for these last ten years than it ever was for ten years together since I was born. Ever since that good fever which I had in the North of Ireland, [In 1775.] I have had, as it were, a new constitution. All my pains and aches have forsaken me, and I am a stranger even to weariness of any kind. This is the Lord’s doing, and it may well be marvelous in all our eyes. You oblige me much (and so your very dear sisters) by being so solicitous about my health: I take it as a mark of your sincere affection. Meantime I wonder at you I I am almost ashamed that you should love me so well. It is plain how little you know me. I am glad to find that the hunger and thirst after righteousness which God has given you does not abate. His promise cannot fail. You shall be filled, yea satisfied therewith. But when you express it, not many will understand you, except Mrs. Bailward [Of Bradford-on-Avon. See Journal, vii. 434-5.] and our dear Betsy Jolmson. [Miss Johnson, of Bristol. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 101; and letters of Dec. 15, 1763, and Nov. 7, 1788 (to Brackenbury).] However, do not fall to encourage all the believers round about you to press on to this mark. Some will gladly receive the word of exhortation; and surely a few witnesses will be raised up. I cannot tell you how much I am Yours. To Ann Bolton NEAR LONDON, December 15, 1786. MY DEAR NANCY, - There can be no possible reason to doubt concerning the happiness of that child. He did fear God, and according to his circumstances work righteousness. This is the essence of religion, according to St. Peter. His soul, therefore, was ’darkly safe with God,’ although he was only under the Jewish Dispensation. When the Son of Man shall come in his glory and assign every man his own reward, that reward will undoubtedly be proportioned, first to our inward holiness our likeness to God, secondly to our works, and thirdly to our sufferings; therefore for whatever you suffer in time, you will be an unspeakable gainer in eternity. Many of your sufferings, perhaps the greatest part, are now past; but the joy is to come ~ Look up, my dear friend, look up, and see the Crown before you I A little longer, and you shall drink of the rivers of pleasure that flow at God’s right hand for evermore. - My dear Nancy, Adieu! To Samuel Mitchell LONDON, December 17, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You have great reason to praise God for his marvelous works, and to take care that you do not grieve His Holy Spirit by taking any glory to yourself. But I see a danger which you are not aware of. Many in England have thought they attained to something higher than loving God with all their hearts. But this all came to nothing. It is a snare of the Devil. I wish you could ask Dr. Crommelin’s advice what kind of truss you should wear. Write to Mr. Rogers concerning a fourth preacher. - I am, dear Sammy, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Saml. Mitchell, Near Iniskillen. To William Shepherd LONDON, December 20, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You did exceeding well in sending us so circumstantial an account of our dear sister Peck’s death. We can only say, ’The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away.’ He knows what is best for all His children. This is a loud call to all that knew her as a burning and a shining light, to you of Oxford in particular. Stir up the gift of God that is in you. Provoke one another to love and to good works. Who can tell which of you will be called next O be ready I Let Him find you watching! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, Deeember 20, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - You do well to tell me where you are and what you are doing. Do not you know that several envy you, because, they say, you are one of my favorites I am glad to hear that you find some fruit again even at poor Musselburgh. I expect more from the new than the old hearers, most of whom are as salt that has lost its savor. Possibly some good may be done at Dalkeith too; but you will have need of patience. I do not despair even of Preston Pans if you can procure a tolerable place. [See letter of Nov. 1, 1787.] It is a great point gained if Mr. Coilis is diligent in attending his lectures. If he has likewise resolution to refrain from gay company, there is reason to hope that he will be a valuable man. [See letter of May 30, 1787. This was apparently his stepson, though his wife’s first husband was a Mr. Mackrill. See also Methodist Magazine, 1930, p. 43.] You cannot have a better adviser than Mr. Pawson. [Yewdull was at Betwick, John Pawson at Edinburgh.] Take care to husband your time. Peace be with you and yours! - I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Hall LONDON, Dec,mber 22, 1785. This is to certify whom it may concern that I give my full and free consent to the sale of our old preaching-house in Bury, Lancashire. Witness my hand, JOHN WESLEY. Mr. Thomas Hall, junr., Bury, Lancashire. Pray deliver this with speed. To John Valton LONDON, December 22, 1786. MY DEAR BROTHER, - When I was quite worn down, it pleased God to make my marriage a means of restoring my health and strength. I trust yours will have the same effect upon you; though not by natural but divine efficacy. But this cannot be, unless you intermit preaching. I therefore positively require you, for a month from the date of this, not to preach more than twice in a week; and if you preach less, I will not blame you. But you should at all hazards ride an hour every day, only wrapping yourself up very close. Take care not to lodge in too close a room and not to draw your curtains. For Medicine I should chiefly recommend stewed prunes, and either beef tea or a small cup of fresh churned buttermilk four times a day. Let my dear friend Sister Valton take note of this. As we are just entering upon the affairs of the poor at London, I want to know what has been done at Bristol. A particular account of the steps which have been taken there may both animate and instruct our friends here. That grace and peace may be multiplied upon you both is the prayer of Your affectionate friend and brother. I will speak to Dr. Whitehead. It is amazing that we cannot find in the three kingdoms a fit master for Kingswood School! Talk largely with Michael Griffith, then pray with him and for him; and God will give him gifts. [See letter of Oct. 29 to Valton.] Peace be with your spirits! Adieu! We have great reason to rejoice at the prosperity of the work of God in Bristol. And I hope you have also reason to rejoice for your union with an Israelite indeed. [Valton had married Mrs. Judith Purnell. See letter of Sept. 5, 1785.] Pray do as much as you can, and don’t attempt to do more, or you will very soon do nothing. To Mr. Valton, At the Preaching-room, In Bristol. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This letter was evidently sent to a Bristol layman who wished to approach the Conference as to the relations of Methodism to the Established Church. Considerable prominence is given to the subject in the Minutes of that year. See letter of April 18. [2] The preachers had been interrupted while speaking near The Old Fishstones. This letter was sent to Lawrence Frost to be handed to the Mayor, and the constables let the Methodists alone afterwards. Wesley appealed against the rioters at Stalbridge, and won his case m the King’s Bench. See Journal, v. 183-4; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 486; and letter of October 23, 1789. [3] Wesley was busy with Fletcher’s Life, and dated the Preface, ’Amsterdam, September 12, 1786.’ He was back in England, however, on September 4. [4] Wesley met the Deptford classes on October 24, ’and was vehemently importuned to order the Sunday service in our room at the same time with that of the Church.’ He could not consent. Rhodes had been in London a year and was reappointed, with Bradford as his new superintendent. See Journal, vii. 217. [5] There was some feeling among the American preachers that the change in the time of holding the Conference made by Wesley showed that he did not fully understand the local conditions; and they also declined to elect Whatcoat to the Superintendency, whom they thought not qualified to take such charge. They were also afraid that, if he were chosen, Wesley might recall Asbury. His subsequent career fully justified Wesley’s choice, and ho was so appointed in 1800. See letter of July 17, 1788. [6] Miss Ritchie spent three months in the summer with Mr. and Mrs. Rogem at Dublin, and visited Madeley on her return. She was not very well when she arrived, and was soon prostrated by fever, which for three weeks seemed likely to prove fatal. See Bulmer’s Memoirs, pp. 104-5. [7] Miss Cooke wrote from Duke Street, Trowbridge, on August 30 to say how much she had been helped by Wesley’s sermons at Bristol, where the Conference met on July 25. She told him: ’It was good to be in Bristol. It was a time of humiliation, quickening, and I trust of lasting profit. I derived much instruction from those discourses that did not so immediately concern me; but, in a more especial and abundant manner, your last three sermons were blessed unto me. When you were describing the preparatives for a full salvation my heart cried out, These are what I want; Lord, give them now to me t Your accompanying prayers came with an unction; and having found them beneficial, I continue to solicit an interest in them.’ She told him of some happy conversions at Trowbridge, and begged on behalf of her sisters and herself that he would spend two days at least at Trowbridge as he had done last September. [8] Sampson Staniforth (one of the Fontenoy heroes, whose Autobiography is in Wesley’s Veterans, i. 60-206) had moved to Shoreham at the request of Vincent Perronet, the Vicar, and was ’made very useful to the little flock in that place.’ He afterwards returned to Deptford, where he had settled on leaving the Army. Wesley is anxious that he and the four traveling preachers in Kent should work in concert. The Vicar’s death left Wesley without a home at the Vicarage. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 405; and letters of Aug. 7, 1786, and May 5, 1787. [9] Garrettson had written on April 25. Books were needed: The Saint’s Rest, Hymn-Books, Wesley’s Journal and Sermons, Walsh’s Life, Fletcher’s Works. ’The chapel at Shelburne was too small, and at present our friends are not able to build a larger. If I thought it right, I could wish, yea beg, for fifty or sixty pounds from England to promote the building one.’ See Bangs’s Memoir, p. 153; and letters of June 26, 1785, and November 30, 1786, to him. [10] A striking illustration of Wesley’s knowledge of his members and his desire to promote good understanding among them. [11] William Ashman, a native of Holcombe, was Assistant at Serum. He was a powerful preacher, very stout with a broad red face, and wore a red nightcap in the pulpit. He died in 1818. See letter of November 8, 1788. [12] At the previous Conference Valton had been appointed Assistant at Bristol, ’and yet with the grace to be a supernumerary, which indulgently allowed me to preach just as much as I was able.’ [13] Wride was at Chatham, in the Kent Round, of which George Shadford was Assistant. He wrote to Wesley on October 17 from Dover to say that he had heard yesterday of something ’new and odd, viz. a method (discovered in France) of curing diseases by what they call magnetism.’ The name had been given because a magnet was used at first, but it was found that ’the motion without the magnet would do the same.’ ’A person is (not only independent of his or her own will, but in spite of his or her own resolution) put to sleep, without either medicine or any previous watching. In his sleep he is made to describe in an anatomical manner the seat and nature of the disease and then to remove it. If they can persuade themselves to call it magnetism, I must beg the liberty to call it MAGIC.’ Mr. Smith, who had told Wride about it at Dover, was willing to explain it to Wesley, and his address was 31 Little Mary-Bone Street. He was gentleman usher to the Queen. On October 27 Wride wrote from Chatham, mainly about his wife. Mr. Mears had said, ’What an imposition you are upon us’; but Wride says he ’understands a hatchet better than he does a woman.’ She had to care for four preachers, besides her husband. Meats said that she ’ would not loose the letters that came,’ whereas a letter was now on the mantelpiece which she had released for Mr. Shadford, and sometime before she had paid 9d. for a letter directed to Mr. Mears, and had also carried it to him. Wride says, ’Such behavior does not permit me to see Mr. Mears in the most respectable light; I am not much indebted to Mr. Rankin (then a supernumerary in London)’ for telling my wife that she is not fit for a preacher’s wife. Supposing it true, Mr. Rankin would do well to learn and remember that distich: In your discourse, observe the bounds of reason, For sense is nonsense spoken out of season’ He cannot resist adding, ’Our friends at Sheerness say that "Mr. Rankin is not fit to travel with Mr. Wesley; we were glad to see Mr. Wesley, and we wanted to hear the dear gentleman talk a little. He used to talk to us, but there was no room for him. Mr. Rankin kept all the talk to himself; Mr. Wesley could only get in a word now and then between. When Mr. Whitfield traveled with Mr. Wesley, then Mr. Wesley could speak to us; for if Mr. Wesley began to speak, Mr. Whitfield would be silent."’ For Mears see letter of August 15, 1790. [14] At the Conference of 1786 Moore’s appointment had been changed from Bristol to Dublin at the earnest request of his mother, ’who was painfully exercised by some ungodly relatives who were striving to deprive her of a part of her property.’ Brian Bury Collins was evidently thinking of a charge in Dublin. See letter of February 22, 1787; and for an account of Mrs. Slack’s conversion and joining the Society see Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 343-4. [15] The appointments for Epworth made in July 1786 were James Watson, John Fenwick, Jonathan Edmondson. Armore says Fenwick ’had a considerable degree of zeal, but this was not always tempered with Christian knowledge.’ He had evidently gone about his work at Epworth in a masterful way; and to quiet the local opposition Wesley sent this letter to the friends through Simon Kilham, who was the father of Alexander Kilham, the founder of the Blew Connection. James Watson became a preacher in 1770, and died at Bath in 1813. His obituary describes him as ’a man of genuine piety, great seriousness, and integrity.’ See letter of February 10, 1787. [16] Broadbent was Wesley’s traveling companion. Simpson was the Assistant at Thirsk; and Andrew Inglis was at Newcastle, where ho had been Simpson’s colleague the previous year. [17] Wesley had ordained John Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor for Scotland in August 1785. See Wesley’s Veterans, i. 155, iv. 61-2; and letter of May 2o, 1787. [18] Wrigley wrote from Penrhyn on November 1, giving particulars of the revival in Redruth and neighborhood, and an account of the happy death of a young woman. Wesley felt that this was the moment to press the members to go on to richer experience. See Methodist Magazine, 1798, PP. 441-2. [19] Garrettson had written on September 25 that, he expected many would be obliged to remove from Shelburue to other places for want of business. On March 10, 1787, he sent Wesley a most encouraging report of the work in many parts. In Horton, ’ if the work continues much longer as it has done, the greater part of the people will be brought in.’ See letters of September 30, 1786, and July 16, 1787. Dr. Coke’s ship met with heavy storms, so that the Captain could not reach Halifax, and put into Antigua, where Coke’s visit meant much to John Baxter, who was doing a great work. He sailed for Chariestown on February 10, 1787. [20] Dr. Eayrs, Letters, pp. 204-5, thought this letter was written to Thomas Wride, but in Whitehead’s Wesley, ii. 439, it begins ’Dear S.,’ and Joseph Sutcliffe states that it was sent to Samuel Bradburn, who had been appointed to London in July and was very popular. Charles Wesley was old, and the congregations had not been kept up. There was a decrease of a hundred members. Bradburn’s coming changed rids. He had probably used some expressions which did not please Charles Wesley, whose complaints to his brother seem to have called forth this rebuke. Bradburn had received so many proofs of Wesley’s love and esteem that he knew what a warm heart lay behind the strong words. See Sutcliffe’s M.S. History, pp. 1124-5. [21] Robarts wrote on November 28 that he had been compelled to call his creditors together. His effects were valued at 300 more than his debts; but he feared that this would not, after expenses and loss, enable him to meet all claims. It is a touching letter from a brave and good man. He owed Wesley 70, and asks whether that should be entered in Wesley’s own name or in another. See letter of September 25. [22] Samuel Mitchell was Wesley’s Assistant at Enniskillen. He had two colleagues, and wanted a third. James Rogers was then Assistant in Dublin. Dr. Crommelin was surgeon to a regiment of dragoons, and a hearty Methodist, who led Mrs. Gayer to join the Society. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 263. [23] William Shepherd, afterwards of Banbury, was a local preacher. His brother, the Rev. Richard H. Shepherd, was for many years Minister of Ranelagh Chapel, Chelsea. On September 14, 1788, he helped Wesley in the sacrament at Bath. ’It could not have been more seasonable.’ He was very useful among the London Methodists in the later years of his life. See Journal, vii. 229, 435; Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1852, p. 785. Mrs. Peck, of Ensham, died at midnight on December 17, a few days after giving birth to ’two fine boys who are likely to live.’ ’I have known her several years, and I cannot say I ever saw such a pattern of hospitality. Her house and heart were open to receive all who were traveling on the way to Zion. But she had a peculiar regard for all the messengers of God, particularly Mr. Wesley; and thought no expense or labor great if she could but make them comfortable in themselves, and help them forward in their Master’s work.’ Mr. Shepherd says, ’By her sudden and happy death I seem to be more crucified to this vain and uncertain world.’ The account of her death, sent from Oxford on December x8, appears in the Arminian Magazine, 1787, p. 189. [24] The following consent for the sale of a preaching-house is of interest. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 89: 87. VOLUME 8 EVENTS ======================================================================== Volume 8 Events DAYS OF HONOR JANUARY 8, 1788, to DECEMBER 26, 1789 Wesley felt in these years the added responsibility for the use of every hour. His brother died on March 29, 1788, and the last letters to him and those of his widow and children have peculiar tenderness. His own life was nearing its bourn, and his visits were everywhere regarded as opportunities which might never be repeated. That did not prevent the Methodists of Dublin from adding grievously to his cares and burdens by their criticism of the action taken as to hours of service. Some words of Dr. Coke were misrepresented , and ’set all Ireland in a flame.’ Wesley says on July 14, 1789, ’It has brought a flood of obloquy upon me.’ His keen interest in the love affairs of Mrs. Wesley’s granddaughter and in other engagements and marriages prove that whilst he drew nearer to heaven he did not lose interest in the happiness of his preachers and friends. There is much plain speaking in the communications to John Atlay his traitor Book Steward, and the leader of the disloyal company at North Shields, who robbed him of his property. The letter to Henry Moore about Atlay’s presence in London is a fine piece of satire. That to Francis Asbury on September 20, 1788, is not so easy to justify but the assumption of the title ’bishop’ and the setting up of Cokesbury College seemed to the veteran to be lacking in humility, and he was uneasy as to the effect of such a spirit on the future of Methodism in the New World. PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1788. Second Series of Sermons (four volumes) published. Mark. 17. Last letter to his brother. 29. Death of Charles Wesley. Apr. 4. Wesley in Macclesfield hears of his brother’s death. Apr. 5. Burial of Charles Wesley at Marlyebone. June 28. Wesley spends his birthday at Epworth. July 29- Aug. 6. Conference at Bristol. 1789, Mark. 29. Visit to Ireland; returns July 12. July 28. Conference at Leeds. Aug. 12- Sep. 5. Last visit to the West of England. THE CLOSE OF A GREAT CORRESPONDANCE JANUARY 2, 1790, TO FEBRUARY 24, 1791 In this section of Wesley’s long and wonderful correspondence we realize that the end is drawing steadily nearer every day. He says on February 13, 1790: ’My sight is so far decayed that I cannot well read a small print by candlelight; but I can write almost as well as ever I could: and it does me no harm but rather good to preach once or twice a day.’ He is stronger on the whole than in the previous autumn and issues a plan of his journeys for March, April, and May 1790, which ranges from Stroud to Aberdeen. A year later he does not venture to make elaborate arrangements, and the few appointments he mentions Death prevent him fulfilling. Yet the old fires burned brightly in the veteran’s soul. He is as zealous as ever for the spiritual life of his correspondents and especially solicitous for his brother’s children. His letters to the Bishop of Lincoln and the one in July 1790 to William Wilberforce show how vigilantly he watches over the rights of worship for Methodists. He inspires his preachers with his own spirit: ’You have only to go on calmly and steadily, and God will arise and maintain his own cause.’ Adam Clarke, Henry Moore, and others received loving encouragement from their father in the Gospel. He events of the time were keenly followed. He is deeply distressed at the prevalence of suicide. He expresses warm approval to the ’blessed work’ being done by Sunday Schools. And his last word is a trumpet call to Wilberforce to go on with his ’glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature.’ PRINCIPLE EVENTS 1790. The Life of Mr. Silas Told (written by Himself) published; Preface dated Nov. 13, 1789. His revised Translation of the New Testament published; and Hymns for Children, selected from his brother’s Hymns for Children; Preface dated March 27, 1790. July 27. Wesley’s last Conference, in Bristol. July 30. Letter to William Wilberforce. Oct 6. Last open-air sermon, at Winchelsea. Oct. 11. Crabb Robinson hears Wesley at Colchester. 15. Crabbe hears him at Lowestoft. 24. Last entry in Wesley’s Journal. 1791, Feb. 1. Wesley’s last letter to America. 22. Last sermon, at Leatherhead; and last entry in his Diary. 24. Last letter, to Wilberforce. 25. Returns to City Road. Mark. 2. Dies at City Road at 10 a.m. 9. Buried at City Road. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 90: 88. 1787 ======================================================================== 1787 A DELIGHTFUL OLD AGE JULY 24, 1787, TO DECEMBER 26, 1789 To Arthur Keene MANCHESTER, July 24, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It would be strange if I did not write to you the first of any one in Ireland. For is it not natural to take notice first of those whom we love but especially when you have my two dear friends, one on one side, and the other on the other side You have all need of patience while you hear every day that poor little maid bemoaning herself. [See letters of April 20 and Aug. 5] She is permitted thus to linger in pain, not only for her own sake (seeing the greater her sufferings are here the greater will be her reward); but likewise for your sakes, that your ’wills may be melted ’down and take the mould divine.’ I hope your dear neighbouts Mr. and Mrs. D’Olier are likewise profiting by all the providences of God. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Arthur, Yours most affectionately. To John Ogilvie NEAR MANCHESTER, July 24, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As there are so few preachers in the isle I think Mr. Crook’s judgment is right. It will not be expedient for you to quit your station for the present. The work of God would very probably suffer if Mr. Crook and you should be absent at the same time. I believe it may be contrived for you to labor the ensuing year in some part of Yorkshire. Be zealous! Be active for God! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Adam Clarke MANCHESTER, Saturday, July 28, 1787. DEAR ADAM,--On Monday fortnight, if God permit, Dr. Coke, Mr. Brackenbury, and I shall set out for Southampton in order to embark for Jersey, on board the first packet. I do not know but we shall bring your friend John King [King did not go with them, but to Thirsk. See letters of April 21 and Oct. 31, 1787, to him.] with us. -- I am, dear Adam, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Adam Clarke, At Mr. Walker’s, In St. Peter’s, Isle of Guernsey. To Jane Bisson MANCHESTER, August 4, 1787. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Although it is probable I shah see you in a few days, yet I must write a few lines. I rejoice to hear that you are still happy in God; and trust that happiness will never cease but rather increase more and more till your spirit returns to God. Be assured there is no necessity that it ever should cease. He is willing to give it you always; and He can purify you by the fire of His love as well as by the fire of affliction. Do not therefore expect or desire affliction, but let the joy of the Lord be your strength. That your joy and peace may flow as a river is the prayer of, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Howton () MANCHESTER, August 5, 1787. MY DEAR SISWER, -- It would have given me pleasure to spend a little time with you. But since it could not be, we are to submit. I am glad you are placed, at least for a season, among them that love and fear God. As you are naturally of an easy, flexible temper, you have great need to converse as often as possible with those that are truly alive to God; which may be a counterbalance to the conversation you will .be obliged to have with those of a different character. [See letter of Oct. 3, 1783.] But perhaps Mr. H. will not always be of the same spirit that he has been in time past. What has hitherto been may have been permitted for the trial of your faith. And if you are like Him ‘Who ne’er forsook His faith for love of peace,’ the God of peace will in His own time do great things for you. To His tender care I commit you; and am, my dear sister, Yours in much affection. To Arthur Keene MANCHESTER, August 5, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- We may see the mercy .of God in removing your little one into a better world. [See letter of July 24 to him.] It was a mercy for you as well as for her. I was afraid she would have continued in pain long enough to have taken her mother with her. But God does all things well. You must now take care that she may have more air and exercise than she has lately had. Otherwise she may find many ill effects of her late confinement. I do not wonder that your Dublin newswriters were afraid of stirring up a nest of hornets. Ours in England are not so fearful; they are glad to have anything from me. They know how it increases the sale of their paper. Pay peace be multiplied upon you, and all that are with you I -- I am, dear Arthur, Yours most affectionately. To Mr. Arthur Keene, Ranelagh Road, Dublin. To the Rev. Mr. Heath BIRMINGHAM [August 6, 1787]. DEAR SIR, -- In your way to London I believe you must spend the first night at Oxford. You may inquire in the preaching-house in New Hall Lane for Mr. Harper, [ Joseph Harper was Assistant at Oxford in 1786-7.] who is the Assistant in that circuit. You have then four-and-twenty miles to High Wycombe, where Mr. Battin will entertain you hospitably by a word of recommendation from Mr. Harper. You have then thirty miles to London. At my house near Moorfields I hope you will be at home; and Mr. Bradburn there will recommend you to our friends at Reading, Newbury, Bath, and Bristol. At Bristol I hope you will find your family well, and probably a ship ready to sail.[ See letters of July 10, 1787, and Oct. 20, 1788.] I commend you to the grace of God. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Clarkson LONDON, August 1787. ‘Mr. Wesley informed the Committee of the great satisfaction which he also had experienced when he heard of their formation. He conceived that their design, while it would destroy the slave trade, would also strike at the root of the shocking ’abomination of slavery. He desired to forewarn them that they must expect difficulties and great opposition from those who were interested in the system, that they were a powerful body, and that they would raise all their forces when they perceived their craft to be in danger. They would employ hireling writers, who would have neither justice nor mercy. But the Committee were not to be dismayed by such treatment, nor even if some of those who professed goodwill toward them should turn against them. As to himself, he would do all he could to promote the object of their institution. He would reprint a new large edition of his Thoughts upon Slavery, and circulate it among his friends in England and Ireland, to whom he would add a few words in favor of their design. And then he concluded in these words: “I commend you to Him who is able to carry you through all opposition and support you under all discouragements.”’ To Jane Bisson PENZANCE, September 7, 1787. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Almost as soon as we were in the ship the wind entirely died away. But we knew our remedy: we went into the cabin and applied ourselves to Him that has all power. Immediately a fair wind sprung up, which never ceased till it brought us to Penzance Bay. Our brethren here were not a little surprised, having given up all hopes of seeing us this year; but so much the more thankful they were to the Giver of every good gift. [See Journal, vii. 324; and letter of Sept.] I have thought of you much since I had the satisfaction of conversing with you; and I will tell you every thought that passed through my mind, as I wish always to do. It seems to me that our blessed Lord is willing to show all the power of His grace in you, even His power of saving to the uttermost those that come unto God through Him. But there is a mountain that stands in the way: and how you will get over it I know not: I mean pride. O my sister, what can save you from this but the mighty power of God! I almost tremble for you. If you give way to it, yea but a little, your grace will wither away. But still, that God whom you serve is able to deliver you; and He really will if you continue instant in prayer. That other temptation which did formerly beset you I trust will assault you no more; or if it should, you are now better prepared for it, and you will know in whom your strength lieth. [See letter of Aug. 4.] When you have opportunity, my dear Jenny, write freely to Your affectionate brother. I hope my dear Miss Lempriere has recovered her health. To Miss Bisson, In St. Heliers, Isle of Jersey. To Mary Cooke BATH, September 15, 1787. MY DEAR SISTER, -- On Monday, the 24th instant, I shall (with God’s assistance) be at Bradford; and on Tuesday morning I hope to have the pleasure of waiting upon you at Trowbridge. Adieu! On second thoughts I purpose preaching at Trowbridge on Monday noon and Bradford in the evening. To James Currie BATH, September 15, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The account of the dying malefactors which you sent me is exceeding remarkable. I think it is worthy to have a place in the Arminian Magazine, and hope it may be of use to others. Your God is well pleased with your using the strength you have, and does not send you a warfare at your own cost. Continue to declare the whole gospel and to aspire after all the promises. [See letter of Feb. 19, 1788, to him.] -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. James Currie, At Cottam End, Northampton. To George Holder BATH, September 15, 1787. DEAR GEORGE, -- Upon mature deliberation I judge it most advisable that John Barber should remove to Edinburgh (for I can trust him in any part of Great Britain) and that you should supply his place at York. As soon as may be inform him and Mr. Rutherford of this, that there may be as little delay as possible. -- I am, dear George, Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton BRISTOL, September 18, 1787. MY DEAR NANCY, -- Yesterday I received yours of August 24 at my return from a little tour to the islands of Alderney, Jersey, and Guernsey, where we were long shut up by contrary winds. At length a ship returning from France and touching at Guernsey took us in and carried us to Penzance, where we were received as if we had just risen from the dead, and found God was with us wherever we went.[ See letter of Sept. 7.] So I pressed on and will be with you. My Nancy, look up ! The Lord of Hosts is at hand! He has delivered, He does deliver, and He will yet deliver ! He chastens you long for your profit, that you may be a partaker of His holiness. He chastens you also for your profit that you may be more holy and consequently more happy. But His ways are in the deep waters and His footsteps are not known. It is probable I shall see you at Witney in about a month. If I do, remember you are to tell me all your trials that we may both grieve and rejoice together. I cannot well tell you how much I love you; you are e1ceeding near and dear to me. But I am sometimes ready to think that you do not love me so well as you did once. However, I believe you have still some regard for me. Let us still provoke one another to love and to good works. The good Lord be ever with you and unite you more and more to Himself! Then you will not forget, my dear Nancy, Yours in tender affection. To Henry Moore BRISTOL, September 18, 1787. DEAR HENRY, -- This is nothing strange. Considering the great work of God which has lately been wrought in Dublin, we might reasonably expect Satan would fight in defense of his tottering kingdom. It is our part calmly and steadily to resist him. In such a case as you have mentioned you are justified before God and man for preaching at Eleven o’clock on Sunday morning, only earnestly advising them that have heretofore received the sacrament at church to do so still. But I do not imagine any barefaced Calvinism will be soon preached at Bethesda.[ Edward Smyth had opened Bethesda in June 1786.] I am glad Sister Moon and Dobson are not idle, and that you preach abroad on Sundays. The death of that sailor may be a warning to others. Tenderly watch over . . . [Name tom out.] and his coming to Dublin may be the saving of his soul. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, with kind love to Nancy, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Elizabeth Padbury BRISTOL, September 19, 1787. MY DEAR BETSY, -- If I do not mistake, one of our preachers desired the justice to give him the oath and was refused. If this is true, I desire as soon as possible to know, Who was the preacher who was the justice on what day did he offer himself to the justice; was this before or after the prosecution began was any distress made, or were the goods sold after he offered to take the oath I believe your answer to these questions will open a scene which the good justice little expects. You have lately had a noble exercise of your faith and patience. So have several of your neighbors. This calls you to much and earnest prayer. Then God will arise and maintain His own cause. I advise you all in the meantime to say little; you have better things to talk of. I suppose the rector and the justice are now quiet. Their turn will come by and by. -- I am, my dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Padbury, At Witflebury, Near Towcester, Northamptonshire. To Jonathan Crowther NEAR BATH, September 25, 1787. DEAR JONATHAN, -- The sum of the matter is, you want money; and money you shall have, if I can beg, borrow, or anything but steal. I say, therefore, ‘Dwell in the land and be doing good, and verily thou shalt be fed.’ [See letter of Aug. 31, 1775.] I should be sorry for the death of Brother Burbeck but that I know God does all things well; and if His work prospers in your hands, this will make your labors light. Oar preachers now find in the North of Scotland what they formerly found all over England; yet they went on; and when I had only blackberries to eat in Cornwall [In Sept. 1743. See Wesley’s Veterans, iii. 81.] still God gave me strength sufficient for my work. -- I am, dear Jonathan, Your affectionate brother. PS.--To Mr. Atlay: Pay to Jonathan Crowther or his order, five guineas. To James Barry NEAR BATH, September 26, 1787. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I think you misunderstood what a Papist at Lisbon asked a Protestant, ‘Do you say I can’t be saved in my religion’ He replied, ‘I say, Possibly you may be saved in that religion. But I could not.’ So I say in the present case to one that asks, ‘Can’t I be saved if I dance or play at cards’ I answer, ‘Possibly you may be saved though you dance and play at cards. But I could not.’ So far you may safely speak; but no further. So much and no more I advise our preachers to speak. But I cannot advise them to speak this to unawakened people. It will only anger, not convince them. It is beginning at the wrong end.[ Barry lived at Shelburne, Nova Scotia. See letter of July 3, 1784.] A plain preacher in London used to say, ‘If you take away his rattles from the child, he will be angry; nay, if he can, he will scratch or bite you. But give him something better first, and he will throw away the rattles of himself.’ Yet I do not remember that I call these things ‘innocent amusements.’ And you know we do not suffer any that use them to continue in our Society. Yet I make allowance for those that are without. Else I might send my own father and mother to hell, though they not only lived many years, but died in the full assurance of faith. You do not seem to observe that it has pleased God to give such a measure of light to the Methodists as He has hardly given to any other body of men in the world. And He expects us to use all the light we have received, and to deal very tenderly with those who have not received it. I do not wonder that Dr. Walter is not clear with regard to the doctrine of the New Birth. Neither was I when I had been in Orders many years. Bear with him, and he may see more clearly by-and-by. I see no reason why you should not communicate with Brother Garrettson and with him too. I receive the Lord’s supper in every church that I can.--I am Your affectionate brother. To William Black NEAR BATH, September 26, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have great reason to praise God for the great things that He hath done and to expect still greater things than these. Your grand difficulty now will be to guard your flock against that accomplished seducer. When you mentioned a person came from Scotland, I took it for granted that he was a Calvinist. But I find it is not so well: for I take a Socinian to be far worse than even a Predestinarian; and such one may easily conclude him to be from the heads of that miserable sermon. Nevertheless I advise you and all our preachers never oppose him openly. Doing thus would only give the unawakened world an advantage against you all. I advise you farther, never speak severely, much less contemptuously, of him in any mixed company. You must use no weapons in opposing him but only those of truth and love. Your wisdom is (x) strongly to inculcate the doctrines which he denies, but without taking any notice of him or seeming to know that any one does deny them; (2) to advise all our brethren (but not in public) never to hear him at the peril of their souls; and (3) narrowly to inquire whether any one is staggered, and to set such one right as soon as possible. Thus, by the blessing of God, even those that are lame will not be turned out of the way. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore BRISTOL, September 30, 1787. DEAR HENRY, -- I know you are a man of feeling. You can sympathize with the afflicted. Therefore I employ you in a labor of love. Dear John Bull [See letter of July 1, 1789.] is now in the Marshalsea Prison. How far he was formerly to blame is not now the question. But what can be done for him now for one who through a course of many years deserved well of the Methodists We cannot deliver him from his confinement. That is too hard for us. But possibly something might be done to make it a little easier to him. I desire you would go and talk with him. You will find acceptable words. Tell him I desired you to call upon him in consequence of his letter, and try to make him sensible of the hand of God in all this. Now especially he stands in need of such a friend. -- I am, dear Henry, with kind love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. Pray give him a guinea on my account, and another whenever you see proper. To Mrs. Tighe BRISTOL, October 2, 1787. DEAR MADAM, -- I have no doubt at all of the uprightness of Mr. Tozer and his wife: but I have more acquaintance with Mr. Harper. He is a truly good man, and has a considerable share of knowledge; so that if he was willing to take the charge of this little school. [Was this John Harper who had been a preacher Mrs. Tighe lived at Rosanna, near Wicklow. See letter of Feb. 7, 1789, to her.] I know of no one that is more likely to promote the design of it. -- I am, dear madam, Your very affectionate servant. Next week I expect to be in London. To Hannah Ball BRISTOL, October 4, 1787. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You have great reason to praise God, who has kept you for so many years a witness of His great salvation. And you must never be afraid or ashamed to declare it, especially to those that love God. Some will believe your report; some will not, for which they never want patience. For it is impossible to cut off occasion of offense from them that seek occasion. When we speak for God, we should speak with all mildness and yet with all earnestness. But by those who do not profit thereby this earnestness will be accounted anger. But still, you have only to go on warily and steadily between the two extremes. Certainly you may expect to see such a work in High Wycombe as never was yet. On Monday next I expect to set out for London. This winter I shall not have time to take many journeys; but I shall undoubtedly find time to visit you. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Sarah Mallet BRISTOL, October 6, 1787. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Ever since I saw you I have felt a great love for you and a desire to see you again. When I come to Harwich I hope you will find means to be there; afterwards probably I may visit you at Long Stratton. I am glad you wrote. I have lately seen a young woman [Miss Bisson, of St. Heller. See letters of Aug. 4 and Dec. 17 to her. Compare those of July 4, 1787, and Aug, 8, 1788, to Lady Maxwell.] in the Isle of Jersey whose experience is as extraordinary as yours; in one thing it seems to be more clear than yours -- namely, in her communion with the blessed Trinity, with God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. It seems to me that no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper if you keep clear of inordinate affection. O keep your heart with all diligence! Mark the first risings of desire. Roll yourself (as David speaks) upon the Lord, and He is and always will be your sufficient portion. On Monday I am to return to London. Whenever you have leisure write freely to, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Isaac Brown BRISTOL, October 7, 1787. DEAR ISAAC, -- It was at the request of Brother Holder himself that I ordered him to be removed from Whitby; and I have wrote once or twice to that effect. But if his mind is altered, and if you judge it safe for him to remain there, I have no objection to it. To-morrow I am to set out for London. When I come thither, I will consider with the preachers what is to be when the circuits will not bear the expense allotted to them. Peace be with you and yours! [Brown was Assistant at Whitby, with George Holder as his colleague. (See letter of Sept. 15 to him.)] -- I am, dear Isaac, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Granville Sharp LONDON, October 11,1787. SIR, -- Ever since I heard of it first I felt a perfect detestation of the horrid Slave Trade, but more particularly since I had the pleasure of reading what you have published upon the subject. Therefore I cannot but do everything in my power to forward the glorious design of your Society. And it must be a comfortable thing to every man of humanity to observe the spirit with which you have hitherto gone on. Indeed, you cannot go on without more than common resolution, considering the opposition you have to encounter, all the opposition which can be made by men who are ‘not encumbered with either honor, conscience, or humanity, and will rush on per fasque ne fasque, through every possible means, to secure their great goddess, Interest. Unless they are infatuated in this point also, they will spare no money to carry their cause; and this has the weight of a thousand arguments with the generality of men. And you may be assured these men will lay hold on and improve every possible objection against you. I have been afraid lest they should raise an objection from your manner of procuring information. To hire or to pay informers has a bad sound and might raise great, yea insurmountable’ prejudice against you. Is it not worth your consideration whether it would not be advisable to drop this mode entirely, and to be content with such information as you can procure by more honorable means After all, I doubt the matter will turn upon this, ‘s the Slave Trade for the interest of the nation’ And here, the multitude of sailors that perish therein will come to be considered. In all these difficulties what a comfort it is to consider (unfashionable as it is) that there is a God! Yea, and that (as little as men think of it!) He has still all power both in heaven and on earth! To Him I commend you and your glorious Cause; and am, sir, Your affectionate servant. To Mrs. Rogers LONDON, October 12, 1787. MY DEAR HETTY, -- I do not doubt but your calling at Dublin would be in an acceptable time, especially as Rowland Hill was there. Jemmy Rogers did exceedingly well in advising our people to go to their own church. [Rogers had moved from Dublin to Cork. They spent a week in Dublin on their return from the Manchester Conference.] After we left you at Manchester we pushed on and in all haste set out for the Isle of Jersey. But a storm drove us into Yarmouth, in the Isle of Wight. There Dr. Coke and I preached in the market-place by turns two evenings and two mornings. A second storm drove us to the Isle of Purbeck,. just where the Indiaman was lost. There I had an opportunity of preaching to a little Society, which I had not seen for thirteen years. We hoped to reach Guernsey the next evening, but could get no further than the Isle of Alderney. I preached on the beach in the morning, and the next afternoon came safe to Guernsey. Here is an open door: high and low, rich and poor receive the word gladly; so that I could not regret being detained by contrary winds several days longer than we intended. The same thing befell us in the Isle of Jersey, where also there was an open door, even the Governor and the chief of the people being quite civil and friendly. Jane Bisson [See letter of Aug. 4.] I saw every day. She is nineteen years old, about the size of Miss Ritchie, and has a peculiar mixture of seriousness, sprightliness, and sweetness, both in her looks and behavior. Wherever we were she was the servant of all. I think she exceeds Madame Guyon in deep communion with God. I hope you will see a revival in Cork also. See that you take particular care of the tender lambs, not forgetting poor Patty Laffan. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, with kind love to James Rogers, my dear Hetty, Yours most affectionately. To Alexander Mather () LONDON, October 19, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You did well in sending Benjamin Light into Epworth Circuit. Pray send Michael where you judge proper. You gave exactly right advice to Brother Greenwood, and, as I can absolutely confide in you, with Brother Pawson, Thompson, Allen, and Goodwin to assist you, what you shall agree with the trustees of Dewsbury I shall make no difficulty to. But remember that this is a leading case; and whatever concessions we make here, we must make to all other trustees that shall require them. I pray consider too what Brother Thompson says to me concerning his circuit; and if you think it reasonable that those places should be given back, let them be given back. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. I think the contentious spirit in Birstall and Dewsbury Circuits is what has hindered the work of God there. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, October 20, 1787. DEAR SIR, -- Mr. De Queteville is undoubtedly a good young man, and has a tolerably good understanding. But he thinks it better than it is, and in consequence is apt to put himself in your or my place. For these fifty years, if any one said, ‘If you do not put such an one out of Society, I will go out of it,’ I have said, ‘Pray go; I, not you, are to judge who shall stay.’ I therefore greatly approve of your purpose to give Mr. Walker [See letter of Dec. 18.] full hearing in the presence of all the preachers. I have often repented of judging too severely, but very seldom of being too merciful. As the point is undoubtedly of very great importance, it deserved serious consideration; and I am glad you took the pains to consider it, and discussed it so admirably well according to Scripture and sound reason. I enclose a few lines for Mrs. ----, for whom I feel an affectionate concern. The God whom you serve will shortly deliver you from the heaviness you feel.--I ever am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To David Gordon LONDON. October 19, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- When I was there myself, I expected there would be a considerable work of God in the Waterford Circuit. So I am not disappointed of my hope. But it will not be easy to secure an additional preacher at this time of the year, as all the preachers are now stationed and we have none to spare. I hope neither you or your colleague preach too loud or too long; otherwise you will soon do the devil a singular pleasure by disabling yourselves from preaching at all. I never myself bought a lottery ticket; but I blame not those that do. -- I am, dear David, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. David Gordon, At the Preaching-house, In Waterford. To John King NEAR LONDON, October 31, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Both in Jersey, Alderney, and Guernsey the fields are white to the harvest. Hitherto there is an open door into many places without any considerable opposition. And I am not sorry we were detained there by contrary winds longer than we intended. There is no need at all that Thirsk Circuit should ever be in debt. You have several persons there that are of considerable ability and that love the cause of God. Represent things to them in a proper manner, and nothing will be wanting. If any of the class-leaders teaches strange doctrine, he can have no more place among us. Only lovingly admonish him first. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Zachariah Yewdall LONDON, November 1, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You send me good news indeed. So even poor Dalkeith will at last receive the gospel! I have no hope of our doing any good at Preston Pans for the present. Wherever a door is open there press forward. I do not despair of having some fruit at Musselburgh. [See letters of May 3o, 1787, and Dec. 27 1787.] If my health is continued, I hope to pay you a visit in Scotland next summer. You may have some books to give away. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am Your affectionate brother. Sister Bradburu is alive and well. To Adam Clarke NEAR LONDON, November 9, 1787. DEAR ADAM, -- I am glad to hear that there is a prospect of a good work in the Isle of Alderney as well as in the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey. I do not despair of seeing our Jersey and Guernsey friends once more if it should please God to prolong my life. I love them dearly; particularly the family [The De Jerseys.] at Mont Plaisir in Guernsey and Jenny Bisson in Jersey. I would take some pains and undergo some fatigue were it only to spend two or three days with them. One would wonder that the prince of this world was so slow and that he did not sooner fight lest his kingdom should be delivered up. He will at length do what he can. But if you continue instant in prayer God will put the bridle in his mouth. It is well we should be convinced that we have need of Him. Our safety will we ascribe to Him alone. [See next letter.] As the case of Sister Horne is too singular to be credited without the fullest evidence, I think you would do well to write the account fair, and have it formally attested by Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Arrive, and three or four more who were eye-witnesses of the whole. You must not believe all you hear concerning the circumstances of Mr. L----‘s marriage. Indeed, you should believe nothing about them till you have told it to themselves. Envy will invent a thousand things, and with the most plausible circumstances. Save them if it be possible, which can never be done by harshness; but love will ‘break the bone.’ The Bailiff was talking of building you an house at St. Peter’s; I think it may be done by-and-by. Be exact in every point of discipline. Keep your rules, and they will keep you. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Adam Clarke LONDON, November 21, 1787. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I answer Mr. De Jersey and you together. I am unwilling to discourage you in anything. But I really think it would be the most Christian and the most prudent way to conclude this matter amicably. I should advise you not to force the course of the river, but to let the Valle parish alone. Shake off the dust of your feet against them, and go where you are welcome. The main point seems to be to remove the prejudice of the Batlift. If possible, this should be done by fair means. Law is the last and the worst means, though it is sometimes necessary. But I should expect far more from prayer. I will order Mr. Atlay to-day to send the books. Peace be with your spirits ! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Funnell November 24, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER,--Whatever assistance I can give those generous men who join to oppose that execrable trade I certainly shall give. I have printed a large edition of the Thoughts on Slavery, [See letter in Aug. to Thomas Clarkson.] and dispersed them to every part of England. But there will be vehement opposition made, both by slave-merchants and slave-holders; and they are mighty men. But our comfort is, He that dwelleth on high is mightier. --I am Your affectionate brother. To Alexander Suter LONDON, November 24, 1787. My DEAR BROTHER, -- It was an idle thing to send cassocks into Scotland, where the ministers do not use them. But a cassock may be easily made into a gown only adding to it a yard or two of stuff. As we have not yet made a precedent of any one that was not ordained administering baptism, it is better to go slow and sure. Our Sunday schools at Bolton contain upward of eight hundred children, and are all taught by our own brethren without pay. I love Sunday schools much. They have done abundance of good. I will give you Instructions and Tokens for Children. We are just now printing a large edition. O be zealous for God! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Al. Suter, Aberdeen. To Francis Asbury LONDON, November 25, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- A glorious work, indeed, God has been working for several years and is still working in America. But one thing has often given me concern: God is visiting the progeny of Japhet (the English), who now dwell in the tents of Shem, according to the prophecy of Noah. Nay, He does The servile progeny of Ham Seize as the purchase of His blood. But in the meantime the progeny of Shem (the Indians) seem to be quite forgotten. How few of these have seen the light of the glory of God since the English first settled among them! And now scarce one in fifty of them among whom we settled, perhaps scarce one in an hundred of them, are left alive! Does it not seem as if God had designed all the Indian nations not for reformation but destruction How many millions of them (in South and North America) hive already died in their sins! Will neither God nor man have compassion upon these outcasts of men Undoubtedly with man it is impossible to help them. But is it too hard for God Oh that He would arise and maintain His own cause! that He would first stir up the hearts of some of His children to make the conversion of these heathens also matter of solemn prayer! And then Eternal Providence, exceeding thought, When none appears will work itself a way. Pray ye likewise the Lord of the harvest, and He will send out more laborers into His harvest. But beware you do not grudge two brethren out of an hundred to help your northern brethren. [In Nova Scotia.] It is enough that we send out two to your one, considering the enormous expense. But let us all do what we can, and we do enough. And see that no shyness or coldness ever creep in between you and Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Asbury, At Mr. Wells’s, Merchant, No. 11 , near the Exchange, Chariestown, South Carolina. To be preserved carefully till he arrives. To Robert Dall LONDON, December 1, 1787. DEAR ROBERT, -- You have reason to praise God, who has prospered you and given you to see the fruit of your labors. Our all-dispensing God has called us to preach the plain gospel. I am glad your hands are strengthened in corresponding with the brethren. I will desire any to change with you when you see it best [See letters of Jan. 9 and Feb, 11, 1788.]; and if I live till spring, please God, I will visit you at Dumfries.--I am, with love to Sister Dall, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Adam Clarke LONDON, December 8, 1787. My DEAR BROTHER, -- Again and again we have followed our Lord’s direction, which is plain and express. You was ‘persecuted in one city.’ You should then doubtless have fled to another. The consequences of so doing you should have left to our Master. We have followed the direction over and over, and found no ill consequences at all. If there had been a Society already formed in the place, it had been a very different case. I should have advised you to give no pretense or handle to the court to intermeddle with your affairs. At present I see no remedy but prayer. [Wesley’s advice was followed, and for some years the Methodists did not visit the parish. See letters of Nov. 21 and Dec. 17.] Peace be with all your spirits--I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. [On the fly-leaf of the letter this note is added:] Brother De Queteville and you do not mind what I say. I do not wonder at him (he does not know me), but I do at you. His natural temper is stern [See letter of Dec. 18.] : yours is not. Therefore I expect you to regard me, whether he does or no. We have no such custom among our Societies, nor ever had, as for a man to acknowledge his fault before a whole Society. There shall be no such custom while I live. If he acknowledge it before the preachers, it is enough. To Thomas Wride LONDON, December 11, I787. DEAR TOMMY,--Distilled liquors have their use, but are infinitely overbalanced by the abuse of them; therefore, were it in my power, I would banish them out of the world. It is no wonder that young man should be ruined who connected himself with that execrable bill trade. In London I expel every one out of our Society who has anything to do with it. Whoever endorses a bill (that is, promises to pay) for more than he is worth is either a fool or a knave [See letters of Nov. 6, 1781, and June 7, I788.] --I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Jane Bisson LONDON, December 17, 1787. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I have a great union of spirit with you. I love to hear from you, especially when you send me that good news that you still stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. I have a good hope that you will never lose any of the things which He has wrought in you, but that you will receive a full reward! Do you always find a clear sense of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity [See letter of Oct. 6.] Are you enabled to rejoice evermore In what sense do you pray without ceasing And can you in everything give thanks, seeing it is the will of God concerning you in Christ Jesus What you speak of your communion with Him comforts and warms my heart. I love to read or to hear any part of your experience. If I doubted of anything you say, I would tell you so. I want to be more acquainted with you and to know everything wherein I can serve you. My dear Jenny, do not forget to pray for Yours in tender affection. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, December 17, 1787. DEAR SIR, -- Considering that the god of this world will not fail to fight when his kingdom is in danger, I do not wonder that persecution should come to Jersey and Guernsey. [See letter of Dec. 8.] I agree with you that the best method to be used in this exigence is fasting and prayer. It is plain your labors in those places have not been in vain. And I am in hopes Guernsey will overtake Jersey. Wishing you all every possible blessing, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To James Ridall LONDON, December 17, 1787. DEAR JAMES, -- If you would not murder yourself, take particular care never to preach too loud or too long. Always conclude the service within the hour. Then preaching will not hurt you. [See letters of March 25, 1787, and April 18, 1789.] The doubt whether you are called to preach or not springs wholly from the temptation of the devil. Give not place to his voice -- no, not for an hour! Do not reason with him, but look unto Jesus. He will supply all your wants. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Ridall, At the Octagon, Chester. To Adam Clarke LONDON, December 18, 1787. DEAR ADAM, -- I thank you for the use of your books. They contain many ingenious observations; but I think very few of them are solid. Much may be said on both sides. I am afraid you have been too severe with Mr. Walker. [Clarke says in a letter to Wesley on Dec. 20, 1786, that George Walker furnished his board gratis. See Dunn’s Clarke, p. 32; and letters of Oct. 2o, 1787, and Jan. 8, 1788.] I am persuaded there is much good in him, otherwise he would have washed his hands of the Methodists. -- Take care you do not contract something of Brother De Queteville’s temper! [See letter of Dec. 8.] -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mary Cooke LONDON, December 21, 1787. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You have unspeakable reason to praise God for His late manifestations to you. And you will generally observe that large consolations are preceded by deep exercises of soul. And we all have reason to praise Him for the many tokens we see of His approaching kingdom. It is plain Satan, the murderer and the deceiver of mankind, is in a great measure bound already; he is not now permitted to deceive the nations, as in the past ages. And even in the Romish countries scarce any are now called to resist unto blood. If two or three of you continue instant in prayer, the work will revive at Trowbridge also. When you are met together, boldly lay hold on the promise: His word will speak, and will not lie. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear sister, Yours most affectionately. To Thomas Roberts LONDON, December 22, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Supposing Miss Christian Davenport answers the description of her which you give, and suppose both hers and your parents are now willing, then I do not see that any reasonable objection can be made against your marriage.--I am Yours affectionately. To Arthur Keene LONDON, December 25, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It was, I suppose, about the time that you was in the North, I was in the Southern Islands, which I think are abundantly the pleasantest part of His Majesty’s dominions. [His visit to the Channel Islands in August.] And the people in general are just prepared for the reception of true religion. For, with regard to their circumstances, they are in the happy medium, neither rich nor poor; and with regard to their temper, most of them have the French courtesy joined to the English sincerity; a great deal resembling many of our friends both in Dublin and in the North of Ireland. We have every reason to be thankful to God on behalf of our poor widows. [The Widows’ Home in Dublin. See letter of April 20, 1787.] One thing I cannot but particularly wish, that all their rooms may be kept as clean as possible. I have not had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Handy. I suppose he called here when I was out of town. Wishing every blessing to you and your dear family, I am, dear Arthur, Ever yours. I have just seen Mr. Handy, who informed me that James Whitestone [Of Dublin. See reference to his wife in Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 157-67.] is gone hence. Let us also be ready! To Joseph Benson LONDON, December 27, 1787. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I greatly rejoice in the erection of your new preaching-house and in the tokens of the divine presence with which you and the people were favored at the opening; but if it be at all equal to the new chapel in London, I will engage to eat it. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Zachariah Yewdull LONDON, December 27, 1787. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are in the right. You can have nothing at all to do with the chapel upon those terms. [Yewdull was at Musselburgh. See letter of Nov. 1.] Nay, a dovecote above it would be an insufferable nuisance, as it would fill the whole place with fleas. ‘What is to be done then’ Why, continue instant in prayer, and God will show what you are to do. But he that believeth doth not make haste. I cannot advise you to set about building an house unless you could find one or two responsible men who would engage themselves to finish the building in such a manner for an hundred and fifty pounds. Otherwise I think you would be more bold than wise. -- I am, with kind love to Mrs. Yewdull, Your affectionate brother. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Richard D’Olier, one of the leading officials in the Dublin Society, subscribed 2 pounds 2 s to the Methodist Missionary Society formed in London in January 1784. After preaching his farewell sermon on July 12, 1789, and administering the Lord’s Supper to several hundreds of the Society, Wesley dined with him; and having commended the family in prayer to God, proceeded to his packet, accompanied by several members of the household and others. That was his farewell to Ireland. [2] John Crook was the superintendent in the Isle of Man, and Ogilvie was second of the four preachers. He evidently wished to come to Manchester for the Conference on July 3I. He was appointed to Thirsk. [3] Miss Bisson was then nineteen. Wesley had a particular conversation with her at St. Helier on August 25, 1787, ‘Such a young woman as I have hardly seen elsewhere.’ He was amazed at the grace of God which was in her, and says, ‘Precious as my time is, it would have been worth my while to come to Jersey had it been only to see this prodigy of grace.’ Adam Clarke felt at a loss to describe ‘a glorious something, affectingly evident in all her deportment.’ See Journal, vii. 319; Etheridge’s Clarke, p. 107; and letter of September 7. [4] A letter of sympathy. Could anything be more tender or more beautifully put [5] Thomas Clarkson says in his History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, i. 447-8, that the sitting of the Abolition Committee on August 27, 1787, ‘was distinguished by the receipt of letters from two celebrated persons. . . . The second was from Mr. John Wesley, whose useful labors as a minister of the gospel are so well known to our countrymen.’ See letter of October 11 to Granville Sharp; and for Wesley’s Thoughts upon Slavery, Works, xi. 59-79; Green’s Bibliography, No. 298. [6] Joshua Keighley had been appointed to Edinburgh, but had died of fever at Elgin. Thomas Rutherford was Assistant at York, with John Barber as his colleague. Barber was President of the Conference in 1807 and 1815, and died during his second Presidency on April 28, 1816. Holder was at Whitby. See letter of October 7. [7] Moore had begun open-air services on Sunday afternoon in Lower Abbey Street. There had been some disturbance, and one man attempted to overthrow the chair on which he stood. Mrs. Moore and a young lady much attached to her stood on either side of the chair, and the man durst not meddle with them. When he had finished, a drunken sailor stepped on the chair and began to sing a song and ‘to preach in his way. Alas! I had soon to lament over him! When he had amused himself and his auditors for a considerable time, he attempted to pass from the quay to his ship, but slipping from the plank, notwithstanding all the exertions made to save him, he found a watery grave!’ See Mrs. Smith’s Life of Henry Moore, pp. 86-7. [8] Crowther was in Inverness, where Edward Burbeck had been stationed with Joshua Keighley. Both died of fever. He was down in the Minutes for Blackburn. Their obituaries follow each other in the Minutes for 1788. Burbeck is described as ‘qualified for eminent service in the Lord’s vineyard, but was taken just in the dawn of his usefulness.’ See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 227. [9] Wesley’s wisdom is strikingly shown in this letter of advice. On June 24 Black had heard a Presbyterian minister just come to Halifax from Scotland preach Socinian doctrine, and expressed his concern to Wesley. See Richey’s Memoir, pp. 198-200. [10] Sarah Mallet came to live with her Uncle William at Long Stratton in January 1780 in her sixteenth year, and found peace with God there a week later. Ill-health obliged her to return to her father at Loddon in March 1781. Her uncle says that she suffered much from fits as a girl. She went back to her uncle’s in May 1785, and preached in her fits, ‘though she was utterly senseless.’ Wesley had a conversation with her at Long Stratton in 1786. On October 27, 1787, Joseph Harper gave her a permit to preach, ‘by order of Mr. Wesley and the Conference.’ ‘My way of preaching from the first is to take a text and divide it, and speak from the different heads. For many years, when we had but few chapels in this country, I preached in the open air and in barns and in wagons.’ Miss Mallet afterwards married Mr. Boyce, a local preacher for thirty-two years. See Journal, vii. 226-7; Arminian Magazine, 1788, p. 91; Taft’s Holy Women, pp. 84-5; and letter of March 11, 1788. [11] This letter shows how keenly Wesley felt the horrors of the Trade, and how wise his counsel was as to methods of procedure. Granville Sharp took a prominent share in 1787 in founding Society for the Abolition of Slavery, of which he was chairman had won the decision of a full bench of judges in 1772 that a negro had come to England could not be given up to his former master Barbados, and in 1775 this led to the famous decision that a slave free as soon as he set foot on English territory. Thomas Clarkson says that on October 3o, 1787, the Committee received a second letter from Wesley, who wrote that ‘he had now read the publications which the Committee had sent him, and that he took, if possible, a still deeper interest in their cause. He exhorted them to more than ordinary diligence and perseverance; to be prepared for opposition; to be cautious about the manner of procuring information and evidence, that no stain might fall upon their character; and to take care that the question should be argued as well upon the consideration of interest as of humanity and justice; the former of which, he feared, would have more weight than the latter: and he recommended them and their glorious concern, as before, to the protection of Him who was able to support them.’ See letters of August 1787 (to Thomas Clarkson); November 24, 1787 (to Thomas Funnell); and February 24, 1791 (to William Wilberforce), the last Wesley wrote. [12] This was probably written to Alexander Mather, who obtained Wesley’s consent to act as mediator when ‘the self-elected trustees’ robbed Wesley of the new house at Dewsbury. Parson Greenwood was at Dewsbury, William Thompson at Bitstall, John Allen at Wakefield, John Pawson at Leeds, and John Goodwin at Halifax. See letter of July 30, 1788. [13] Clarke in his letter of October 29 describes how Margaret Horne, of St. Peter’s, a woman of unblemished character for upwards of seventy years, had come to Les Terres in June to be electrified on account of long-standing deafness. He gave her a few gentle shocks; but these were followed by such severe headache that she returned home at once. In the beginning of July one Sunday morning she found that her hair had grown nine or ten inches in the night. Mrs. Johnson, with whom she lodged, was equally surprised. It was too much to get into her cap, so she ‘cut off about eight inches of the miraculous hair.’ A severe sickness compelled her to take to bed, and she felt she had done wrong. She promised that if it grew again she would keep it as a proof of the miracle. This was on Sunday night. On Monday her pains were gone, and her hair had grown eight or ten inches in the night. The rest of her hair was white. This was very fine brown, a little mottled with gray. Both Mrs. Johnson and Mrs. Horne were consistent members of the Methodist Society. Mr. De Queteville, Peter Arriv, master mariner, and others were well acquainted with the facts. See letter of January 8, 1788. [14] On October 21 De Queteville had gone to preach in the parish of Valle. Whilst he was speaking in the house of Pierre Ogler some men entered and dragged him out. They took him to the border of the parish, and threatened to throw him into the sea if he did not promise never to come back. He refused and a gentleman who was passing made the men ashamed of their conduct. They let him go. He sent for his horse, his hat, and his Bible, and departed. Adam Clarke went the following Sunday, and was roughly handled. He reported matters to Wesley in a letter written next day, and said that they had made their deposition to the Court Royal, which was favorable to the Methodists. The Court, however, gave orders that if any Methodist attempted to preach in that parish, he should be seized and brought before the justice. See Lelivre’s Histoire du Methodisrne Wesleyan dans les Iles de la Manthe, p. 284; the previous letter, and that of December 8. [15] Wesley had ordained Suter on August 3 for the work in Scotland. He was appointed to Ayr and Greenock, but had evidently been moved to Aberdeen in consequence of Joshua Keighley’s death. See Journal, vii. 307d; for Children, vii. 305-6; and letter of February 23, 1773. [16] Wesley hoped, when he went to Georgia, to work among the Indians, but was unable to realize his purpose. This letter shows the old longing for their conversion to Christianity. See letter of October 10, 1735. [17] Robert Dall became a preacher in 1772, and was eminent for his sincerity, piety, and attachment to Methodism. He died in 1828, aged eighty-one. See letter of January 9, 1788. [18] Wride was at Newcastle. Wesley was a true Temperance reformer, and his Word to a Drunkard is one of the most powerful assaults on strong drink ever written. See Works, xi. 169-71. [19] The lady’s parents were against the marriage, which was given up. It was evidently ‘a fair escape.’ Roberts died in 1832 at the age of sixty-six. He had ‘a superior mind, well cultivated, and richly stored with useful knowledge.’ See letters of March 24, 1787, and January 18, 1788 (to him). [20] Benson had sent a glowing account of the new chapel in George Yard, Hull, which he had opened on December 23. It was twice as large as the old one in Manor Alley, and was regarded as a sort of Methodist minster. Wesley saw it in 1788, and says, ‘The new preaching house here is nearly as large as the new chapel in London. It is well built, and elegantly finished; handsome, but not gaudy.’ See W.H.S., xii. 121-4. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 91: 89. 1788 ======================================================================== 1788 DAYS OF HONOR JANUARY 8, 1788, TO DECEMBER 26, 1789 To Adam Clarke LONDON, January 8, 1788. DEAR ADAM, -- I admired the spirit of young George Walker. [Despite somewhat hard treatment by his father. See letter of Dec. 18, 1787.] All the times that he spent with us I know not that he blamed any one. He did not tell anything about his father but in simply answering the questions I asked concerning him. I am in great hopes now that his marriage will not do hurt either to him or her. It is exceeding well that the storm which threatened is so well blown over. It is plain the Lord God omnipotent reigneth and that there is neither counsel nor strength against Him. But you have not sent a plain, full, distinct account of the affair of our old sister, [Mrs. Home, See letters of Nov. 9, 1787, and March 17, 1788.] specifying (1) her age; (2) on what day of the year and month did the first hair shoot out (3) on what day did she throw it into the fire (4) on what night did it grow again (5) who were eyewitnesses of these things You cannot be too particular. I do not like your staying so long at a time in Guernsey. I advise you to change islands without fail once a quarter. Are Mr. and Mrs. De Jersey well, and my two dear maidens How are Mr. and Mrs. Amore And how does my dear Jenny Bisson go on She is a letter in my debt. I wish you all many happy years; and am, dear Adam, Yours and Brother De Queteville’s affectionate friend and brother. To Duncan Wright LONDON, January 9, 1788. DEAR DUNCAN, -- You send me a comfortable account of the work of God in your circuit. I cannot doubt but a blessing redounds to you all for the sake of the poor children. I verily think these Sunday schools are one of the noblest specimens of charity which have been set on foot in England since the time of William the Conqueror. [Eight hundred poor children were taught at Bolton ’by about eighty masters, who receive no pay but what they are to receive from their Great Master.’ See Journal, vii. 305-6.] If Michael Fenwick has a mind to go to Dumfries and assist Robert Dall, [See letters of Dec. 1, 1787, and Feb. 11, 1788.] you may give him three guineas, which he must husband well. He may write to me from thence: -- I am, dear Duncan, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Barton LONDON, January 11, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You have indeed had a series of trials one upon the back of another. It is well you know in whom you have believed; otherwise you would have been weary and faint in your mind. For it is not an easy thing always to remember (then especially when we have most need of it) that ’the Lord loveth whom He chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.’ Who could believe it, if He had not told us so Himself It is well that He never fails to give us strength according to our day; and that we know these ’light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work for us a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.’ -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Joseph Pescod LONDON, January 13, 1788. DEAR JOSEPH, -- Why should you sell the house Is not the yearly rent of it equal to the interest on the money you would receive for it If it wants repairing, [Pescod was Assistant in the Oxfordshire Circuit. He notes that the expense of repairing the house is 25.] the Conference will allow money to repair, and also to renew the lease whenever it expires. By-and-by we should bitterly regret the selling of it.--I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Jos. Pescod, At the Preaching-house, In Oxford. To Henry Moore LONDON, January 18, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- This is an unprecedented thing. I never before saw or heard of such a flow of grace as was seen [in] Dublin three years together without a proportionable ebb succeeding. [See letter of April 6.] Whereas to this hour we have no ebb at all. We can only say, ’It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good.’ I am glad you have got an house in Marlborough Street. [On Feb. 19 Wesley refers to the opening of the Marlborough Street Room.] I have appointed a class to meet there. It must needs give much offense. However, give as little as possible. Behave to them with all possible tenderness and courtesy. And do nothing that you foresee will give offense, unless it be a matter of duty. It is exceeding well that you have made a beginning at Castle Road. I wonder all the villages round Dublin have not been tried before now. My best love attends my dear Nancy.--I am, dear Henry (and Becky [See letter of Feb.] too), Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Roberts LONDON, January 18, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, --As the matter is now decided, I hope you are able to say, ’Lord, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’ I commend you for entirely giving up the matter when you found her parents were absolutely against it. [See letters of Dec. 22, 1787, and Feb. 12, 1789.] I hope you will think of it no more, but will be now more unreservedly devoted to God than ever! -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. I do not see that you [should] quit the circuit. To William Simpson LONDON, January 18, 1788. DEAR BILLY, -- You did exceeding well to enlarge the number of prayer-meetings and to fix them in various parts of those [places]. I do not know that any means of grace whatever has been more owned of God than this. It is not now but at the time of Conference that children are received into Kingswood School. I am glad Sister Moon [Mrs. Emma Moon, his old correspondent at Yarm, where Simpson was Assistant. See letter of Nov. 5, 1762; and for Mrs. Middleton, Feb. 22, 1786.] has not forgotten me. I hope Sister Middleton too thinks of me sometimes. You are welcome to the four volumes of Sermons.--I am, with kind love to Sister Simpson, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Will. Simpson, At the Preaching-house, Stockton-upon-Tees. To Robert Dull. LONDON, February 11, 1788. DEAR ROBERT, -- I allow you to build at Dumfries, providing anyone will lend a hundred guineas on interest. I hope to see you, God willing, in May. -- I am, &c. To his Brother Charles LONDON, February 18, 1788. DEAR BROTHER, -- You must go out every day or die. Do not die to save charges. You certainly need not want anything as long as I live. Adieu. To William Holmes LONDON, February 18, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Do right and fear nothing. Exclude every person that will not promise to meet his or her class, the steward in particular [Holmes (1782-1833), a native of Devonshire, was Assistant at Brecon. See letter of June 14 to Walter Churchey.] I require you to do this. You have no choice. Leave the consequences to God. I do not advise you to go to the Hay any more, unless they can and will serve you harmless. Now believe, and you shall see better days! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. Don’t regard money. We can supply that. To Mr. W. Holmes, At Miss Williams’, milliner, In Brecon. To James Curtie NEAR LONDON, February 19, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Supposing we could pray in faith for the accomplishment of the promise which is given in the last chapter of St. Mark, there is no doubt it would be fulfilled now as it was seventeen hundred years ago. And I have known many instances of this both in England and elsewhere. In fifty years we have been much molested in field-preaching, and may be so again. Those who live fifty years more will let it die and be forgotten. Nobody will be fond of following the example of Mr. Bannclark. I doubt whether the time is come for laying out so much money in building at Northampton. Four hundred pounds, where should they come Stay till Providence opens itself. [See letters of Sept. 15, 1787, and Jan. 24, 1789, to him.] I am, dear James, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. James Currie, At Colton End, Northampton. To Henry Moore NEAR LONDON, February 19, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad the house is opened in Marlborough Street, [The house had been a Lutheran church; but they removed to Poolbeg Street about 1725. See W.H.S. v. 68; and letter of Jan. 18 to Moore.] and that the work of God still prospers among you, particularly among the poor soldiers. [See letter of April 6.] You send me likewise good news concerning George Dice. [Dice had retired in 1786. See letter of Jan. 14 of that year.] Nurse him tenderly, and he will come to good. Dr. Coke will not fail to rejoice over him. Not only the devices of the Evangelical Society, but no weapon formed against us shall prosper. Is Bethesda full on the Sunday evenings or half full on week days If it had been in full union with the Methodists, I am inclined to think it would have prospered. But it was not likely to stand alone -- I do not see how we can go further than to be friends at a distance. I have referred to Dr. Coke himself in what manner he shall proceed in Dublin, and whatever he and you agree upon I shall not condemn. With my tender love to my dear Nancy, nay, and Becky, [Moore’s sister. See letters of Jan. 18 and June 7.] I am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jane Bisson NEAR LONDON, February 20, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Your last letter gave me a very sensible pleasure. Indeed, so do all your letters. And I cannot but acknowledge every letter I receive from you unites you to me more than I was united before. There is something in your spirit that does me good, that softens and quickens me too: but at the same time that melancholy thought occurs, that you are at so great a distance from me, and that it is doubtful whether I shall ever have the satisfaction of taking you by the hand again. Yet I shall, if it be the will of Him that orders all things well, who orders all for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. And we know He cannot deny to them that fear Him any manner of thing that is good. Your speaking of trials makes me almost ready to cry out in the words of our poet, Secluded from the world, and all its care, Hast thou to joy or grieve, to hope or fear Shut up, as you are, in your father’s house, and a little, retired, quiet island, and having food to eat and raiment to put on, what can you find to try you Speak, my dear friend, speak. Surely you will not deny me the pleasure of serving you, or at least of sympathizing with you, if I cannot help you. One of your trials I can easily foresee. With all your innocence and prudence, you cannot escape censure. In spite of all you can do, the good that is in you will surely be evil spoken of. And it is not unlikely some will join in the cry against you from whom you expected better things. But, as you are just entering into life, one would think you had hardly yet met with any who rewarded you evil for good, and gave you occasion to cry out, Ingratitude! sharp as the viper’s tooth! However, you have one Friend that never fails and that is always near. What a comfort it is that He is about your bed and about your path, still laying His hand upon you! Does He speak to you in dreams and visions of the night or wholly in your waking hours I love to hear and to read your experience of His goodness. As soon as you have opportunity, write without reserve to, my very dear sister, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Jane Bisson, In St. Helier, Isle of Jersey. To Charles Wesley February [20], 1788. I have not one hour to spare from four in the morning till nine at night. But you may see me on Thursday at Mr. Griffith’s, who w.ill come in his coach to fetch you. O consent [Charles endorses this, ’Consent to be cured, Feb. 1788.’] to be cured! To Ann Bolton LONDON, February 23, 1788. MY DEAR NANCY, -- You do well to write to me at all times when you are of leisure, but especially when you are in trouble. It is a just remark of Mr. Addison: The ways of Heaven are dark and intricate, Puzzled with mazes and perplexed with errors. So it seems at least to our poor, weak understandings, which cannot fathom the deep counsels of God. But what He does now you will know hereafter and see that He hath done all things well. If you had not seen trouble in the years that are past, you would not have been what you are now. You have fairly profited thereby: you have not suffered so many things in vain; but you have learnt more and more obedience by the things that you have suffered. On Thursday next I am to leave London. I hope to be at Bristol the Monday following; a fortnight after at Stroud, as usual; and then at Cirencester and Gloucester. Meet me somewhere if you can conveniently. A copy of the Magazine is not now to be had, but you may have abundance of single ones. And, indeed, you never need want anything that is in the power of, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, February 27, 1788. DEAR SIR, -- I cannot exactly agree with your judgment. While there was no preacher in the islands but you, and while the work of God was but just beginning, you was undoubtedly called to spend most of your time there, and then you did right in not being disobedient to the heavenly calling. But the case is very different now. They have now able preachers in French and English; and as they do not do the work deceitfully, it prospers in their hands. Has not the Lord more work for you to do in England In June (if God permit), I purpose to spend an evening with you at Raithby. Peace be with all your spirits! --I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and brother. To David Gordon BATH, February 29, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to find that matters are not so bad as they were represented, as to preaching in the morning and meeting the leaders. I hope there has been no blame, and I trust you have not willingly neglected your circuit. It would be worth while to talk at large with that young man who neglects the Lord’s Supper. But if he obstinately persists in that neglect, you can’t give him any more tickets for our Society. Be exact in all things. -- I am, dear David, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. David Gordon, At the Preaching-house, In Waterford. To his Brother Charles BATH, March 2, 1788. DEAR BROTHER, -- Hitherto we have had a very prosperous journey. We were just sixteen hours upon the road. All here are in peace. The little quarrels that used to be in the Society are dead and forgotten. John Broadbent has behaved exceeding wisely, and has given less offense than could have been imagined. [For Wesley’s impressions of the Work, see Journal, vii. 358-9.] The congregations here are surprisingly large. Truly the day of God’s power has come. Mr. Collins is in an excellent spirit, and preaches at the chapel [Brian Bury Collins was now living at Corn Street, and preached frequently at Lady Huntingdon’s Vineyards’ Chapel.] three or four times a week. He did not stay to be asked, but came and offered to read Prayers for me. Many inquire after you, and express much affection and desire of seeing you. In good time! You are first suffering the will of God. Afterwards He has a little more for you to do -- that is, provided you now take up your cross (for such it frequently must be) and go out at least an hour in a day. I would not blame you if it were two or three. Never mind expense; I can make that up. You shall not die to save charges. I shall shortly have a word to say to Charles and his brother both. [See letter of March 5.] Peace be with all your spirits! Miss Perrot [See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, i, 558 - ’poor Nancy Perrot, my companion in misery.’ Mrs. Wright to C. Wesley, Oct. 4, 1745.] is gone to rest; so farewell pain. To Susanna Knapp BRISTOL, March 4, 1788. MY DEAR SUKY, -- That you were at the trouble of sending me a few lines I take exceeding kindly. I was talking with Mr. Eden here [Then in Bristol. See letter of Feb. 11, 1772, n.] a day or two ago, and he heard that the roads about Broadmarston are now almost impassable. On Monday next I hope to be at Stroud, on Tuesday at Gloucester, on Wednesday and Thursday at Worcester, on Friday at Stourport, and on Saturday at Birmingham. I hope you are making the best use of the rigor of youth in running the race that is set before you. [Miss Knapp was born Sept. 17, 1770. She was greatly influenced by Wesley’s visits to her home. See letter of March 4, 1784, to her.] These are precious hours; improve them to the uttermost, and you will give pleasure to all that love you; in particular to, my dear Suky, Yours affectionately. To Miss Knapp, At Mr. Knapp’s, In Worcester. To his Brother Charles BRISTOL, March 5, 1788. DEAR BROTHER, -- I hope you keep to your rule, of going out every day, although it may sometimes be a cross. Keep to this but one month, and I am persuaded you will be as well as you was this time twelve-month. If I ventured to give you advice more, it would be this: ’Be master of your own house.’ If you fly, they pursue. But stand firm, and you will carry your point. [Evidently his musician sons needed to be kept to rule. See letters of March 2 and 7.] Adieu ! To Jasper Winscom BRISTOL, March 6, 1788. DEAR JASPER, -- As soon as possible go to the isle and acquaint Thomas Warwick with what is laid to his charge. According to the spirit and manner wherein he receives it must our proceeding be. If you see reason to believe he is truly penitent, we may possibly try him a little longer. But if he makes light of the matter and braves it out, I am afraid we must let him drop. Send word of all that occurs to Your affectionate brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, March 7, 1788. MY DEAR SALLY, -- When my appetite was entirely gone, so that all I could take at dinner was a roasted turnip, it was restored in a few days by riding out daily, after taking ten drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water. It is highly probable this would have the same effect in my brother’s case. But in the meantime I wish he would see Dr. Whitehead. [John Whitehead. See letter of Oct. 15, 1766.] I am persuaded there is not such another physician in England; although (to confound human wisdom) he does not know how to cure his own wife. He must lie in bed as little as possible in the daytime; otherwise it will hinder his sleeping at night. Now, Sally, tell your brothers from me [See letter of March 5.] that their tenderly respectful behavior to their father (even asking his pardon if in anything they have offended him) will be the best cordial for him under heaven. I know not but they may save his life thereby. To know nothing will be wanting on your part gives great satisfaction to, my dear Sally, Yours very affectionately. To Sarah Mallet BATH, March 11, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I should have been exceedingly glad to see you; for I have a tender affection for you, and I shall always be well pleased to hear from you and to know how your soul prospers. I do not wonder you should have trials: you may expect them from every quarter. You tread daily on dangers, snares, and death. But they cannot hurt you whilst your heart cleaves to God. Beware of pride! Beware of flatterers! Beware of dejections! But above all beware of inordinate affection! Those who profit by you will be apt to love you more than enough; and will not this naturally lead you into the same temptation Nay, Sally, is not this the case already Is your heart filled wholly with God Is it clear of idols I think you can speak to me freely, though on so delicate a subject you can hardly speak to anyone else. Is He still the sole object of your desire, the treasure and joy of your heart Considering your age and sex and situation, what but Omnipotence can keep you in the midst of the fire You will not take it amiss if I ask you another question. I know that neither your father nor uncle is rich; and in traveling up and down you will want a little money. Are you not sometimes straitened Only let me know, and you shall want nothing that is in the power of, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Charles Atmore BRISTOL, March 13, 1788. DEAR CHARLES, -- My journeys now grow rather too long to be taken in one year. I am strongly importuned to shorten them by not attempting to journey through Scotland any more. But this I cannot comply with; only thus far: I do not purpose visiting the North of Scotland. I must move in a smaller circle. I intend with God’s help to visit first Dumfries, then Glasgow and Edinburgh, and from Edinburgh to return into England, where (even if I reach Newcastle by the end of May) I shall have full as much work as I can do before I return to London to prepare for the Conference. You must needs pay a short visit to Ayr. That little Society must not be neglected. But I cannot imagine what can be done to build up the infant Society at Dumfries. If I can find a proper person as I come along, I will bring or send them a preacher. Charles, be zealous! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Attoore, In Glasgow. To Samuel Bradburn BRISTOL, March 13, 1788. DEAR SAMMY, -- With regard to my brother, I advise you: (1) Whether he will or no (at least, if not done already), carry Dr. Whitehead [See letter of March 7.] to him. (2) If he cannot go out, and yet must have exercise or die, persuade him to use [the wooden horse [See letters of July 17, 1785, and Aug. 18, 1790.] twice or thrice a day, and procure one for him. (3) I earnestly advise him to be electrified; not shocked, but only filled with electric fire. (4) Inquire if he has made his will, though I think it scarcely possible he should have delayed it. The tunes which Brother Rhodes left with you should be immediately printed in the cheap form. Kind love to Sophy. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Nephew Charles Wesley BRISTOL, March 16, 1788. DEAR CHARLES, -- Before going down to preach I just snatch time to write two or three lines. I think your persuasion is not of man but of God. Let none reason you out of it. But, whenever it pleases God to call your father, Sammy and you while I live will find a father and friend in Your affectionate Uncle. To his Brother Charles BRISTOL, March 17, 1788, between four and five. DEAR BROTHER, -- I am just setting out on my northern journey. But I must snatch time to write two or three lines. I stand and admire the wise and gracious dispensation of Divine Providence! Never was there before so loud a call to all that are under your roof. If they have not hitherto sufficiently regarded either you or the Lord God of their fathers, what was more calculated to convince them than to see you hovering so long upon the borders of the grave And I verily believe, if they receive the admonition, God will raise you up again. I know you have the sentence of death in yourself; so had I more than twelve years ago. [In Ireland in 1775. See letter of July 28, 1775, to James Dempster.] I know nature is utterly exhausted; but is not nature subject to His word I do not depend upon physicians, but upon Him that raiseth the dead. Only let your whole family stir themselves up and be instant in Prayer; then I have only to say to each, ’If thou canst believe, thou shalt see the glory of God!’ Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Adieu! To The Rev. Mr. C. Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, London. To Adam Clarke STROUD, March 17, 1788. DEAR ADAM, -- I immediately answered the letter which brought the account of Sister Horne’s case. [See letter of Jan. 8.] I am afraid they will make willful mistakes and carry your letters to the Isle of Wight. I am glad you have spread yourselves through the islands and that Mrs. de Saumarez has had the courage to join you. I believe she has very good uprightness of heart and (if she goes on) will be a burning and shining light. You have reason likewise to praise God on account of Alderney. [See letter of Nov. 9, 1787.] There is a seed which shall not easily be rooted up. Drink largely when need be of warm lemonade, and no bilious complaint will remain long. Our Conference Deed provided for what Dr. Jersey desires. I desire the very same thing; nay! I observe Mr. Walker too. The sooner it is done the better. Send your translation [Clarke had offered on Oct. 29 to send a translation of part or the whole of Conference de la, Fable avec L’Histoire Sainte for the January Magazine if Wesley wished.] to London. My kind love to Miss Lempriere, Jenny Bisson (who owes me a letter), and the dear family at Mont Plaisir. [The De Jerseys.] Peace be with your spirits. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. Direct to me at London, and your letter will come safe. To his Nephew Samuel Wesley STROUD, March 18, 1788. DEAR SAMMY, -- I have long had a great concern for you; but never more than at present. Just now you are in a critical situation, and every hour is of importance. Your father is, to all known appearances, just quivering over the grave, and ready to leave you, with all the first inexperience of youth, under your tuition. The time was when you would have taken my advice. But now Miss Freeman has taught you another lesson! [See letter of Aug. 19, 1784, to him.] Alas! What a fatal step was that l I care not at all for one opinion or another. I care not who is head of the Church, provided you be a Christian! But what a grievous loss is it to you to be cut off on any pretense whatever from that preaching which is more calculated than any other in England to make you a real scriptural Christian. O Sammy, I take upon me to say, if you had neglected no opportunity of hearing your father and me preaching, you would have been another man than you are now. But it seems the time is past! Your father is on the wing. You are not likely to see him long; and you know not that you will see me any more. Whether you do or do not, I earnestly advise you to make a friend of Mr. Dickinson. [Peard Dickinson.] He is a sensible and a pious man, and has a tender regard for you. I commit you to Him who is able to carry you through all temptations. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate Uncle. To William Black GLOUCESTER, March 19, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to find you are still going on in the glorious work to which you are called. We have need to make haste therein, to use all diligence. For the work is great, the day is short, and lonely is the night wherein no man can work! It is a kind Providence which has placed Brother Anderson and you in one house. For you may have many opportunities of strengthening each others hands in God. It is well that Satan is constrained to show himself so plainly in the case of those poor demoniacs. Thereby he weakens his own kingdom and excites us to assault him more zealously. In the beginning of the work in England and Ireland we had many instances of the kind. But he now chooses to assault us by subtlety more than by strength. I wish you would do all you possibly can to keep our brethren in peace with each other. And your pains will not be lost on poor John McGeary. [See letters of Feb. 20, 1787, and Feb. 27, 1789.] There is much good in him. Indeed, he is naturally of a bold, forward temper; but I hope his zeal is now according to knowledge. Undoubtedly you know the objections which John Hoskins makes to John Stretton. [See next letter, and that of Nov. 21, 1789.] If there is any ground for them, should you not freely and lovingly talk with Brother Stretton. Praying that you may increase with all the increase of God, I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Stretton GLOUCESTER, March 19, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad the little contest between Mr. Balfour and John McGeary is come to a conclusion. It is good advice to every Christian, ’If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.’ But, of all others, the Methodists are concerned carefully to follow this advice. We are a new people, and consequently must expect that many will be prejudiced against us. And there is no way to remove that prejudice but to overcome evil with good. [Stretton was the preacher at Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. See letter of Feb. 25, 1785, to him.] The experience of Phoebe Bland is an admirably good one, truly consistent both with Scripture and reason; and the account is well drawn up, with good sense, and in remarkably good language. I have a confused remembrance of some objections against you last year, made, I think, by John Hoskins. [See letter of Aug. 10, 1780.] I hope, if there was once some foundation for them, it is now removed. We have need to take the utmost care that the good which is in us be not evil spoken of. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley WORCESTER, March 20, 1788. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Mr. Whitefield had for a considerable time thrown up all the food he took. I advised him to slit a large onion across the grain and bind it warm on the pit of his stomach. He vomited no more. Pray apply this to my brother’s stomach the next time he eats. One in Yorkshire, who was dying for want of food, as she threw up all she took, was saved by the following means: Boil crusts of white bread to the consistence of a jelly; add a few drops of lemon juice and a little loaf sugar; take a spoonful once or twice an hour. By all means let him try this. If neither of these avail (which I think will not be the case), remember the lady at Paris who lived several weeks without swallowing a grain by applying thin slices of beef to the stomach. But above all let prayer be made continually; and probably he will be stronger after this illness than he has been these ten years. Is anything too hard for God On Sunday I am to be at Birmingham; on Sunday se’nnight at Madeley, near Shifnal, Salop. My dear Sally, Adieu! To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London. To Agnes Collinson [MADELEY, March 28, 1788.] MY DEAR MAIDEN, -- Beware of pride, beware of flattery; suffer none to commend you to your face; remember, one good temper is of more value in the sight of God than a thousand good verses. All you want is to have the mind that was in Christ and to walk as Christ walked. - I am, &c. To Harriet Lewis MADELEY, March 29, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You see I cannot refuse anything that you desire; so I write the first opportunity. I was much surprised at the account which you gave of what had lately befallen your friend. But in the whole course of that strange affair one may discover the hand of God. I am persuaded it was the hand of God for good both in regard to him and you: to him, that he might learn both more patience and resignation in himself, and more meekness and forbearance toward others; to you, that, being cut off from worldly hope, you might simply and nakedly hang upon the living God! You have already tasted that He is gracious. Go on! You are in His school, the school of affliction, where you will always find Him a present help. But He does not yet clearly point out the way that you should go. I was greatly pleased with your openness the other day. May there never be any strangeness between you and, my dear Harriet, Yours most affectionately. To Mrs. Charles Wesley MACCLESFIELDD, Friday, April 4, 1788. DEAR SISTER, -- Half an hour ago I received a letter from Mr. Bradburn informing me of my brother’s death. [Charles Wesley died on March 29. See letter of April 12 to her.] For eleven or twelve days before, I had not one line concerning him. The last I had was from Charles, which I delayed to answer, expecting every day to receive some further information. We have only now to learn that great lesson, ’The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!’ If it had been necessary, in order to serve either him or you, I should not have thought much of coming up to London. Indeed, to serve you, or your dear family, in anything that is in my power, will always be a pleasure to, dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore MACCLESFIELD, April 6, 1788. DEAR HENRY, --You send me good news. When these soldiers [See letter of Feb. 19 to him.] are removed, you must take the more pains with them henceforth. It is exceedingly strange that the work of God should not yet decay in Dublin. I have not known before a shower of grace continue so long either in Great Britain or Ireland. And it will continue if the people continue genuine Methodists, and do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God. [See letter of Jan. 18 to him.] An organ! Non defensorbus istis tempus eget. [’The time does not need such defenders.’] This will help them just as old Priara helped Troy. If Mr. and Mrs. Smyth are gone to England, I doubt Bethesda will droop; but Dr. Coke will be saved from some embarrassment, anti will have a smoother path to walk in. [See letter of May 6.] I am, if possible, more fully employed than before since my brother’s death. Thus far I am come in my way to North Britain, perhaps for the last time. Lately I have been threatened with blindness [He had a pearl on his eye. See letter of May 28 to Mrs. Rogers.]; but still you and I have two good eyes between us. Let us use them while the day is! -- I am, with tender love to Nancy, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. My brother fell asleep so quietly that they who sat by him did not know when he died. To Mr. Moore, At the New Room, Dublin. To Peard Dickinson NEAR STOCKPORT, April 8, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If Mr. Bradburn’s letter of March 29 had been directed to Birmingham, where I then was, I should have taken coach on Sunday the 3oth and been with you on Monday the 3Ist. I shall not be at Manchester till the 10th instead. But all is well; by that mistake I am much further on my journey. ’Tis pity but the remains of my brother had been deposited with me. Certainly that ground is holy as any in England, and it contains a large quantity of ’bonny dust.’ We have all need to stir ourselves up before the Lord and to improve by this providence; and you may improve it much in speaking to the people, as I have done several times. Betsy must accept of my friendship instead of my brother’s. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. A Printed Notice. MANCHESTER, April 12, 1788. Great are the advantages we have reaped for many years from the continual change of preachers, but this cannot subsist any longer than the places of all the preachers are appointed by one man or body of men. Therefore wherever Trustees are to place and displace the preachers this change, which we call Itinerancy, is at an end. It is for your sakes, not my own, that I wish this may continue, and the appointment of preachers, which now lies upon me, be afterwards executed by the Conference, not the Trustees of any of the Houses. Is it possible that Itinerancy should be continued by any other means JOHN WESLEY. This is all the contest, at present, between me and our brethren at Dewsbury. To Mrs. Charles Wesley MANCHESTER, April 12, 1788. DEAR SISTER, The account which Mr. Bradburn gave me of my brother’s removal was very short and unsatisfactory. But the account which Sally has given me is just as it should be -- particular and circumstantial. I doubt not but the few solemn words that he spoke before he went hence will not soon be forgotten, but will prove a lasting blessing to all that heard them. [See next letter. Ten days before he died he took Samuel’s hand, ’and pronounced with a voice of faith, "I shall bless God to all eternity that ever you were born. I am persuaded I shall!"’] If I may take upon me to give you a little piece of advice, it is, -- To keep little company; you have an handsome occasion of contracting your acquaintance, [See letter of April 21 to her.] and retaining only a small select number, such as you can do good to or receive good from. -- I am, my dear Sister, Your ever affectionate friend and brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley MANCHESTER, April 12, 1788. MY DEAR SALLY, -- I thank you for the account you have given me. It is full and satisfactory. You describe a very awful scene. The time, I doubt not, was prolonged on purpose that it might make the deeper impression on those that otherwise might soon have forgotten it. What a difference does one moment make! When the soul springs out of time into eternity, what an amazing change! What are all the pleasures, the business of this world, to a disembodied spirit! Let us, therefore, be ready. For the day is at hand! But the comfort is it cannot part you long from, my dear Sally, Yours invariably. To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London. To Peard Dickinson CHESTER, April 15, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- My brother never knew the value of Dr. Coke while he lived. [Charles Wesley was afraid that Dr. Coke was leading his brother to take steps which involved separation from the Church of England.] I wish I had an hundred preachers like him. If you expected me to die within the year, you should not have printed so large editions. For you know not who will buy them when I am gone. [A new edition of the four volumes of Wesley’s Sermons was published on Jan. 1, 1788, and four other volumes of sermons were in preparation. See Green’s Bibliography, No. 397.] While we live let us live in earnest. I have little fear for Sally, much hope for Charles (to whom I wrote lately), and some for Sammy. He certainly fears God. I will have the Tunes s printed as soon as may be. If the corrected copy is lost, they must be printed from the large copy; but the price must be only two shillings and sixpence. Pray consult with T. Olivers where the additional sermons may be most properly inserted. [Tunes left by Mr. Rhodes. See letter of March 13.] I have another ready for the press and two more begun. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Adam Clarke LIVERPOOL, April 17, 1788. DEAR ADAM, -- Is it not a doubt whether you will be suffered to build a chapel so near the Chapel-of-Ease I should be afraid one congregation would hinder the other if ever they meet at the same hour. Then in England no house of worship must be built within so many yards of any other. I am glad you have gained Mrs. Saumarez and Miss Lempriere; and I hope Mrs. Walker, jun., is not lost. When I heard of Jenny Bisson’s marriage, I was much afraid she had lost ground. I am glad to hear that you think she is still alive to God; but I shall be surprised if she be as much alive as ever. [See letter of May 20 (to Mrs. Cock).] So you are a proficient in French. If you come to the Conference, the way will be made plain for you. But if you have not your health in the islands, you must spend part of your time in England. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Charles Wesley BLACKBURN, April 21, 1788. You will excuse me, my dear sister, for troubling you with so many letters, for I know not how to help it. I had you and your family so much upon my heart, both for your own sake and for the sake of my brother. But I am much easier now that I find you are joined with honest John Collinson, whom I know to be not only a man of probity, but likewise a man of diligence and understanding. I am therefore persuaded he will spare no pains in doing what you wish to be done. So that I shall [not] be wanted you, as he will fully supply my lack of service. [On his return to London Wesley had breakfast with Charles Wesley’s family. See letter of July 6, 1788; and for Collinson, that of May 20, 1769.] I only both Charles and Sammy may follow your example and advice [See letter of April 12 to her.] in keeping little company, and those of the best sort, men sound understanding and solid piety; for such only are for the acquaintance of men of sense. I commit you all to Him that loves you, and am, my dear Sister, Ever yours. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BLACKBURN, April 21, 1788. What a comfort it is, my dear Sally, to think the Lord liveth! Nay, and that our union with our human friends will be more perfect hereafter than it can be while we are encumbered with the house of clay You did not send me those verses before. They were very proper to be his last, as being worthy of one bought by the blood of the Lamb and just going forth to meet Him! Now, my Sally, make the best of life. Whereunto you have attained hold fast. But you have not yet received the Spirit of adoption, crying in your heart, Abba, Father! See that you do not stop short of all the promises for you! If you feel your want, it will soon be supplied; and God will seal that word upon your heart, ’I am merciful to try unrighteousness, and they sins and iniquities I remember no more.’ Dear Sally, adieu! To William Simpson NEAR COLNE, April 26, 1788. DEAR BILLY, -- You did well to expel those who marry ungodly persons, -- a real evil which we can never tolerate. You should speak to every believer singly concerning meeting in band. There were always some in Yarm Circuit, though not many. No circuit ever did or ever will flourish unless there are bands in the large Societies. It is a good sign that so many of our preachers are willing to contribute to those necessary expenses. They used to be much straitened in their bowels whenever money was wanted. You have now good encouragement to remain another year in the circuit. But you know two preachers do not remain in the same circuit more than one year. -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peard Dickinson KEIGHLEY, April 29, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I really think it will be proper to publish something in the Magazine on that idle Popish conceit of ’Consecrated Ground.’ The ground of Bunhill Fields is full as well consecrated as that of St. Luke’s Churchyard. [See letter of April 8.] You should study every means of keeping up your acquaintance with Sammy Wesley. Both Charles and he stand in much need of serious acquaintance, whether men or women. You should introduce our Betsy to Sally Wesley. They are kindred souls, and I think would soon take acquaintance with each other. If I live till the Conference, I will give her another acquaintance that will be after her own heart. Sister Showell likewise will be a fit acquaintance for her. But let her beware of new acquaintances. I hope you have found a little house in our neighborhood. You have both need of much prayer -- Peace be with your spirits! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore LEEDS, May 6, I788. DEAR HENRY, -- The Doctor is too warm. He ought to have paid more regard to so respectable a body of men as applied to him. I am a Church-of-England man; and, as I said fifty years ago so Isay still, in the Church I will live and die, unless I’am thrust out.~ We must have no more service at Whitefriar’s in the church hours. Leave off contention before it be meddled with. Follow after peace. -- I am, with kind love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore WHITEHAVEN, May 11, 1788. DEAR HENRY, -- Still, the more I reflect the more I am convinced that the Methodists ought not to leave the Church. I judge that to lose a thousand, yea ten thousand, of our people would be a less evil than this. [See letters of Jan. 16, 1783, and William Whitestone.] But many found much comfort in this.’ So they would in any nev thing. I believe Satan himself would give them comfort herein; for he knows what the end would be. Our glorying has hitherto been not to be a separate body: Hoc Ithacus velit. But whatever Mr. Smyth does, I am for the old way. [See letters of May 6 and 16 (to May 20 to Dr. Coke).] I advise you to abide in it till you find another new event, although, indeed, you may expect it every day -- namely, the removal of Your affectionate friend and brother. With dear love to Nancy. To Dr. Coke GLASGOW, May 16, 1788. DEAR SIR, -- I came hither this morning. There is a fair opening at Dumfries and a prospect of much good. I like your proposal concerning Joseph Cownley, and will talk with him about it if I live to see Newcastle. As I said before, so I say still, I cannot, I dare not, leave the Church, for the reasons we all agreed to thirty years ago in the conference at Leeds. Thus far only I could go. On condition that our people would receive the Lord’s supper once a month either at St. Patrick’s or their own parish church (the reasonableness of which should be strongly and largely explained), -- on this condition I would allow Henry Moore to read the morning service at Whitefriar’s on the other Sundays. I wonder at the imprudence of Mr. Edward Smyth to say nothing of his unkindness. You did well in changing the stewards at Waterford. -- I am, dear sir, Yours most affectionately. To Henry Moore GLASGOW, May 16, 1788. DEAR HENRY, -- I allow two points: (1) that while Dr. Coke is in Dublin he may have service at eleven on Sunday as before; (2) that, on condition that our brethren will attend St. Patrick’s one Sunday in four, you may read prayers the other three in the room. [] When Dr. Coke returns from Dublin, he should immediately send me word who is proper to succeed you there. I shall be glad, if I can contrive it, to have Nancy and you at Bristol next year. It is not unlikely I may finish my course there; and if so, I should love to have her to close my eyes. My brother said I should ’follow him within the year.’ But, be that as it may, by God’s help I will live to-day. Love to Nancy. -- I am, dear Henry, Ever yours. See previous letter and that of May 20 (to William Whitestone). To Mrs. Cock (Jane Bisson) EDINBURGH, May 20, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- From my long delay to answer, you might conclude I had forgotten you; but that is impossible. I shall not easily forget the agreeable conversations I had with you at Mont Plaisir and the plain and artless account which from time to time you have given me of your experience. I shall be glad to know how you have found your soul since you altered your condition. You must needs have abundantly more care now than you had in a single life. And are you able still, among all these cares, to attend upon the Lord without distraction Does nothing make you unattentive to His presence Is there no intermission of your communion with the Father and the Son When you have leisure, you will send an answer to, [See letters of April 17 and June 26 to Adam Clarke.] my dear sister, Yours very affectionately. You may direct to London. To William Whitestone EDINBURGH, May 20, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- From one of Dr. Coke’s letters I concluded that you was quite reconciled to the step which he had taken, and I myself can go so far but no further. I will not leave the Church. But on condition that our friends will attend St. Patrick’s one Sunday in the month, on the other three I will allow that there should be service at the New Room. [Whitestone was one of the Dublin Methodists. See letters of May 16 and 28 (to Mrs. Rogers).] -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Rogers May 28, 1788. MY DEAR HETTY, -- My not hearing from you for so long a time would have given me concern, but I knew it was not from want of affection. I am glad to hear you prosper in your soul; rest in nothing you have attained, but press on till you are filled with all the fullness of God. In this day of God’s power I hope many of the backsliders in Cork will be brought back; there are great numbers of them in and about the city, and many are of the. genteeler sort. It seems you have a particular mission to these; perhaps they will hear none but you. I hope you have already found out Mrs. Forbes (Captain Forbes’s wife), and that now she is more than almost persuaded to be a Christian. The pearl on my eye is but just discernible, and dulls the sight a little, but not much. As it grows no worse, I do not much regard it. [See letter of April 6.] Mr. Smyth’s society, I verily believe, will do us no harm [At Bethesda, Dublin. The controversy about Methodist services in church hours. See previous letter and that of June 7 to Henry Moore.]: and every one may speak of me as he will. I am just flying away as a shadow. It more than makes me amends that James and you still love and pray for, my dear Hetty, Your most affectionate. To Jasper Winscorn NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 28, 1788. DEAR JASPER, -- It seems to me the most proper Assistant for the Sarum Circuit (only do not talk of it yet) will be Jasper Winscom. [He was received on trial at the Conference, and appointed to the Sarum Circuit, but not as Assistant. See letter of Oct. 20, 1775, to him.] I am convinced the person whom I had intended for it is not the proper person. It is exceeding well that the warning was given me before the Conference. We have found it so difficult to drive Calvinism out from among us that we shall not readily let it in again. -- I am, dear Jasper, Yours affectionately. To his Niece Sarah Wesley NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, May 29, 1788. MY DEAR SALLY, -- How often does our Lord say to us by His adorable providence, ’What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter’! And how unspeakable is our gain if we learn only this, To trust God further than we can see Him! But this is a stroke that you have long expected. One of fourscore has lived out his date of years; and it is not strange that he is taken away, but that I am still left! The great lesson which you have now to learn is, ’Take no thought for the morrow.’ If you do, your fault brings its own punishment. You are to live to-day; you have still a friend, the medicine of life! And you have your great Friend always at hand. There is a role for you; ’When I am in heaviness, I will think upon God.’ And it is not lost labor. May the peace of God rest upon you! So prays Yours in tender affection. To the Millbourn Society SUNDERLAND, May 31, 1788. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- All that you desire (unless I mistake) is the very thing that I desire and design to do. I desire that your house shall be just as the other, and our preachers shall meet the Society, hold lovefeasts, and keep watch-nights in them alternately. If in anything I should give the preference to either, certainly I would to the house in Millbourn Place. [See letters of Jan. 20, 1787, and in Oct. 1788 (to Peter Mill).] What do I want but to do you all the good I can in my few remaining days We have loved one another long, and God forbid that anything should now part you and Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Blachford SUNDERLAND, June 3, 1788. MY DEAR MRS. BLACHFORD, -- You state the case clearly and fairly; and when this is done there is no great difficulty in it. Many other objections and plausible ones might be made to the proposal; hut certainly those two are the strongest of all and the most difficult to be answered: first, her youth and little experience in the things of the world; and secondly, his little experience in the things of God. He has made a good beginning. He has set on well. But who can tell what the end will be By reason of the time we cannot suppose him to be much established yet; and if he should afterwards relapse into his former state, what an insupportable trial must it be to her! In a strange country and separate from all her religious friends! Upon the whole, therefore, I cannot but subscribe to your judgment, that you must do nothing suddenly. -- I am, my dear sister, Yours most affectionately. To Christopher Hopper NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, June 3, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I said nothing, less or more, in Bradford Church concerning the end of the world, neither concerning my own opinion. What I said was that Bengelius had given it as his opinion, not that the world would then end, but that the Millennial reign of Christ would begin in the year 1836. I have no opinion at all upon that head. I can determine nothing about it. These calculations are far above, out of my sight. I have only one thing to do, to save my own soul and those that hear me. -- I am, with kind love to Sister Hopper, Yours affectionately. To Henry Moore NEAR NEWCASTLE, June 7, 1788. DEAR HENRY, -- I incline to think the battle’s over, [See letter of May 28 to Mrs. Rogers.] and you will have peace, provided that none of you return railing for rafting, but contrariwise blessing. Beware of showing any coolness to Arthur Keene. You must conquer him by love. I am glad you have not lost Mrs. Blachford. [See letter of June 3.] She is one of our jewels. I love her much. Only you will excuse me if I do not love her so well as Nancy and Becky Moore. [See letter of Feb. 19 to Moore.] Now use all your influence in prevailing on our people to attend on the sacrament at St. Patrick’s monthly. -- I am, dear Henry, yours and my Nancy’s Affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Taylor NEAR NEWCASTLE, June 7, 1788. DEAR TOMMY, -- I have no time to spend on controversy about the Church, unless I had leisure to write a folio. You did well in sending your daughters to Cork. It will very probably re-establish their health. It is no wonder that every one should be ruined who concerns himself with that execrable bill trade. In London I expel every one out of our Society who has anything to do with it. Whoever endorses a bill {that is, promises to pay) for more than he is worth is either a fool or a knave. I hope this affliction at Manchester will be the means of saving many souls. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Fletcher LONDON, June 9, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am sincerely glad that you have found an opportunity of transmitting those valuable papers to Mr. Benson. I know no one in England who is more capable of preparing them for the public view, [See letters of March 10, 1787, and Sept. 17, 1788.] as there is scarcely any one who better understands the whole subject of debate. And now I am in hopes both the points will be carried. On the one hand, Mr. Ireland will be satisfied (who seems to have, though I cannot tell why, an insuperable prejudice to me); and on the other, justice will be done to the memory of blessed Mr. Fletcher. If I live a month or two longer, I shall see you and your relation, of whom I rejoice to hear so good an account. [Wesley met ’young Mr. Fletcher, much alive to God, and Swiftly growing up into the spirit of his uncle,’ on March 23, 1789. See Journal, vii. 480.] Who knows what good things God had in store for him, and for what purposes He has brought him to England Committing you to His care who has kept you from your youth up, I am, my dear sister, Most affectionately yours. To Mrs. Freeman WHITBY, June 13, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- If all the members of our Society could be persuaded to attend St. Patrick’s Church, we should not need the Sunday service at the New Room. [See letter of May 20, 1789.] I wish you would always attend the church, except when I am in Dublin; unless you choose to make another -- namely, when Dr. Coke is in Dublin. I commend you and yours to Him that loves you; and am, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Walter Churchey WHITBY, June 14, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Yours of May 24 overtook me here this morning. But I have not received the parcel [Of his Poems. See letter of July 22 to him.] which you say was sent by the coach; and probably I shall not receive it, unless it pleases God to bring me back to London. Health is wonderfully continued. Only I am in the fashion: I have a little of the rheumatism. The case of that old woman was very remarkable. It is a true saying, ’None are ruined while they are out of hell.’ One would be sorry for the death of George Jarvis, only that we know God does all things well. If Mr. Holmes [See letter of Feb. 18 to him.] has any money of mine in his hands, I desire he would give you a guinea for the widow. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. ------ WHITBY, June 14, 1788. SIR, -- I am afraid there will not be much contributed by the poor congregation at Derby. However, I propose to do what I can in favor of so excellent a charity. Therefore I hope to preach there for the benefit of the General Hospital in my return to London--namely, at five in the evening, on Friday, the 11th of July. That morning I am to come from Sheffield, and on Saturday to be at Nottingham. -- I am, sir, Your obedient servant. To Henry Moore SCARBOROUGH, Monday, June 16, 1788. DEAR HENRY, -- On Saturday next and on Saturday se’n-night I expect to be at Epworth, near Thorne, Yorkshire [sic]; on Monday, July 7, at Doncaster, Yorkshire; and on Monday the 14th at London. These Meetings will do you no harm at all. Only go quietly on your way. There should be no delay in enlarging the house if you can get a good title to the ground. [See letter of Aug. 8 to Arthur Keene.] As far as is possible I should advise you to take no notice, good or bad, of the warm men. Let them say what they will and do what they can. Neddy Smyth [Edward Smyth, of Bethesda, and his brother William, one of the Dublin Methodists who objected to services in Church hours. Bethesda had been built at his cost.] wrote lately to me, and I to him, but without a word of dispute. Probably I shall see Mr. W. Smyth; but if I do, I will not dispute with him. I am a man of peace. Peace be with you and yours.--I am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Brooke HULL, June 21, 1788. Of the Methodists and the Church I think as you do: they must not leave the Church -- at least, while I live; if they leave it then, I expect they will gradually sink into a formal, honorable sect. Dear Harry, adieu! To Peard Dickinson THIRSK, June 24, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I do not know any little piece of news which has given me more satisfaction than this, that my Sister Hall has taken a lodging in Th. Philip’s house. I hope to see her and you in about a fortnight, that I may have time to prepare for the Conference. [Held at London on July 29.] You do well not to indulge your thirst after books, but to confine yourself to a very few. I know no commentator on the Bible equal to Bengal. His Gnomon is a jewel; so is his Ordo Temp [His Gnomon ’as a brief and suggestive commentary on the New Testament remains unrivalled.’ McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopodia. Ordo temporum a principio per periodos conomio, divino, 1753.]: the finest system of chronology that ever appeared in the world. Now consider with yourself and [set] down whatever relates to the Conference. Peace be with both your spirits I -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Dickinson, In the City Road, Near Moorfields, London. To Walter Churchey YORK, June 26, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I answered your last. By what means my letter miscarried I cannot tell. [See letters of June 14 and July 22 to him.] Above half of that paragraph (which has traveled over most of the kingdom) is very true. The other half is a blunder. What I spoke was a citation from Bengelius, who thought, not that the world would end, but that the Millennium would begin about the year 1836. [See letter of June 3 to Christopher Hopper.] Not that I affirm this myself, nor ever did. I do not determine any of these things: they are too high for me. I only desire to creep on in the vale of humble love. Peace be with you and yours I -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Adam Clarke YORK, June 26, 1788. DEAR ADAM, -- I really think the temper and behavior of the Bailiff is little less than miraculous. I will give you ten pounds. Follow those little advices in building which are set down in the Large Minutes. [See letters of April 17 and Nov. 5.] So you stole a match! Mrs. Cooke’s not opposing did, indeed, remove the grand hindrance. I pray do not suffer my dear Molly to be idle; let her active spirit have full employment. But what becomes of Jenny Bisson [See letters of May 20 and Oct. 12 to Mrs. Cock.] --that was I fear your bewitched boy will prove an arrant cheat; if not, the French convert too. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Mann LONDON, June 30, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER -- I am greatly concerned for the prosperity of the work of God in Nova Scotia. It seems some way to lie nearer my heart than even that in the United States. Many of our brethren there are, we may hope, strong in the Lord and in the power of His might; but I look upon those in the northern provinces to be younger and tender children, and consequently to stand in need of our most anxious care. I hope all of you that watch over them are all of one mind and of one judgment; that you take care always to speak the same things and to watch over one another in love. Mr. Wray is a workman that need not be ashamed. I am glad to hear of his safe arrival. Although he has not much learning, he has (which is far better) uprightness of heart and devotedness to God. I doubt not but he and you will be one and go on your way hand in hand. Whatever opposers you meet with--Calvinists, Papists, Antinomians, and any other--have a particular care that they do not take up too much either of your time or thoughts. You have better work: keep to your one point, Christ dying for us and living in us. So will you fulfill the joy of, my dear brethren, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley GRIMSBY, June 30, 1788. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Hemlock I do not approve of. It is a very dangerous medicine. I doubt whether sea-bathing would reach an internal complaint; I cannot conceive how it should. Although quicksilver compounded with salts is a very strong poison, yet unmixed it is as innocent as milk, especially when an ounce of it is taken in the morning and ten drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water at three or four in the afternoon. You may safely use this or the diet drink prescribed in the Primitive Physick for ’scorbutic sores.’ The Sunday schools have been of great use in every part of England, and to assist in any of them is a noble employment. But perhaps one less fatiguing would suit you better. Perhaps the being the leader of a little class, if I can find a few agreeable young women. God does not expect us to be sticks or stones. We may grieve and yet not murmur. It is very possible to feel and still resign. And this is Christian resignation. On Monday, July 14, I expect to be in town. [See next letter.] If I can I will endeavor to be in Chesterfield Street on Tuesday. My dear Sally, adieu! To Miss Wesley, At the Rev. Mr. Dickinson’s, City Road, Moorfields, London. To Samuel Bradburn Epworth, July 6, 1788. DEAR SAMMY, -- To-morrow evening I hope to be at Doncaster; on Wednesday at Sheffield; and to-morrow se’nnight at London, bringing my daughter with me. That evening I should not object to preaching at West Street. On Tuesday morning I would breakfast in Chesterfield Street if my sister will be ready at eight o’clock. Then I must hide myself till Sunday. I will preach at one or the other chapel for Kingswood. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Bradburn, at the New Chapel, Near Moorfields, London. To Henry Moore LONDON, July 16, 1788. DEAR HENRY, -- Take your choice. Either let my dear Nancy Moore come with you hither or follow you to Bristol. If not here, I would fain see her there, because I expect to finish my course within a year, probably either here or there; but to have her with me at the close would be one of the greatest comforts I could have next to the favor and presence of God. -- I am, my own Henry, Your ever affectionate. To Mrs. Ward LONDON, July 16, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER. [Mrs. Ward was one of the leading Methodists in Cork, where James Rogers was Assistant. Several of her letters to Wesley are in Arminian Mag. 1788, 326; 1790, 442, 601, 666; 1791, 553.] -- You do well in writing freely to me upon whatever occurs to your mind, and you should lose no time, for probably the time is at hand when I shall be called to ’arise and go hence.’ I hardly expect to see another May, or perhaps the end of another March; but be that as God pleases. My remnant of days I spend to His praise, Who died the whole world to redeem; Be they many or few, my days are His due, And they all are devoted to Him. For upwards of fifty years my language respecting the Church has been just the same as it is now. Yet, whenever I am removed, there can be no doubt but some of the Methodists will separate from it and set up independent meetings: some will accept of livings: the rest (who will, I trust, be the largest third) will continue together on the itinerant plan; and if they abide by their old rules, God will give them His blessing. It has been the glory of Methodists to assist all parties without forming any. In so doing, God has abundantly blessed them. What could He have done more for them than He has done Do not they know when they are well Mr. Rogers should do all that is in his power to quiet the minds of our people. Your son Richard goes on well. He will be a preacher, either regular or irregular. I think we can make room at Kingswood for the children you mention. Peace be with you and yours. -- I am, my dear sister, Yours most affectionately. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Wesley was at Dumfries on May 13. He says: ’Robert Dull soon found me out. He has behaved exceeding well, and done much good here; but he is a bold man. He has begun building a preaching-house larger than any in Scotland except those in Glasgow and Edinburgh.’ See Journal, vii. 387; and letters of January 9, 1788, and January 28, 1789. [2] Charles Wesley was very weak, though still able to get out of doors sometimes. [3] Brackenbury was thinking about returning to England. His health was still poor. Chapels had been built and preachers raised up. [4] David Gordon was born at Ballymens in 1757, became a preacher in 1784, and died in 1799. He was deeply devoted to God, and a very acceptable preacher. See Atmore’s Memorial, pp. 157-60. [5] Thomas Warwick was in the Isle of Wight. His obituary describes him as ’a man of solid piety, respectable talents, and great self-possession and intrepidity.’ He was appointed to Bristol in 1788. Stamp’s manuscript Methodism in Hampshire, I. 1788 section, says of Winscom, ’A more censorious and fault-finding man never existed.’ He speaks of his love of power. [6] It was Miss Matlet’s rule to go as preacher or revivalist whenever she was sent for. In a note at the back of the letter she says she worked with her own hands so as to lay no charge on the people. ’Mr. Wesley heard of all this, and became a father to me when my own father refused to do a father’s part.’ See letters of October 6, 1787, and August 2, 1788, to her. [7] Benjamin Rhodes was stationed at Bristol. He had been Brad-burn’s colleague in London the previous year. His hymn ’My heart and Voice I raise’ is well known. Wesley ’Corrected Tunes’ on July 17, when he got back to London. See Journal, vii. 417d; and letters of October 22, 1773, and April 15, 1788. [8] Black had seen some singular cases of convulsion. One sufferer had to be held down, lest he should injure himself; and he was with difficulty prevented from rushing on Black, who fell on his knees and prayed for him, when the wild agitation ceased. See Richey’s Memoir, p. 222; and for Alexander Anderson, ’this dear man of God and pattern of piety,’ pp. 155-6. [9] Miss Collinson was the third daughter of Edward Collinson, a furnishing ironmonger in Lombard Street. Her mother was the daughter of Wesley’s friend, Thomas Ball of Bath. Agnes was born on August 31, 1775, and privately baptized by Wesley, who gave her her first ticket in 1789. She married Joseph Bulmer, a London merchant, in 1793, was the intimate friend of Adam Clarke and Jabez Bunting and their families, and wrote the Memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Mortimer and much sacred poetry. She died at Ryde in 1836, and is buried with her husband and parents at City Road. [10] Wesley had been at Dudley on the 23rd, and talked with Miss Lewis at John Moon’s house. See letters of April 2, 1789 (to her), and November 27, 1789 (to Jeremiah Brettell); and for letter to Mary Lewis, July 28, 1775. [11] Charles Wesley was buried in Marylebone Old Parish Churchyard because the ground at City Road had not been consecrated. The irony of the situation was that the ground at Marylebone had not been consecrated. See letter of April 29. [12] Sarah Wesley wrote on April 4 a detailed account of her father’s death. ’His last words which I could hear were, "Lord -- my heart -- my God!" He then drew his breath short, and the last so gently, that we knew not exactly the moment in which his happy spirit fled.’ See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 442-4. [13] Adam Clarke had chosen some ground in Guernsey within a few yards of the Chapel-of-Ease. The Bailiff had let them have a piece fifty by forty feet in the middle of the town, had given 50, and said he would take a seat for six in the new chapel. He also promised ten guineas towards the additional windows which Clarke wished to have. Mr. De Jersey and Mr. Walker had arranged to purchase the ground and settle it on the Conference Plan. Clarke told Brackenbury on March 2 that his visit to Jersey had been productive of good. Mrs. Saumarez came and begged ’to be admitted to the advantages of class-meeting. Her zeal and earnestness are, blessed be God, much increased, as those also of Miss Lempriere, on seeing her companion so hearty in the cause.’ See Dunn’s Clarke, p. 58; letter of June 26; and for Mrs. George Walker, that of January 8. [14] The verses referred to were probably the Swan-song, ’In age and feebleness extreme,’ or those quoted in Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. p. 439, as ’written a little before his death’: How long, how often, shall I pray,-- Take all iniquity away; And give the plenitude of good, The blessing bought by Jesu’s blood; Concupiscence and pride remove, And fill me, Lord, with humble love [15] Wesley predicted in a letter to Charles on April 6, 1786, that Dr. Coke would have work enough that year with Edward Smyth. In the Spring of 1888 Coke found on visiting Dublin that many of the Methodists were in the habit of attending Dissenting chapels on Sunday. It was therefore arranged to hold Services in Whitefriars Street Chapel during church hours on three Sundays out of four. On the fourth Sunday the Methodists were invited to go to St. Patrick’s Cathedral and receive the sacrament. This gave great offense to Smyth and to his brother and other wealthy Methodists. Wesley was appealed to, and held that Coke had been too warm and should have given more weight to the opinion of those who wanted him not to carry out his plan. No more services were to be held in Whitefriars Street in church hours. This decision was afterwards modified. See letters of April 6 and May 11. [16] Cownley was now a supernumerary at Newcastle. Coke’s suggestion probably was that he should be ordained and become Assistant at Edinburgh, where he was appointed next Conference. His strength was unequal to the strain, and he returned to Newcastle in 1789. See previous letter, and the next. [17] Mrs. Blachford had consulted Wesley as to the marriage of her only daughter Mary, who was beautiful and accomplished, to her cousin Henry Tighe, M.P. It proved a happy union. Mrs. Tighe died in March 1810, after six years of illness. Her poems and her Psyche were very popular. See life of Henry Moore, p. 213; and letter of October 15, 1777. [18] In May Wesley ’explained the former part of Rev. xiv.’ at Bradford. ’These had ears to hear, and many of them rejoiced with joy full of glory.’ See letter of June 26 to Walter Churchey. [19] Taylor had traveled in Cork in 1764, and again in 1769, soon after his first child was born. He was now in Manchester, where he had to put two disagreeable and over-much righteous men out of the Society. See Wesley’s Veterans, vii. 78; letter of August 2, 1788, to Ann Taylor; and for ’that execrable bill trade,’ December 11, 1787. [20] Wesley walked through the General Hospital at Nottingham on July 8, 1786, and ’never saw one so well ordered. Neatness, decency, and common sense shine through the whole.’ He preached for it on November 11, 1787, ’a friend offering to bear my expenses.’ This sermon at Derby, delivered at six from I Cot. xiii. 1, brought in 5, which he paid over at Nottingham the next day. See Journal, vii. 416; W.H.S. v. 164-5. [21] The following is quoted in a large folio circular of four pages, Dublin, February 20, 1815, from which the letter of June 14, 1786, is taken. [22] Clarke was married on April 17. He wrote Wesley on June 2: ’In April I went to England, and had my affair completed in Trowbridge Church without the smallest privacy or the least opposition from any quarter; and, after a stay of only eleven days, returned in safety here with your daughter and my wife. Mrs. Cooke said not a single sentence on the one side or other, and Miss Betsey received us both with the most cordial affection, and accompanied us in the chaise to Bath, from whence we took the stage for Southampton. This happy closure of my affair under God I owe to your kind interposition. He who disposed you and prospered you in the benevolent act give you a present and eternal recompense for Jesus’s sake! Amen.’ See Dunn’s Clarke, p. 62. Clarke had told Wesley of a young man who helped him on Sundays. ’His language is as gross as most you have ever heard, but such a quantity of blunt, new, and striking thoughts, and so fertile an imagination, I have seldom or ever found. Notwithstanding his language, his preaching is attended by high and low with the deepest attention; he is neither visionary nor mystic.’ Mr. Dieuade was in Alderney, and ’I as usual left to do the twofold work in this island’ [Jersey]. [23] John Mann was one of the preachers in Nova Scotia. James Wray appears as elder there in 1788; he became an itinerant in 1781, and died in St. Vincent in 1795, ’a plain, simple, pious, devoted young man.’ See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 509. [24] Wesley did not reach London till eight o’clock on Tuesday night. He went to Chesterfield Street on Saturday morning; and on Sunday preached twice at City Road Chapel on Hebrews v. 12. His’ daughter’ was Mrs. Vazeille’s granddaughter, Jenny Smith. See Journal, vii, 416-19, the previous letter, and that of April 21 to Mrs. Charles Wesley. [25] There are three lines at the close of this letter carefully erased. Moore came to London, but moved to Bristol in 1790. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 92: 90. 1788 ======================================================================== 1788 To Jasper Winscorn LONDON, July 16, 1788. DEAR JASPER, -- If all our Society at Portsmouth or elsewhere separate from the Church, I cannot help it. But I will not. Therefore I can in no wise consent to the having service in church hours. You used to love the Church; then keep to it, and exhort all our people to do the same. If it be true that Brother Hayter is used to talk against the other preachers, as well as against Thomas Warwick, Brother Hayter and I shall not agree. Of dividing circuits we may speak at the Conference. -- I am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate brother. To Francis Wrigley LONDON, July 16, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You judge rightly. There is a snake in the grass. Some of the preachers are at the bottom of this senseless opposition to that excellent Deed. [The Deed of Declaration, 1784.] If it be possible, find out who they are. But if you do, your name shall never be brought into question concerning it. You are right likewise concerning this continual dividing and subdividing of circuits. This likewise will come naturally into consideration if we should live till the Conference. Sister Dutton has no claim to anything from our Fund. She knows it well. But we commonly make her a present once a year. -- I am, dear Franky, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Wrigley, At the Preaching-house, In Blackburn, Lancashire. To Richard Whatcoat LONDON, July 17, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am never so busy as not to spare a little time to remember my friends. I have not heard of your taking any step which I disapprove of. It was not your fault that you did not reach the office which I assigned you. Brother Casey is very desirous of being stationed either in the English or Irish circuit, and I believe it will be every way for his good. He will be both more holy and more happy than in his American living. In various parts of England as well as in America God has lately revived up many young men, who are full of life and fire and have spread the fire of love wherever their lot was cast. It was not well judged by Brother Asbury to suffer, much less indirectly to encourage, that foolish step in the late Conference. Every preacher present ought both in duty and in prudence to have said, ’Brother Asbury, Mr. Wesley is your father, consequently ours, and we will affirm this in the face of all the world.’ It is truly probable the disavowing me will, as soon as my head is laid, occasion a total breach between the English and American Methodists. They will naturally say, ’If they can do without us, we can do without them.’ But they will find a greater difference than they imagine. Next would follow a separation between themselves. Well, whatever may fall out to-morrow, let you and I live to-day! -- I am, dear Richard, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Whatcoat, At Philip Rogers, Esq. In Baltimore, Maryland. Post to New York. To Walter Churchey NEAR LONDON, July 22, 1788. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad you spoke to Mr. Cowper. What pity is it that such talents as his should be employed in so useless a manner! [The reference is to The Task. See letters of Sept. 20, 1786, and Sept. 27, 1788.] Mr. Bradburn delivered your papers to me a few days ago. [See letters of June 26 and Aug. 8 to Churchey.] But this is so busy a time that I had not time to go through them till to-day. In the translation of The Art of Painting [This poem, translated from the Latin of Alphonse du Fresnoy, with notes by R. Graham, fills 98 pages. See letter of Aug. 8.] there are many very good lines; but there are some that want a good deal of filing, and many that are obscure. This is the general fault. The sense is so much crowded that it is not easy to be understood. For many years I have not had any bookseller but Mr. Atlay, and my Assistants. I doubt whether any bookseller will buy Fresnoy. Some of the shorter copies are good sense and good poetry. My brother has left a translation of the Book of Psalms, and verses enough to make up at least six volumes in duodecimo. [He left three small 4to volumes of hymns and poems, a poetic version of a considerable part of the Book of Psalms (afterwards inserted with short notes in the Arminian Magazine), and five 4to volumes of hymns on the Four Gospels and the Acts. See Poetical Works of J. and C. Wesley; Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 451.] I could but ill spare him now I am myself so far declined into the vale of years. But it is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good. Our time is now short. Let my dear Sister Churchey and you and I make the best of it. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To W. H. Kilburn LONDON, July 22, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to receive a letter from you on any account; because I love you, and always did. I think you will have reason to praise God for your preachers [Conference began on July 29. The Norwich appointments were John Poole, Richard Reece, and Thomas Kelk.] the ensuing year. And we shall not be unwilling to help you a little further. By-and-by you will be able to help yourselves. Only love one another and serve God in earnest--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. W. H. Kilburn, At the Preaching-house, In Norwich. To Kitty Warren NEAR LONDON, July 22, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Our Conference is to begin on the 20th instant, and will continue till the middle of the next month. [ ’Week.’ It closed on Aug. 6.] I purpose, if God continues my life and health, to leave London the Monday following -- namely, August 4. But I must go round by Portsmouth in order to open the new preaching-house. So that I expect my little journey through Wales will runs thus: Friday, August 8, Monmouth; Saturday, 9th, Breton; Monday, 18th, Carmarthen; Tuesday, 12th, Llangwain [Llwynygwair. See Journal, vii. 426-7.]; Wednesday, 13th, Haverfordwest; Saturday, 16th, Pembroke; Monday, 18th, Carmarthen; Tuesday, 19th, Swansea; Wednesday, 20th, Cowbridge. I do not wonder, if Mr. Dufton [William Dufton was Assistant at Pembroke. The appointments were William Palmer, C. Bond, and Francis Truscott. Joseph Cole, who had been at Plymouth, went to Ayr and Dumfries.] disliked the people, that the people should dislike him; and in that case the work of God must needs be hindered. But I am entirely of your opinion that it will soon revive if you have acceptable preachers. If he does not much object, I will appoint Josh. Cole for one. Perhaps you could meet me at Llangwain. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear sister, Yours very affectionately. To Alexander Suter NEAR LONDON, July 23, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As your life is in danger, I think the sooner you are with your mother the better. And whenever your health will permit, you need not be idle: there is plenty of employment for you in England. [In the Minutes for 1788 Surer appears as a supernumerary in London, but in July 1789 he is appointed to St. Ives. See letter of May 21, 1789.] Eat as many red currants as ever you can. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Charles Wesley CITY ROAD, July 25, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You know well what a regard I had for Miss Gwynne before she was Mrs. Wesley; and it has not ceased from that time till now. I am persuaded it never will. I find you and your family much upon my heart, both for your own sakes and the sake of my brother. Therefore I will speak without reserve just what comes into my mind. I have sometimes thought you are a little like me. My wife used to tell me, ’My dear, you are too generous. You don’t know the value of money.’ I could not wholly deny the charge. Possibly you may sometimes lean to the same extreme. I know, you are of a generous spirit. You have an open heart and an open hand. But may it not sometimes be too open, more so than your circumstances will allow. Is it not an instance of Christian (as well as worldly) prudence, ’To cut our coat according to our cloth’ If your circumstances are a little narrower, should you not contract your expenses too I need but just give you this hint, which I doubt not you will take kindly from, my dear Sally, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Crook LONDON, July 27, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Is it not enough that I am alive to-day Let God take thought for what is to come. Ten pounds will be allowed for Brother Barrowclough and you; six for you, and four for him. You did well in sending the collections to the Conference according to our rules. You see you are no loser by it. If my life is prolonged, I shall probably set out for Ireland at the usual time--namely, the latter end of March. But how much grace may we receive and how much good may we do before that time! -- I am, with kind love to Sister Crook, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Trustees of Dewsbury LONDON, July 30, 1788. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- The question between us is, ’By whom shall the preachers sent from time to time to Dewsbury be judged’ You say, ’By the trustees.’ I say, ’By their peers -- the preachers met in Conference.’ You say, ’Give up this, and we will receive them.’ I say, ’I cannot, I dare not, give up this.’ Therefore, if you will not receive them on these terms, you renounce connection with Your affectionate brother. To Sarah Mallet LONDON, August 2, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Let me know any time what books you wish to have, and I will order them to be sent to you. [See letters of March 11 and Dec. 26.] It is a pleasure to me if I can show in anything the regard which I have for you, as I am firmly persuaded that you have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man. I do not doubt but you have given God your heart, and do in all things wish to do His holy and acceptable will. But if so, it is no wonder that you should meet with crosses, both from the devil and his children, especially as you believe you are called of God to bear a public testimony against him. But you are in far greater danger from applause than from censure; and it is well for you that one balances the other. But I trust you will never be weary of well doing. In due time you shall reap if you faint not. Whoever praises or dispraises, it is your part to go steadily on, speaking the truth in love. I do not require any of our preachers to license either themselves or the places where they preach. [For the Act, see Tyerman’a Wesley, iii. 512.] Indeed, a forward young man in Northamptonshire brought some trouble on himself by preaching in church time, and so near the church as to disturb both the minister and the congregation. But that need not fright any other of our preachers. They are just as safe as they were before. Go on, therefore, and fear nothing but sin. And let me know if there be anything wherein I can assist you, which will be a pleasure to, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To our Societies in England and Ireland LONDON, August 2, 1788. Fifty years ago and for several years following all our preachers were single men, when in process of time a few of them married. Those with whom they labored maintained both them and their wives, there being then no settled allowance either for the one or the other. But above thirty years ago it was found most convenient to fix a stated allowance for both; and this was found by the circuits where they were stationed, till one year some of the circuits complained of poverty. Dr. Coke and I supplied what was wanting. The next year, the number of wives increasing, three or four of them were supplied out of the Contingent Fund. This was a bad precedent, for more and more wives were thrown upon this fund, till it was likely to be swallowed up thereby. We could think of no way to prevent this, but to consider the state of our Societies in England and Ireland, and to beg the members of each circuit to give us that assistance which they can easily do without hurting their families. Within these fifty years the substance of the Methodists is increased in proportion to their numbers. Therefore, if you are not straitened in your own bowels, this will be no grievance, but you will cheerfully give food and raiment to those who give up all their time and strength and labour to your service. To Ann Taylor LONDON, August 2, 1788. MY DEAR NANCY,--I was well pleased when I heard you were gone to spend a little time in Cork, [See letter of June 7.] where you will have an opportunity of conversing familiarly with Sister Ward [See letters of July 16 and Aug. 2 to her.] and with that blessed woman Sister Rogers. I do not doubt but you will make the best use of these blessed opportunities. Now, my dear maid, is the time when you may improve your understanding and (what is far better) your heart. Now pray earnestly that you may be enabled to give your whole heart to Him who alone is worthy of it. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Ward LONDON, August 2, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- The thing has been wholly misrepresented. Dr. Coke never designed any separation; but they urged him to say ’he wished for such a thing,’ and then faced him down that he designed it. [See letter of May 6.] He and I have had much conversation together, and he is now as fully persuaded as I am that a general separation from the Church either in England or Ireland would be greatly obstructive of the work of God. I am exceedingly glad that the Dean of Waterford now sees the Methodists in a true light. It would be a great pity that anything should impair the good opinion which he now entertains of them. I have therefore wrote to James Deaves, [Condy was Assistant at Waterford. See letter of Feb. 28, 1789 (to Tegart); and for Deaves, that of Nov. 13, 1785.] and desired him to bear with the little oddities of Richard Condy and to advise all our people in my name to keep close to the Church and Sacrament. I make little doubt but they will take my advice. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Frances Godfrey LONDON, August 5, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- YOU have indeed escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowler; the snare is broken, and you are delivered. Certainly you have great reason to praise Him who has brought you to the knowledge of His truth; and not only given you to know but to experience the truth as it is in Jesus. I felt a love for you from the first time I saw you, when you was under those grievous trials. [See letters of July 31, 1784, and Aug. 2, 1789.] Now that you have recovered some measure of health and strength, employ it all to the glory of Him that gave it. Now go on to perfection! Hunger and thirst after righteousness, till you are satisfied therewith; then you will be more and more near to, my dear Fanny, Yours affectionately. My love to your mother. To Mrs. Charles Wesley NORTH GREEN, August 7, 1788. DEAR SISTER, -- As the Conference ended yesterday afternoon, my hurry is now a little abated. I cannot blame you for having thoughts of removing out of that large house. If you could find a lodging to your mind, it would be preferable on many accounts, and perhaps you might live as much without care as you did in the great mansion at Garth. I was yesterday inquiring of Dr. Whitehead whether Harrogate would not be better for Sally than the sea water. [Sally went to Ramsgate. See letter of Sept. 1.] He seems to think it would; and I should not think much of giving her ten or twenty pounds to make a trial. But I wish she could see him first, which she might do any day between seven and eight in the morning. Some of the first moneys I receive I shall set apart for you [See letter of Dec. 21.]; and in everything that is in my power you may depend upon the willing assistance of, dear Sally, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone. To Walter Churchey LONDON, August 8, 1788. MY DEAR BROTER, -- I think you know that I love you and that I should rejoice to do anything for you that is in my power. And one allowed proof of love is plain dealing. Therefore I will speak to you without any reserve. There are many good lines, and some very good, both in the ode and in the translation of The Art of Painting. And I really think you improve in versifying: you write a good deal better than you did some years ago. You express your sense with more perspicuity than you used to do, and appear to have greater variety of words as well as more strength. But there is nothing (to use the modern cant word) sentimental in either the ode or the translation. There is nothing of tender or pathetic, nothing that touches the passions. Therefore no bookseller would venture to buy them, as knowing they will not sell. And they lie utterly out of the way of the Methodists, who do not care to buy or even to read (at least the generality of them) any but religious books. I do not believe all my influence would induce them to buy as many copies as would suffice to pay for the printing. I have not yet seen my brother’s translation of the Psalms. Neither, indeed, could I as yet have time to read it, were it put into my hands. If any had asked my advice, they would not have thrust out the account of George Lukins [Lukins had been exorcised in the Vestry of Temple Church, Bristol. See Journal, vii. 362.] into the world so prematurely. It should have been fully authenticated first. I am, with love to Sister Churchey, Your affectionate brother. I expect to be at Brecon on Sunday se’nnight. To Arthur Keene LONDON, August 8, 1788. MY DEAR ARTHUR, -- Even at this busy time I must snatch a few minutes to write. You have now an easy way to show your affection for me and your willingness to be advised by me. It is the belief of many that you will see me in Ireland no more. But if I should live till spring, I shall endeavor to visit Dublin at the usual time, about the end of March. [He arrived in Dublin for his last visit on March 29, 1789.] If then you have a real regard for me, see that your preaching-house [In Whitefriar Street. See letter of June 16.] be enlarged without delay. Forward the building that it may be ready when I come. Do this, and I shall know that you have a love for, my dear Arthur, Your ever affectionate brother. My kind love attend Bella and all the little ones. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, August 8, 1788. MY DEAR LADY, -- It is certain many persons both in Scotland and England would be well pleased to have the same preachers always. But we cannot forsake the plan of acting which we have followed from the beginning. For fifty years God has been pleased to bless the itinerant plan, the last year most of all. It must not be altered till I am removed; and I hope will remain till our Lord comes to reign upon earth. I do not know (unless it unfits us for the duties of life) that we can have too great a sensibility of human pain. Me-thinks I should be afraid of losing any degree of this sensibility. I had a son-in-law (now in Abraham’s bosom) who quitted his profession, that of a surgeon, for that very reason; because he said it made him less sensible of human pain. [Was this Noah Vazeille] And I have known exceeding few persons who have carried this tenderness of spirit to excess. I recollect but one who was constrained to leave off in a great measure visiting the sick because he could not see any one in pain without fainting away. Mr. Charles Perronet was the first person I was acquainted with who was favored with the same experience as the Marquis De Renty [’I bear in me ordinarily an experimental verity and a plenitude of the most Holy Trinity, which exalts me to a simple view of God.’ (Wesley’s Extract of the Life of Monsieur De Renty). See letter of Oct. 3, 1731.] with regard to the ever-blessed Trinity, Miss Ritchie was the second, Miss Roe (now Mrs. Rogers) the third. I have as yet found but a few instances; so that this is not, as I was at first apt to suppose, the common privilege of all that are ’perfect in love.’ [Compare letters of June 11 1777 (to Hannah Ball), and July 4, 2787, and Lady Maxwell’s letters to Alexander Mather in her Life, pp. 359-61.] Pardon me, my dear friend, for my heart is tenderly concerned for you, if I mention one fear I have concerning you, lest, on conversing with some, you should be in any degree warped from Christian simplicity. O do not wish to hide that you are a Methodist! Surely it is best to appear just what you are. I believe you will receive this as a proof of the sincerity with which I am, my dear Lady, Your ever affectionate servant. To Ann Bolton BRECON, August 15, 1788. DEAR NANCY, -- Last night I received yours at Monmouth. The same complaint which you make of not receiving an answer to your letter another person had just been making. But I had answered you both. I cannot therefore but conclude that both my letters had some way or other miscarried. Since I saw you a young slender girl just beginning to seek salvation I do not remember that you ever offended in anything. But you was always exceeding dear to me. So you are still. And I would show it effectually if my power were equal to my will. I love you the more because you are a daughter of affliction. I suppose you are still in God’s school. But you still remember He loveth whom He chasteneth. If you love me still, write freely to, my dear Nancy, Yours very affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To John Atlay PEMBROKE, August 23, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If you are persuaded that such a promise (which is the whole and sole cause of the breach at Dewsbury) is binding, &c., you must follow your persuasion. You will have blame enough from other persons; my hand shall not be upon you. If I can do you good, I will; but I shall certainly do you no harm. George Whitfield is the person I choose to succeed you. I wish you would teach him as much as you can without delay. -- I am, with kind love to Sister Atlay, Your affectionate brother. To Elizabeth Baker CARMARTHEN, August 26, 1788. MY DEAR BETSY, -- Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have been thinking much on what you said concerning your loving others too much. In one sense this cannot be; you cannot have too much benevolence for the whole human race: but in another sense you may; you may grieve too much for the distresses of others, even so much as to make you incapable of giving them the relief which otherwise you should give them. So I know one that, when he sees any one in strong pain, directly faints away. [See letter of Aug. 8 to Lady Maxwell.] It is something like this which you mean by feeling too much for others You can give me two or three instances of it, and then I shall be better able to judge. Have you a constant witness of the pardoning love of God And do you find an abiding love to Him Have you yet been enabled to give Him your whole heart If so, at what time and in what manner did you receive this blessing I think you can speak with all freedom to Yours very affectionately. To John Atlay BRISTOL, August 31, 1788. I pray, Brother Atlay, do not serve me so. If you will not serve me yourself, do not hinder others from serving me. Do not fright George Whitfield from it; but encourage him to it, and instruct him as quick as possible. My death is nothing to the purpose. I have now nothing to do with the Dewsbury people: go with them and serve them. But I am still Your affectionate brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, September 1, 1788. MY DEAR SALLY, -- I received yours yesterday in the afternoon. As Ramsgate [See letters of Aug. 7 and Sept. 8.] is more private, I am not sorry that you are there, and that you have so suitable a companion. I think it would be expedient for you to bathe every day, unless you find yourself chilled when you come out. But I do not advise you to drink any sea water. I am persuaded it was never designed to enter any human body for any purpose but to drown it. The great comfort is that you have a good and wise physician always ready both to advise and to assist. Therefore you are assured health you shall have if health be best. That all things may work together for your good is the prayer of, my dear Sally, Your ever affectionate Uncle. To John Atlay BRISTOL, September 4, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I was once afraid that you had dissuaded George Whitfield from taking charge of the books; but I can take your word. Now I am fully satisfied that you did not; and I believe you will teach him everything relating to that charge. But one thing is much upon my mind: I wish you would hire one or two proper persons, and take an inventory of all the books that are either in the shop or under the chapel. This will be worth all the pains. Then George will know what he has to do. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. John Atlay, New Chapel, London. To Thomas Cooper BRISTOL, September 6, 1788. DEAR TOMMY, -- I will not send any other person into the Derby Circuit if you will be there in two or three weeks. [Cooper, who had been stationed at Birmingham, and was down in the Minutes for Plymouth, had been changed to Derby. He was appointed to Wolverhampton in 1789.] Otherwise I must, or the work of God might suffer in a manner not easy to be repaired. You should have told me at first what your disorder was, and possibly I might have saved you from much pain. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Thos. Cooper, In Cherry Lane, Birmingham. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, September 8, 1788. MY DEAR SALLY, -- You shall have just as many friends as will be for your good; and why should not my Betty Ritchie be in the number I must look to that, if I live to see London again, which will probably be in three weeks. If sea water has that effect on you, it is plain you are not to drink it. [See letters of Sept. 1, 1788, and Sept. 17, 1790.] All the body is full of imbibing pores. You take in water enough that way. If your appetite increases, so does your strength, although by insensible degrees. I have seen John Henderson several times. I hope he does not live in any sin. But it is a great disadvantage that he has nothing to do. I hope we shall find him something. I have a work in hand that will give you pleasure: I have begun to write my brother’s Life. [This work he never accomplished. He died before he had made much progress in collecting material. See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 454; and letter of Sept. 26.] Now, in this you may assist me much. You knew as much of him as most people; and you have the pen of a ready witness. Set down everything you can recollect concerning him. I think between us we shall be able to make something out. You may set down everything you can think of; I can select such a portion as is most proper. You have now leisure for it and for doing good to any whom Providence delivers into your hands. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am, my dear Sally, Yours in tender affection. To Elizabeth Baker BRISTOL, September 16, 1788. MY DEAR BETSY, -- One would be apt to imagine that there could be no ill consequence of the deepest concern for the sin and misery of our fellow creatures. But dear, indisputable experience shows the contrary to a demonstration. Lucretia Smith [See letter of Oct. 21, 1757.] (to mention only one instance), a young gentlewoman of our Society here, who found remission of sins long ago and was unblameable in her whole behavior, reasoned on that question, ’Why does not the God of love make every one as happy as me’ till she lost all her happiness, all her peace, which she never recovered since. Beware, therefore, of reasoning on those points which are far too high for you. Such knowledge is too wonderful for us; we cannot attain unto it. His ways are unsearchable and His judgments a great deep. What He doeth thou knowest not now; it is enough that thou shalt know hereafter. I hope you never will be weary of well-doing. Herein your sister Sally is a pattern. She has done unspeakable good since she came to Cowbridge. [Wesley had been there in August. See letters of Aug. 26, 1788, and Oct. 5, 1789.] God sent her thither to revive His work there. When I first heard of her removal from Monmouth, I could not but be troubled at not seeing by what possible means the want of her could be supplied. But it is done already. God has raised you to supply her place. And He will supply all your wants out of the riches of His mercy in Christ Jesus. In what sense do you see God Are you always sensible of His loving presence How do you ’rejoice evermore’ and ’pray without ceasing and in everything give thanks’ It is certain this is the will of God concerning you in Christ Jesus. Adieu! To Joseph Benson BRISTOL, September 17, 1788. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I congratulate you upon the happy increase of your family. [A daughter had been born on Sept. 3.] And I am glad you have determined to correct Mr. Fletcher’s Letters. [See letter of June 9.] You will observe that it is dangerous on such subjects to depart from Scripture either as to language or sentiment. I believe that most of the controversies which have disturbed the Church have arisen from people’s wanting to be wise above what is written, not contented with what God has plainly revealed there. And, Joseph, do not you yourself immediately forget this; and immediately move out in a curious metaphysical disquisition about what God has not plainly revealed What have you or I to do with that difficulty I dare not, will not, reason about it for a moment. I believe just what is revealed, and no more. But I do not pretend to account for it, or to solve the difficulties that may attend it. Let angels do this, if they can. But I think they cannot. I think even these would find ’no end, in wandering mazes lost.’ [Paradise Lost, ii. 561.] Some years since, I read about fifty pages of Dr. Watts’s ingenious treatise upon the glorified humanity of Christ. [See letter of June 8, 1780.] But it so confounded my intellects, and plunged me into such unprofitable reasonings, yea dangerous even, that I would not have read it through for five hundred pounds. It led him into Arianism. Take care that similar tracts (all of which I abhor) have not the same effect upon you. [Benson was ’busy reading some chapters on the Godhead of Christ to perfect Mr. Fletcher’s MSS. On that subject.’ His son says in the manuscript Life, ii. 1644, that while writing ’a material change took place in his mind as to the previous existence of the human soul of Christ.’] Pursue that train of reasoning as far as it will go, and it will surely land you either in Socinianism or Deism. I like your thoughts upon Materialism, as, I doubt not, I should those on the Separate Existence of the Soul. It will be best to print at Hull or York, if you can print almost as cheap and can have as good paper. Should there not be a thousand copies Then you will reserve an hundred of them for yourself. The matter of Dewsbury you mistake totally. When I met the trustees at Dewsbury they all promised me to settle the house according to the deed then read. They flew off from this, not I; I desired no more from the beginning to the end. The sum of all was, If any one accuses a preacher whom I send, I, not the accuser, will be his judge. And this I cannot give up. [See letter of July 30.] -- I am, with love to Sister Benson, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. But hold! Does not Mrs. Fletcher consider this impression as her property To Francis Asbury LONDON, September 20, 1788. [MY DEAR BROTHER], -- There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists: I am under God the father of the whole family. Therefore I naturally care for you all in a manner no other persons can do. Therefore I in a measure provide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not for me, were it not that I not only permit him to collect but also support him in so doing. But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little: you study to be great. I creep: you strut along. I found a school: you a college! [Cokesbury College, so called after its founders Coke and Asbury, was twice burnt down.] nay, and call it after your own names! O beware, do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and ’Christ be all in all!’ One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called Bishop I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a feel, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me Bishop! For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better. Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart. And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore BRISTOL, September 20, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have taken place in the mail coach for Sunday se’nnight in the afternoon, so that I shall probably be with you on Monday morning. Pray tell George Whitfield to settle himself in the Book-Room without delay, as John Atlay has appointed to leave it on the 25th instant. [See letters of Sept. 4 and 24.] I beg of Brother Rankin and you to advise and assist him to the uttermost of your power. Many croakers, no doubt, will strive to discourage him; therefore strengthen his hands all you can.--I am, with much love to my Nancy, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. ----- BRISTOL, September 20, 1788. MY DEAR FRIEND, -- The question properly refers (when we speak of a separation from the Church) to a total and immediate separation. Such was that of Mr. Ingham’s people first, and afterwards that of Lady Huntingdon’s; who all agreed to form themselves into a separate body without delay, to go to church no more, and to have no more connection with the Church of England than with the Church of Rome. Such a separation I have always declared against; and certainly it will not take place (if ever it does) while I live. But a kind of separation has already taken place, and will inevitably spread, though by slow degrees. Those ministers (so called) who neither live nor preach the gospel I dare not say are sent of God. Where one of these is settled, many of the Methodists dare not attend his ministry; so, if there be no other church in that neighborhood, they go to church no more. This is the case in a few places already, and it will be the case in more; and no one can justly blame me for this, neither is it contrary to any of my professions. To Mrs. Charles Wesley BRISTOL, September 22, 1788. DEAR SISTER, -- As John Atlay has deserted me and George Whitfield is but just come into his place, I do not yet know anything of my own circumstances. But I hope to be in town on Monday; and, either for the sake of you or my dear Sally, I shall certainly do anything that is in the power of, dear sister, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Atlay BRISTOL, September 24, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- From the time that you gave me warning of quitting my service and informed me you was determined to stay no longer with me (unless upon impossible conditions) than the 25th instant, I resolved to say nothing more or less about it, but to let the matter go as it would go. Whether you made a wise choice in preferring your present to your former station we shall see, if you and I should live two or three years longer. Meantime I am as ever Your affectionate brother. PS. -- I say nothing about you to the people of Bristol. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, September 26, 1788. DEAR SALLY, -- The reading of those poisonous writers the Mystics confounded the intellects of both my brother and Mr. Fletcher and made them afraid of (what ought to have been their glory) the letting their light shine before men. Therefore I do not wonder that he was so unwilling to speak of himself, and consequently that you knew so little about him. [See letter of Sept. 8.] The same wrong humility continually inculcated by those writers would induce him to discontinue the writing his Journal. When I see those detached papers you speak of, I shall easily judge whether any of them are proper to be published. On Monday I expect to be in town; but I shall leave it again on Wednesday and set out for Norfolk and Suffolk. Afterward I shall visit {if God permit) the other northern circuits till the end of October. Then I visit the classes the first two weeks in November. So that I shall not reach Canterbury before November 24. But do not you want money [See letter of Sept. 22.] You can speak freely to, my dear Sally, Yours most affectionately. To Walter Churchey BRISTOL, September 27, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- To-morrow evening I am to set out for London. So I still creep up and down, as I would fain do a little work before the night cometh wherein no man can work. I commend you much for not suffering your daughter to go you know not where. What would it profit her to gain a thousand pounds and then lose her soul which could scarce fail to be the consequence of placing her in an ungodly family. I do not know anything in Bristol that would suit; but very probably I may find something in London. I should be glad if I could have a conversation with Mr. Cowper. I verily think there would be no great difference between us. [See letters of July 22 and Dec. 6 to Churchey.] September 27, LONDON. I think it is a pity to burn the poems. There are many good lines in them. [See letter of Aug. 8 to him.] So there are in the Dedication, which I thought I had sent you with the rest. I will send two of the Prayer-Books by the first opportunity. Peace be with you and yours.--I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Chutehey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To Lady Maxwell LONDON, September 30, 1788. My DEAR LADY, -- For many years a great person professed and I believe had a great regard for me. [The Countess of Huntingdon.] I therefore believed it my duty to speak with all freedom, which I did in a long letter. But she was so displeased that she said to a friend, ’I hate Mr. Wesley above all the creatures upon earth.’ I now believe it my duty to write freely to you. Will it have the same effect Certainly I would not run the hazard, did I not regard your happiness more than your favor. Therefore I will speak. May God enable you not only to pardon it, but to profit thereby! Indeed, unless you profit by it, I do not expect you to forgive. Be pleased to observe I do not affirm anything; I only beg you calmly to consider, Would it be fight for me to propagate a doctrine which I believed to be false particularly if it were not only false but dangerous to the souls of men, frequently hindering their growth in grace, stopping their pursuit of holiness And is it fight in you to do this You believe the doctrine of Absolute Predestination is false. Is it, then, right for you to propagate this doctrine in any kind or degree, particularly as it is not only false but a very dangerous doctrine, as we have seen a thousand times Does it not hinder the work of God in the soul, feed all evil and weaken all good tempers, turn many quite out of the way of life and drive them back to perdition Is not Calvinism the very antidote of Methodism, the most deadly and successful enemy which it ever had ’But my friend desired that I would propagate it, and lodged money with me for this very purpose.’ What then May I destroy souls because my friend desired it Ought you not rather to throw that money into the sea O let not any money or any friend move you to propagate a lie, to strike at the root of Methodism, to grieve the holiest of your friends, and to endanger your own soul! Living or dying, I shall always be, my dear Lady, Your most affectionate servant. To Jasper Winscon LONDON, September 30, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The Conference cannot and will not bear the expense of that foolish law suit. I can conceive but one way to pay it. The hundred pounds which you borrowed of me you may pay to the attorney, and his receipt in full shall be your discharge. [See letters of Sept. 13, 1785, and June 17, 1786.] -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Walter Griffith () LONDON, October 10, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is certain you cannot preach the truth without offending those who preach the contrary. Nevertheless, you must preach it, only in the mildest and [most] inoffensive manner the thing will admit of. And beware that you never return evil for evil or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing. You cannot constrain any one to go to church; you can only advise them to it, and encourage them by your example. My kind love to your wife. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To James Bogie LONDON, October 11, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is an excellent plan. The sooner you put it in execution the better; only see that you be all punctual to follow one another exactly. Let not a little hindrance or inconvenience put you out of your way; -- suppose a shower of rain or snow. Press on! Break through! Take up your cross each of you and follow your Master; so shall the world and the devil fall under your feet. -- I am, dear Jemmy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Cock LONDON, October 12, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It gives me much pleasure to find you are still happy in God, leaning upon your Beloved. O may you increase therein more and more! May you be more and more holy, and you will be more and more happy! [See letters of June 26 (to Adam Clarke) and Dec. 27. ] This I long for, even your perfection, your growing up in all things into Him that is our Head. O may you never endeavor Love’s all-sufficient sea to raise By drops of creature happiness! I sent you a little book or two by Mr. Clarke. If I can be of any service to you in anything, it would be an unspeakable satisfaction to, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Joseph Cownley LONDON, October 12, 1788. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I really think you have hardly had so much scandal as one might expect would fall to your share. I have heard very few faults found with you for above these forty years, and I think you and I have not had one quarrel yet. So it is very probable we never shall. What relates to expense we can set right. But the other evil is more hard to be remedied, because many of the preachers, especially in Scotland, are got above my hand. I never desired them to have service thrice a day; I knew it would be too hard for most of them. I never advised them to symbolize [To agree in belief or practice. Heal says of Hooper: ’To continue the use of their garments was in his opinion to symbolize with Anti-christ’ (History of the Puritans, i. 69).] with the Scots. I told them over and over. It was needless. We might have done in Scotland just as we did in England. Dr. Hamilton was already convinced of it. What can be done now I cannot tell. But certainly the preachers must not kill themselves. Retrench what part of the Sunday service you please, and I will not blame you. I do not see why the collection may not be made at six, with a little preamble telling them the real case. This may answer just as well. Lay it upon me. Say, ’Mr. Wesley charges me not to murder myself.’ Dr. Coke did forget, but is now writing your letters of Orders. -- I ever am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. Rev. Mr. Cowriley, Minister of the Methodist Church, Leith-Wind, Edinburgh. To the Rev. Mr. Heath LONDON, October 20, 1788. DEAR SIR, -- I am of the same mind with you that it will be well for you to return to your native country. [See letters of Aug. 6, 1787, and Dec. 2, 1788.] If you was here, I think we would hardly part again as long as I lived. I have no doubt of finding you employment in England. All the difficulty is how to get over. Dr. Coke is not pleased with a letter sent to Mr. Asbury and transmitted to him wherein you are charged with neglect of the children; but you have an opportunity of answering for yourself. Perhaps you was so unhinged and discouraged by finding things otherwise than you expected that you had not the heart to apply yourself to anything as diligently as you was used to do. However that be, I should be right glad to see you well landed in England: and that God may bring you in the full blessing of the gospel of peace is the prayer of, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. Heath, At Cokesbury College. To be left at Philip Rogers, Esq., In Baltimore, Maryland. To Edward Jackson LONDON, October 24, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I commend you for denying tickets to all that have neglected meeting their classes, unless they seriously promise to meet them for the time to come. You cannot be too exact in this. You do well likewise to exhort all the believers that are in earnest or would be in earnest to meet in band. But the bands in every place need continual instruction; for they are continually flying in pieces. [See letter of Jan. 6, 1781] But the grand means of the revival of the work of God in Sheffield [Jackson was Assistant there.] was the prayer-meetings. There were then twelve of them in various parts of the town every Sunday night. Keep up these, and you will keep up the flame. -- I am, with love to Sister Jackson, dear Edward, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Jackson, At the Preaching-house, In Sheffield. To William Stephens LONDON, October 31, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You do well to write without disguise. Otherwise I should not be able to judge. As you state the matter I cannot but agree with you that you are called to marry. But ’tis pity that you had not told me these things as plainly before the Conference. Then I could have made the way plain for you which now will be attended with some difficulty. -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Will. Stephens, At the Preaching-house, In Cardiff. To John Valton LONDON, October 31, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Whoever they were written by the rules are excellent rules; and I should have no objection to your printing them in the manner you mention. One thing is certain, that it would be some advantage to the poor printer; and it is probable that the rules would be useful to a serious reader. I think if you used decoction of nettles every morning (if you have not done it already) it might restore your strength. --I am, with love to Sister Valton, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peter Mill [October 1788.] DEAR PETER, -- Alter that vile plan of yours so that the poor people at [Haworth] may have preaching every Sunday morning at nine; and put down the chanting at Shields; and show that you regard Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Carlill [Noveraber 1788.] DEAR TOMMY, -- We have suffered much inconvenience by taking in more preachers than we were able to keep, or indeed to employ, without their staying in one place longer than was good either for them or for the people. And this is a wrong time of year to send out young preachers, especially into the fens of Lincolnshire. You must therefore make the best shift that you can till towards spring. I am glad to hear that you go on in love and peace with each other. All our brethren should pray fervently and continually for the King. Nothing but the mighty power of God can restore him. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peter Mill LONDON, November [3 or 4], 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- My humor was as much out of the question as my stature. My objection to the chanting the Psalms was, we have no such thing among the Methodists. But when I was informed they were not the reading Psalms which were chanted but only the hymns in the morning and evening service, my objections of course fell to the ground. But as this little dispute is now at an end, there will be no need of saying any more, only that courtesy and brotherly love require it. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Adam Clarke LONDON, November 5, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER am always well pleased to hear from you. I am glad you visit Guernsey. You must in no wise confine yourself to Jersey. It would be a sin against God and the people. You ought not to spend more than twice as much time in Jersey as you do out of it. It would have been quite wrong to have made a collection for Dr. Coke at this critical time. The Doctor is often too hasty. He does not maturely consider all circumstances. If you have any money in your hands, you may expend what I subscribed and draw upon me for it. Probably at the Conference your sphere of action will be enlarged. I hope in the meantime you will not suffer Sister Clarke to be unemployed. See that she fulfill the office of a deaconess. Peace be with all your spirits! I think it will be well to sell the old chapel. [See letter of June 1, 1789.] -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Benjamin Rhodes LONDON, November 6, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear that Sister Rhodes begins to recover her strength. It has been observed for many years that some at Redruth were apt to despise and very willing to govern their preachers. But I commend you for standing in your place, and changing both general and particular stewards. [See letter of Jan. 7, 1789.] The case of Rd. Phillips I refer wholly to you. But if his gifts be tolerable (as we at London thought), let him not be oppressed. [Benjamin Rhodes, Samuel Bardsley, and Richard Phillips (who had been admitted on trial at the London Conference in August) were appointed at Redruth.] -- I am, with love to Sister Rhodes, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Blunt CITY ROAD, November 7, 1788. BROTHER BLUNT, -- I am constrained to tell you you use me ill. Be you ever so great a man and I ever so little, you owe it to me to give me an account at the stated times of those souls I have entrusted you with, for whom I am to give an account to God. Now I am speaking (perhaps the last time), friendship compels me to speak plain. Of all the men I have conversed with in London or in England, I think you have the most pride, you are above measure self-conceited and full of yourself. Whereas you are by no means equal even in sense to those whom you despise -- Mr. Bradbum, Moore and John Edwards, for instance. Their natural understanding is stronger than yours, and is likewise far better improved. O humble yourself before God and man! Despise no man but yourself! Learn to say from your heart, ’Lord, I am not high-minded! I have no proud looks!’ Then you will give as much pleasure as you have frequently given pain to Your affectionate brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, November 7, 1788. DEAR SIR, -- I snatch a few minutes from visiting the classes to answer your acceptable letter. I exceedingly approve of your spending the winter at Bath. [Brackenbury’s health was poor, and he finally retired from the Channel Islands in 1789. See letter of Sept. 15, 1790.] I believe God will make you of use to many there, who are more ripe for your instructions than ever they were before. And I am persuaded you will yourself profit as much if not more by the conversation of a few in Bristol, Mr. Valton and Miss Johnson [See letter of Dec. 12, 1786.] in particular, as by that of any persons in Great Britain. Aim at the cheerfulness of faith. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Charles Bland LONDON, November 8, 1788. DEAR CHARLES, -- The Notes on the New Testament and the Appeals will come with the next Oxford Magazines. If you all exert yourselves, the work of God will prosper throughout the circuit. I pray remember two things; first, Bear with Mr. Jaquis: there is honesty at the bottom. Secondly, let none of you ever omit the morning preaching at Wycombe, Oxford, or Witney. -- I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. C. Bland, At the Preaching- house, In High Wycombe. To Jasper Winscom LONDON, November 8, 1788. DEAR JASPER, -- William Cashman [Probably William Ashman, who was now at Tiverton. See letter of Oct. 23, 1786.] advised you like an heathen. Mr. Valton deserves pay as well as you do. [Valton was now a supernumerary at Bristol, and was able to accept invitations to preach in other circuits. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 104.] But he does not want it, and therefore scorns to take it, knowing the poverty of the land. I am glad to hear so good an account of the isle. The work of God will flourish there if it be steadily pursued. No preacher ought to stay either at Portsmouth, or Sarum, or any other place a whole week together. That is not the Methodist plan at all. It is a novel abuse. I hope you have finished the matter with the attorney [See letter of Sept. 30.]; and am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Jasper Winscorn, At the Preaching-house, Near Sarum. To William Smith LONDON, November [10], 1788. DEAR BILLY, -- How is this Do you owe E. Coates money, or does he owe you money, that you will not break off with that rogue, that knave that is cheating me out of my property I insist upon your never darkening his doors more, or renounce all connection with your brother John Wesley. And at the same time give positive orders for the preachers to be withdrawn from Millbourn Place. To Mrs. Crosby LAMBETH, November 13, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I thank you for your account of the death of Miss Corkle, which is highly remarkable. It ought not to be hid under a bushel; so I shall order it to be inserted in the Magazine. It is very remarkable that, as Brother Peacock has been growing in grace for some years, so God has been increasing his gifts and has been giving him more and more favor among the people to whom he was sent. I know no reason why he may not spend another year at Leeds. I have had more pain (chiefly rheumatical) within these few months than I had for forty years before, and in September my strength swiftly decayed. But it has pleased God now to restore it, and I am nearly as I was twenty years ago. Probably, if I live, I shall see you at Leeds in summer. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear sister, Your ever affectionate brother. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, November 16, 1788. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I take knowledge of your spirit, and believe it is your desire to do all things right. Our friends at Newark should not have forgotten that we have determined over and over ’not to leave the Church.’ Before they had given you that foolish advice they should have consulted me. I desire you would not wear the surplice nor administer the Lord’s supper any more. [Taylor had been ordained for Scotland. See letters of Nov. 11 1786, and Feb. 11 1789, to him.] -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Edward Coates LONDON, December 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have all my life been a lover of peace, and am not less so now than I was fifty years ago. Therefore, as to warm words spoken to you or any other, let them pass; they are not worth rehearsing. There is only one charge which is of consequence, that you will not settle the house on the Methodist plan. This is exactly the case of the Dewsbury house; and if you persist in the resolution, you will constrain us to proceed in the same manner. [See letters of November 1788 to William Smith, and April 11, 1789, to Peter Mill.] -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Henry Moore CHATHAM, December 2, 1788. DEAR HENRY, -- You will seal and put Mr. A. G----’s [Name illegible.] letter into the post. And pray write strongly to Dr. Coke, begging him to beware of being imposed upon again, as it is plain he has been hitherto. Remind him also that he and I took Mr. Heath from his livelihood, and (whether he has behaved well or ill) are obliged in honor and in conscience to bring him home. I will give fifty pounds towards it. [See letters of Oct. 20, 1788, and June 26, 1789.] Tell him of ’Caesar and Pompey.’ -- I am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. Direct to Dr. Coke, Charleston, South Carolina. To Walter Churchey LONDON, December 6, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad you wrote to poor Mr. Henderson: for certainly he stands in great need of comfort; and he must now needs seek it in God, for all other streams are cut off. I cannot learn anything concerning the manner of John Henderson’s death, whether it was with or without hope; as I cannot find that any of his religious friends were near him at that important season. The Methodists in general have very little taste for any poems but those of a religious or a moral kind; and my brother has amply provided them with these. Besides those that are already printed, I have six volumes of his poems in manuscript. However, if you furnish me with the proposals, I will do you what little service I can. I should be glad to see or hear from Mr. Cowper [See letters of Sept. 27, 1788, and Feb. 22, 1791.]; but I have no means of access to him at all. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Peter Mill LONDON, December 20, 1788. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It does not appear to me that you have taken any wrong step with regard to North Shields. I think (as you do) that our friend whom you mention is prejudiced in favor of those warm men. As to T. Gibson, you are a little prejudiced against him. He is not a turbulent man. But he sees blots, and would fain cure them if he could. I pray, talk with him alone. You do not know him. However, for the present, the General Stewards may stand as they are. But see that they do their duty.--I am, with love to Sister Mill, dear Peter, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Mill, At the Orphan House, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. To Mrs. Charles Wesley CITY ROAD, December 21, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- It is undoubtedly true that some silly people (whether in the Society or not, I cannot tell) have frequently talked in that manner both of my brother and me. They have said that we were well paid for our labors. And, indeed, so we were; but not by man. Yet this is no more than we were to expect, especially from busybodies in other men’s matters. And it is no more possible to restrain their tongues than it is to bind up the wind. But it is sufficient for us that our own consciences condemned us not and that our record is with the Most High. What has concerned me more than this idle slander is a trial of another kind. I supposed, when John Atlay left me, that he had left me one or two hundred pounds beforehand. [See letter of Sept. 4.] On the contrary, I am one or two hundred pounds behindhand, and shall not recover myself till after Christmas. Some of the first moneys I receive I shall set apart for you. And in everything that is in my power you may depend upon the willing assistance of, [His Diary for 1788 shows that he gave 210 to his brother’s family and 81 10s. to Mrs. Hall and his nieces. See Journal, vii. 464; and letter of Dec. 20, 1790.] dear Sally, Your affectionate friend and Brother. To Sarah Mallet LONDON, December 26, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I answered your letter long ago, and desired Mr. Whitfield to send my letter with the Magazines which he was sending to Norwich, desiring withal that the next preacher who went to Long Stratton would give it you. But for the time to come whenever I write I will send the letter by post, and I can easily make up the expense. [He had given it to his Book Steward to be forwarded, so that Miss Mallet might not be put to expense, as she was poor. See letters of Aug. 2, 1788, and Feb. 21, 1789, to her.] I am well pleased to find that you have regard for me; so have I for you. And it is therefore a pleasure to me to serve you in anything that is within my power. Indeed, I could not so well send the Notes on the Old Testament, as the edition is nearly sold off, and we have very few of them left, which are reserved to make up full sets. But any other books are at your service. I want to forward you in all useful knowledge, which indeed lies in a very narrow compass. You do not expect to go through life without crosses; and some will fall upon you on my account; for my taking notice of you may bring envy upon you. But in your patience possess your soul. Please God, and it is enough. Go steadily and quietly on in the way wherein Providence leads you, and in every temptation He by His Spirit will clear a way for you to escape. If any particular difficulty or trim comes upon you, do not fail to let me know. None can be more ready to assist you than, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Cock LONDON, December 27, 1788. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I was glad to receive a few lines from you. From the time I saw you first, and indeed before I saw you, I could not but feel a strong affection for you. And I pray that nothing may abate our affection for each other till we meet in a better world. When I heard of your marriage it gave me pain. I was afraid least you should have suffered loss. [See letter of Oct. 12.] Do you feel as much union with God as ever As close fellowship with the Father and the Son And is it as constant as ever Are you as happy as you was once And do you ever think of, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Thomas Warwick was the preacher in the Isle of Wight. Some Methodists in Newport wrote Wesley on July 17 about Warwick, ’under whose faithful preaching we have often experienced the power of God, and whose indefatigable labors in both town and country, especially the latter, have merired our highest respect.’ They speak of the vile misrepresentations with which his character had been branded, particularly by Hayter, in whom ’though an old professor,’ they had often lamented to see ’the inordinate love of praise.’ The Isle of Wight ceased to be a separate circuit at Conference, and was joined to Saturn. See Dyson’s Methodism in the Isle of Wight, p. 159. [2] Francis Wrigley wrote from Chorley on July 11, saying that he hoped Wesley intended the next Conference to last nine or ten days, and making various suggestions as to the settlement of preaching-places. ’Many of our friends are much prejudiced against the Conference Deed. I am afraid that some of our preachers are too, and have helped the people forward in their prejudice.’ He also thinks that some preachers had been ’industrious in dividing of circuits till they have made them as small as parishes.’ [3] Whatcoat became a preacher in 1769, and in 1784 was ordained an elder by Wesley, and went with Dr. Coke and Thomas Vasey to America, where he was appointed Bishop in 1800, as colleague to Asbury. He was one of the saintliest and most successful preachers, whose ’whole deportment was beautiful and adorned with personal grace.’ He died on July 5, 1806. See letter of September 6, 1786, to Dr. Coke. The American preachers thought Wesley was trespassing on their rights, and actually left his name off their Minutes, to which it was restored two years later. ’Question I: Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America’ ’Answer: John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succession.’ Asbury certainly laid himself open to Wesley’s censure by his conduct in this matter. See letters of September 6, 1786 (to Dr. Coke), and September 20, 1788 (to Asbury). [4] Churchey consulted Cowper about his poems, who replied: ’I find your versification smooth, your language correct and forcible, and especially in your translation of The Art of Painting. But you ask me, would I advise you to publish I would advise every man to publish, whose subjects are well chosen, whose sentiments are just and who can afford to be a loser, if that should happen, by his publication.’ See Cowper’s Works (Bohn’s edition), iii. 370. [5] John Crook and David Barrowclough were the preachers in Charle-mont, Ireland. The Conference met in London on the 29th. [6] The Conference appointed a deputation of five preachers to meet the trustees at Dewsbury on August 14; but the trustees would not give way. The preachers were removed, and those appointed to Birstall began Methodism anew by preaching in the open street. John Atlay became minister of the chapel from which the Methodists had been compelled to withdraw. See letters of October 19, 1787, and August 23, 1788. [7] This is given in the Minutes of 1788. The balance sheet also appears. 1203 7s. 1d. was raised for the yearly expenses; of which 688 13s. 6d. had been needed ’for the deficiencies of the preachers and their families in England, Scotland, and Wales.’ The preachers had also been ’obliged to go from the house of one friend to another for all their meals, to the great loss of their time and to the injury of the work of God.’ ’Let every circuit,’ said the Conference, ’provide a sufficient allowance for the preachers, that they may in general eat their meals at their own lodgings.’ [8] Mrs. Charles Wesley’s home at Garth had nine children and twenty servants. She lived at Chesterfield Street, Marylebone, ten or twelve years longer. Then the lease ran out, and she moved to a smaller house, 14, Nottingham Street, Marylebone. [9] Wesley’s judgment was sound, though Methodist preachers and lay readers did subscribe for the volume. Fresnoy’s The Art of Painting filled pp. 1-38 of the published Poems. See letters of July 22 and December 6 to Churchey. [10] Atlay, the Book Steward in London, who had previously been an itinerant preacher for nine years, wrote to Wesley on August 19 to say that he had accepted the invitation of the Dewsbury trustees to be their minister. ’But it gives me more pain than I can express when I tell you that in order to go there, I must quit the Book-Room. The longest I can stay in it will be till the 25th of September, and by that time you will be able to get one for my place. I think the fittest man in the world for it is Joseph Bradford. If he should be appointed, he may come directly and stay with us till we go; and by that time I could teach him more than he could learn in three months without me.’ He pleads that Wesley would not disown him or forbid his preaching in Methodist chapels where it was agreeable to the preachers. See letters of July 30 and August 31. [11] Wesley had met Miss Baker at Monmouth on August 15. Her elder sister had removed to Cowbridge. But Elizabeth (who afterwards married Mr. Jordan, of Monmouth) ’more than supplies her place. She is a jewel indeed; full of faith and love, and zealous of good works.’ See Journal, vii. 425; and letters of October 27, 1784 (to Sarah Baker), and September 16, 1788. [12] Atlay replied on August 28 that he had had two hours’ conversation with Brother Whitfield the previous night, and that he was ’fully determined not to come into the Book-Room.’ He also said that if Wesley would appoint two men of peace to Dewsbury ’I will stay with you.’ See letters of August 23 and September 4. [13] Atlay replied to the letter of August 31: ’I never did hinder George Whitfield from serving you; let him testify if I did.’ On September 20 he wrote that he had just finished taking stock, which was estimated at 13,751 18s. 5d., according to the prices fixed in the catalogue. However, you may be sure it is not less than that. Most of these are saleable things. You will be sure to find sale for them if you live; and if not, they will be of equal value to those to whom you leave them. Atlay went to Dewsbury on September 24. Whitfield followed him as Book Steward. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 557; and letters of August 31 and September 20 (to Henry Moore). [14] John Henderson was sent to Kingswood School, where at the age of eight he was able to teach Latin. He went to Pembroke College, Oxford, and developed special medical gifts, but got lost in Mysticism and gave way to intemperance. When Dr. Johnson visited Oxford in June 1784, Henderson had tea with him, a ’student of Pembroke College, celebrated for his wonderful acquirements in alchemy, judicial astrology, and other abstruse and curious learning.’ On March 13, 1789, Wesley spent some time with his father, ’deeply affected with the loss of his only son, who, with as great talents as most men in England, had lived two-and-thirty years and done just nothing.’ Wesley told Walter Churchey that he could learn nothing concerning the manner of his death. He died at Oxford on November 2, and was buried at St. George’s, Kingswood. See Journal, vii. 477; Arminian Magazine, 1793, pp. 140-4; Boswell’s Johnson (Globe edition), p. 640; letter of December 6, 1788; and for Henderson’s father, September 9, 1765. [15] This is the letter to which Asbury’s diary for March 15, 1789, refers: ’Here I received a bitter pill from one of my greatest friends. Praise the Lord for my trials also! May they all be sanctified!’ It was the last letter he had from Wesley. When Wesley directed that a General Conference should be held in 1787 and Whatcoat made Asbury’s colleague, Asbury said that ’To appoint a joint superintendent with me were stretches of power we did not understand’; and the preachers and people were not willing to accept orders from England now that the Colonies had become independent. Asbury tells his old friend Jasper Winscorn on August 15, 1788: ’I am a bishop and a beggar; our connection is very poor, our preachers on the frontiers labor the whole year for six or eight pounds. I have opened a house for the education of youth which will cost 4,000 to complete it, and the burden lies chiefly on me; so that I can hardly command my one coat and my yearly allowance.’ See letters of July 17, 1788, and October 31, 1789. [16] The annuity of 100 settled on Charles Wesley at his marriage was continued to his widow till her death. See Jackson’s Charles Wesley, ii. 452-3; and letters of August 7 and September 26. [17] Atlay wished Wesley to yield the whole point in question and supply preachers to Dewsbury. He had said in his letter of September 20 that he was informed Wesley had been saying that he would not leave the Book-Room to make way for Whitfield, and that he must come up to London in order to get him out. This letter was sent to Atlay at Dewsbury, and closed the correspondence, which Atlay published in January 1790. He knew Wesley’s mind, and proved himself unfaithful to his duty. See letters of September 20, 1788, and July 17, 1789, to Henry Moore, and February 25, 1790. [18] The late Lady Glenorchy and Lady Hope had purchased land for a chapel at the Hot Wells, Bristol; and Lady Maxwell, by the appointment of Lady Glenorchy, had to carry this into effect. She left Edinburgh on October 11, and arrived in Bristol on the 27th. The chapel was called Hope Chapel. See Lancaster’s Life of Lady Maxwell, p. 348. [19] This letter is probably addressed to Walter Griffith, then Assistant at Newry. He was a native of Clogheen in co. Tipperary, who had been converted in Dublin in 1780 and became a zealous and successful itinerant in 1784. [20] Bogie was Assistant at Betwick. He had made a suggestion for ’the division of Scotland into the three southern circuits,’ which was put into execution at the Conference of 1789. Glasgow now became a circuit, and Bogie was appointed to it. See letter of August 1, 1789, to him. [21] William Stevens, a native of Plymouth Dock, ceased to travel in 1802 through ill health. For four years he was English Master at Kingswood, and then had a private school on Kingswood Hill till his death in 1813. [22] Peter Mill was appointed Assistant at Newcastle by the Conference which met on July 29, with positive instructions to bring the Millbourn Chapel case to a settlement. See W.H.S. iv. 228; and letters of May 31 and November (to William Smith). [23] Carlill was Assistant at Horncastle in 1787 with two colleagues. At the Conference of 1788 a third preacher was appointed. Lecky says that during the whole summer of 1788 George III’s health had been visibly impaired. On November 5 he burst into such open and violent delirium that he had to be placed under strict restraint. Wesley ’ordered all our brethren in Great Britain and Ireland to observe’ February 25, 1789, with fasting and prayer for the recovery of His Majesty’s health; but on February 19 the doctors pronounced the King convalescent, and the day was turned into one of thanksgiving. See Journal, vii. 471; Lecky’s England, v. 379. [24] When Mill preached at Millbourn Place for the first time, he read out Wesley’s instructions as to the discontinuance of some objectionable features in the chanting. He disclaimed any personal bias and made some unguarded reference to Wesley’s humour which drew forth this remonstrance. See previous letter. [25] Clarke was detained for three months in Guernsey through the indisposition of John Bredin, the Assistant there. He was appointed Assistant at Bristol in 1789. The new chapel in Jersey was being built, and they needed all the money they could raise for that purpose rather than for Dr. Coke’s missions. The cost was 600, and upwards of 400 was ’the liberal contribution of our handful of blessed people.’ A few friends had lent Clarke money, and this he had since been able to repay. See Dunn’s Clarke, p. 65; and letters of June 26, 1788 (to Clarke), and February 24, 1790. [26] This letter is endorsed ’Wesley -- answers.’ John Blunt was probably a class-leader. His occupation is not certain, though it may have been legal. He and one of his sons were deeply impressed by Wesley and were great friends of his, though Blunt was a keen Churchman and disliked some of Wesley’s methods. The son went about a good deal with Wesley. They were very well to do. The eldest son was Master in Chancery in 1849, Charles was Consul at Smyrna, George a judge at Meerut, Henry in East India Company’s Army, Walter a clergyman. Henry Moore and Samuel Bradburn were stationed in London; John Edwards was one of Wesley’s preachers, who conducted a preaching-tour from Land’s End to the North of Yorkshire at his own expense. He built the first chapel in Lambeth, and charged no rent for it; Wesley opened it on January 7, 1779. His wife had a school with nearly a hundred girls, and maintained and educated more than twelve ministers’ daughters. (See Journal, vii. 344.) [27] Bland was the second preacher in the Oxfordshire Circuit. Wesley evidently refers to books coming with the December Arminian Magazine. For Mr. Jacques (Jaquis), probably the layman who had given some anxiety to the preacher at High Wycombe, see letters of January 19, 1773, and February 24, 1779 (to Hannah Ball). [28] Smith, who had married Miss Vazeille, was circuit steward at Newcastle. He was evidently anxious to remain friends with Coates and the Millbourn Place trustees in North Shields. But they declined to settle their preaching-house on the Methodist plan. See letters of October and November 3 to Peter Mill, and December to Edward Coates. [29] In ’Lines to William Cowper,’ included in his Poems, Churchey refers to ’my lov’d Henderson,’ and says in a note, ’with whom the author had the honor of intimacy from his earliest days.’ The grave, the gay, the learned, and the good, Sat listening round him, subjects to his sense, In every line an equal to them all, Yet unassuming, lovely as a child That nothing knew. See letters of August 8, 1788, and February 11, 1789, to Churchey; and for Henderson, September 8, 1788. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 93: 91. 1789 ======================================================================== 1789 To Benjamin Rhodes NEAR LONDON, January 7, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have done exactly right. Observe the rules of the Conference, both in changing the stewards or in any other point, whoever is pleased or displeased. [See letters of Nov. 6, 1788, and April 26, 1789.] And do not fail mildly to expostulate the case, either with George [George Shadford at St, Ives.] or any other Assistant who does not observe them. The trustees and leaders will soon trample them under-foot if you will let them. But I think you can be mild, and yet firm. -- I am, with love to Sister Rhodes, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 9, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- ’Sir, you are troubled,’ said Mr. Law to me, ’because you do not understand how God is dealing with you. Perhaps if you. did, it would not so well answer His design. He is teaching you to trust Him further than you can see Him.’ He is now teaching you the same lesson. Hitherto you cannot understand His ways. But they are all mercy and truth. And though you do not know now what He does you shall know hereafter. I am acquainted with several persons whom I believed to be saved from sin. But there is great variety in the manner wherein God is pleased to lead them. Some of them are called to act much for God, some to rejoice much, some to suffer much. All of these shall receive their crown. But when the Son of Man shall come in His glory, the brightest crown will be given to the sufferers. Look up, thou blessed one l the time is at hand! -- I am Ever yours. To Duncan McAllum LONDON, January 20, 1789. DEAR DUNCAN,--By all means choose trustees without delay; and let them be such as belong to the circuit, only such as you can depend upon both for judgment and honesty. I think it is by prayer that you must alter the purpose of the Earl of Findlater. [For the late Earl’s care for his estates around Banff, see Journal, vi. 10.] I am not at all surprised at the behavior of John Atlay. In a year or two he will find whether he has changed for the better. He was the first occasion of the division at Dewsbury by sending word to the trustees that, if the Conference would not supply them with preachers, he would come himself and settle among them. [See letter of Aug. 25, 1788.] I am, with love to Sister McAllum, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. Mr. McAllum, Inverness, To James Currie LONDON, January 24, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have great cause to praise God for pouring out His Spirit on poor Northampton and turning your heaviness into joy. You should try with all diligence to work together with God and improve this day of His power: first, by laying hold on all the backsliders you can, and laboring if possible to bring them back to the fold; and, secondly, by earnestly exhorting the brethren to go on to perfection. This should be done both in pubic and private. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Mr. James Currie, In Northampton. To Mrs. Tighe NEAR LONDON, January 22, 1789. MY DEAR MADAM, -- A few years since, Mr. Armstrong from the North of Ireland was stationed in the Liverpool circuit. He said business called him to Ireland. I-Ie left his circuit, Havant, Chester, without consulting his Assistant. In consequence of this he was excluded the Connection. In these things we are obliged to be very exact. The Assistant told Chester Band that the circuit could not’ spare him, and that his quitting it at a time when there was none to supply his place would be attended with bad consequences. He was therefore not a little to blame. However, thus far I can favor him (especially as you desire it) that I will not exclude him, but only remove him into the next circuit. Wishing you many happy years. -- I am, my dear Madam, Your affectionate servant. To Mrs. Tighe, at Woodstock, Innistoyne, near Kilkenny. To Freeborn Garrettson LONDON, January 24, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It signifies but little where we are, so we are but fully employed for our good Master. Whether you went, therefore, to the east, it is all one, so you were laboring to promote His work. You are following the order of His providence wherever it appeared, as an holy man strongly expressed it, in a kind of holy disordered order. But there is one expression that occurs twice or thrice in yours which gives me some concern: you speak of finding ’freedom’ to do this or that. This is a word much liable to be abused. If I have plain Scripture or plain reason for doing a thing well. These are my rules, and my only rules. I regard not whether I had freedom or no. This is an unscriptural expression and a very fallacious rule. I wish to be in every point, great and small, a scriptural, rational Christian. In one instance formerly you promised to send me your Journal. Will you break your word because you do not find freedom to keep it Is not this enthusiasm O be not of this way of thinking I You know not whither it may lead you. You are called to Square your useful life below By reason and by grace. But whatever you do with regard to me you must do quickly, or you will no more in this world. Your affectionate friend and brother. To Walter Churchey LONDON, January 27, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- On Monday, March 2, I hope to be in Bath or Bristol; then we may talk about the number of copies. I have been much more concerned than you for these sixty years in printing books both with and without subscription. And I still think, with all our skill and industry, we shall be hard set to procure three hundred subscribers. Perhaps three hundred may promise! But we must never imagine that all who promise will perform. But of this we may talk more when we meet at Bristol. [The list of subscribers printed in Churchey’s Poems on Various Occasions accounts for 195 copies. See letters of Dec. 6, 1788, and March 3, 1789, to him.] I suppose every one that loves King George loves Mr. Pitt. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am Your affectionate brother. I will inquire after the vintage. To Mr. Churchey, Near the Hay, Brecon. To Robert Dull LONDON, January 28, 1789. DEAR ROBERT, -- I am thoroughly satisfied with your economy in the building of the house. It is exceeding cheap. But the grand difficulty is how to raise the money, or, at least, how to raise it as soon as it will be wanted. This is no time of year for making collections. It should be matter of much prayer. I see no way but, Who will lend I will be security for forty pounds more. Look up! -- I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, January 31, 1789. DEAR TOMMY, -- I think you have done exactly right with regard to Thomas Smith. It seems the less you say about him the better. You have only to go straight forward. The leaders, I doubt not, will take your advice and set an example to others. If it pleases God to continue my life and health, I purpose to set out for Ireland at the usual time and to call upon you at Stockport about the latter end of March. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Whereat LONDON, February 4, 1789. MY DEAR PATTY, -- We seem to be now just where we were some years ago. You had a strange dream; but it is past, and you are now awake. He that was the chief means of lulling you asleep is now likewise broad awake. Well, let us now redeem the time. The night is far spent! The day of eternity is at hand! I am now preparing to take leave of London, perhaps to see it no more. But perhaps my bones may rest here in a vault which is prepared for me and a few more preachers. -- I am, my dear Patty, Your very affectionate Uncle. To Mrs. Pat. Whereat, At the New Room, In Bristol. Send it to her. To Abraham Case LONDON, February [7], 1789. DEAR ABRAHAM, -- I make no doubt but He that loved you enabled you to say yea from the ground of thy heart. ’The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ Especially as the Lord made her ready before He took her to Himself. But although it has pleased God to remove her, you cannot quit the task which He has assigned you. You are still to watch over both the children and the infant Society, and in due time God will provide you with another helper. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Tighe LONDON, February 7, 1789. DEAR MADAM, -- It would not easily be that I should refuse anything which you desired. Therefore I have sat four [Journal, vii, 459-64.] times to Mr. Romney, and he has finished the picture. It is thought to be a good likeness, and many of my friends have desired an engraving taken from it. But I answer, ’The picture was not mine but yours. Therefore I can do [no] thing without your consent.’ But if you have no objection, then I will employ an engraver that I am well assured will do it justice. Wishing every blessing to you and all your family, I remain, dear madam, Your affectionate servant. To Mrs. Rogers February 9, 1789. MY DEAR HETTY, -- I am glad to hear that you do not grow weary or faint in your mind, that you are rather increasing in the way of holiness. Go on in the name of the Lord and in the power of His might, doing the will of God from the heart. It was a providence indeed that the flood did not begin in the night rather than in the day. So it is that judgment is usually mixed with mercy, that sinners may be awakened and not destroyed. I liked well to lodge at Brother Laffan’s [See Feb. 9, 1783.] when I was in Cork last; but certainly I shall like much better to lodge with Brother Rogers and you. I shall be more at home with you than I could be anywhere else in Cork. I still find (blessed be God) a gradual increase of strength, and my sight is rather better than worse. If my life and health be continued, I shall endeavor to reach Dublin about the end of March and Cork before the end of June. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, my dear Hetty, Yours most affectionately. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, February 11, 1789. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I am glad to hear that the little stumbling-blocks in your circuit are so happily removed. [See letter of Nov. 16, 1788.] Undoubtedly after I am gone several of our preachers will leave the Church; perhaps all that have not a single eye -- that desire honor, or money, or anything upon earth. But I hope I shall not live to see this. While I am here let us go on in the old way. There is no danger of my seeing Nottingham this year. On the 2nd of March I hope to be in Bath, on the 4th at Bristol, on the 17th at Gloucester, the 21st at Birmingham, and then in Dublin as soon as I can. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Roberts LONDON, February 12, 1789. DEAR TOMMY, -- You send me good news indeed. I congratulate you upon your deliverance. [See letter of Jan. 18, 1788, to him.] It is not a little one. Only He that is almighty was able to burst those bonds in sunder. Many years ago I was in exactly the same case; and just then, when I came to these words in the Lesson for the day, ’Son of man, behold I take from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke,’ [See letter of Feb. 14, 1786.] I was quite stunned, and could not just then read a word more. But afterwards I saw God was wiser than me. It seems to me that you drew the right conclusion from this remarkable providence. Surely God does now give you a loud call to devote yourself to God in a single life. I advise you to read with much prayer the Notes on I Corinthians 7th. And remember the wise direction of Kempis, [Book I. chap. viii.] ’Avoid all good women, and commend them to God.’ --I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. T. Roberts, At the New Room, In Cork. To Joseph Taylor LONDON, February 13, 1789. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I have a business of some importance for you to transact. Pray go to my old friend Matthew Bagshaw, and in my name desire of him, (1) to tell you how far John Wilson has wronged him: (2) to introduce you to Mr. Henshaw, of whom you are to inquire (and write me word directly) what he heard between John Wilson and him: desire him also (3) to let you know whether he has wronged any one beside in Nottingham: if he has, in what manner If you can come clearly to the bottom of his affair, it is possible I may be of some real service to him. But till then it is not possible. For God will surely fight against him while he continues to cover his sin.--I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Walter Churchey [LONDON, February 18, 1789.] MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am fully convinced we cannot possibly dispose of more than five hundred copies. My printer has carefully computed what the printing of these on a fine paper will cost, and finds it will come rather under a hundred and fifty pounds. [See letter of March 3, 1789.] So the sooner you begin the better. I am Your affectionate brother. I am so set hence for Bristol on Monday, March 2. To Ann Bolton NEAR LONDON, February 20, 1789. MY DEAR NANCY, -- We have conversed together a fair number of years; and I never was tired of you yet. From the time of its birth to this day my love to you never grew cold; though I have often observed yours to vary, being sometimes warmer and sometimes colder. But it can never be quite cold in this region of sorrow and care. It has seemed good to our Lord for many years to lead you in a rough and thorny way. But still His hand has held you up, and His care. Therefore you have no need to take [thought] for to-morrow, but trust in Him to-day. But how does poor Neddy Bolton go on Does he go forward or backward Has he an hard bargain still Or is he likely to keep his head above water [See letter of Jan. 5, 1783.] He has need of patience as well as you; and when you have been tried you shall both come forth as gold. The young woman who has foretold that I should follow my brother before the end of March added that I should be incapable of preaching for two months before my death. But if so, how shall we reconcile one part of the prophecy with the other For at present I am as capable of preaching as ever I was in my life. But be that as it may, while we live let us live to Him that died for us. -- I am, my dear Nancy, Affectionately yours. On Wednesday, March 4, I expect to be at Bristol; and on Monday, March T7, at Stroud. To Sarah Mallet LONDON, February 21, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- As your speaking at Mr. Hunt’s was not a premeditated thing, I see no harm in it, and indeed you was so hedged in by a concurrence of circumstances that I do not know how you could well avoid it. Perhaps there was some end of Divine Providence (not known to us) to be answered thereby. Therefore I am not at all sorry that it so fell out. But you must expect to be censured for it. But I was a little surprised a while ago when one speaking of you said, ’Sally Mallet is not so serious as Betty Reeve.’ I thought Sally Mallet was as serious as any young woman in Norfolk. Be wary in all your actions, and you will never [want] any assistance which is in the power of, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To John Stretton LONDON, February 27, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Thirty years ago we had thirty or forty preachers, the greater part of whom were truly devoted to God; but one or two of them departed from us, loving the present world. At present we have in Great Britain and Ireland about two hundred traveling preachers, and probably there are three or four of these whose hearts are not right with God; but we do not know it; we have no proof of this, or we should put them away. I do not know that Henry Brians has any gifts for preaching or any desire of it. Samuel Woods I do not remember at all. But in a few days I shall probably set out for Ireland. What becomes of James Wray [See letter of June 30, 1788, to John Mann.] Is he dead or alive I know not that I have had a letter from him for above this twelve months. What concerns me is that I cannot find any union between you northern preachers. John Hoskins, John McGeary, and John Stretton I should imagine would have all acted in concert; on the contrary, each seems to be afraid of the other. How is this What is the true ground of this shyness What objections have you to John Hoskins or John McGeary What objections have they to you ’Tis a pity but you had all spoken freely to Your affectionate brother. To George Holder LONDON, February 28, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You say, ’The last quarter, when we compared our plans with the Minutes of Conference, we wanted a considerable number of people whom Mr. Crook had given in to you.’ I cannot understand this. Cannot Mr. Crook cast up a plain account And surely neither he, nor you, nor any preacher would willfully give in a false account. [Holder had followed John Crook as Assistant in the Isle of Man. See letter of June 24.] There is something very remarkable in the relation which you give of the life and death of Mr. Charles Laco. ’Right precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.’ And every Assistant should take all possible care to procure the best account of them that can be had. These accounts are frequently means of awakening men of the world as well as of encouraging the children of God. In every place the subscribers to the Magazines will fall off unless great care be taken. You have need of great diligence as well in this as in all other parts of your office. -- I am, dear George, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Tegart LONDON, February 28, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Henry Moore and I, after reading and considering both your letter and one from Richard Condy, are clearly of opinion that he cannot and ought not to leave Waterford till another Assistant comes to take his place. [Tegart was a merchant in Waterford. See letter of Aug. 2, 1788, to Mrs. Ward.] We do not conceive him to be in any fault in this matter. We think he did no more than it was his duty to do. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To James Creighton BRISTOL, March 3, 1789. DEAR SIR, -- I think you may advise Brother Black either (1) When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; we have often done with good success. Or (2) You may write to Lord Inniskillen, a word from whom would terrify the rioters. Or (3) Let Mr. Moore write to one of our lawyers in I)ublin, and inquire which is the best method, -- To move the King’s Bench for an information, or to arrest three or four of the chief rioters, with an action of assault and battery. My judgment, if the King’s Bench is moved, it should be against one or more of the Justices. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Walter Churchey BRISTOL, March 3, 1789. I have now revised the five volumes of my brother’s Hymns on the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. He had himself revised them no less than seven times in the space of twenty years. Many of them are little or nothing inferior to the best of them that have been printed. Those of them that savor a little of Mysticism I have rather corrected or expunged; but I have no thought or design at all of printing them. I have other work to do which is of more immediate importance. Besides that, I have not two or three hundred pounds to spare. I will order my printer to strike off some of your proposals, which I will then occasionally recommend to my friends. Some of them I know will subscribe; and it may be God will incline the hearts of more than I am aware of. But with whom do you agree for paper and printing Proceed warily, or you may get into much trouble. That God may bless you and yours, and be your Guide in this and in all things, is the prayer of Your affectionate brother. To Susanna Knapp [BATH, March 3, 1789.] MY DEAR SUKY, -- I am glad to find you still desiring and seeking the best portion. To-morrow fortnight I hope to see you at Worcester. It gives me pleasure to hear that Mrs. Knapp’s health is in some measure restored. We are sure health we shah have if health is the best for us. Yours affectionately. To Miss Knapp, At Mr. Knapp’s, In Worcester. To John Taylor BRISTOL, March 4, 1789 MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I think here we must close our friendly contest, for neither can convince the other. Yet still I must maintain, I plead simply for this. 1. Let the Conference have the right of stationing the preachers, the same that I have now; and which is secured to me by the deed in question. 2. This deed gives me no property in any houses, nay, by this deed I lose the property of those houses which were mine before. 3. Pray consider this. These houses were my property till that deed took place. Since then I am not proprietor of any house in England. And can that deed convey a property to the Conference, which divested me of it -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. John Taylor, At Gomersal, near Leeds. To Rachel Jones BRISTOL, March 4, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- As you desired it, I cannot but send you a line, although I have not a moment to spare. You have exceeding reason to praise God, who has dealt so mercifully with you. You have reason to praise Him likewise for hearing your prayer and hearing for those of your household. Now be a pattern for all that are around about you. Be a pattern of meekness and lowliness in particular. Be the least of all and the servant of all. Be a companion of them, and them only, that worship in spirit and in truth. Read again and again the 13th chapter of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. Then shall your light shine more and more unto the perfect day. -- I am, dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Miss Rachel Jones, Of Barton-le-Willows, Near York. To Adam Clarke, BRISTOL, March 9, 1789. DEAR ADAM, -- If I should live to see you another Conference, I should be glad to have Sister Clarke and you here rather than at most other places, because I spend more time here myself than at any other place except London. I am glad to hear that God has raised up so able a preacher from the islands [On July 15 Adam Clarke says: John De Queteville, ’ who has now all the meekness, gentleness and simplicity of the gospel, united with that burning zeal before which mountains shrink into molehills, and aided by that faith to which all things are possible.’’ See Dunn’s Life, 70.]; but certainly you should spare no pains in teaching him to read and write English by reading with and explaining to him first the Christian [Library] and then the Instructions to Children. And I do not doubt but if he learned with a single eye, he would be largely strengthened by the blessed Spirit. I suppose the cyder would come to London almost as soon as I left it, which was on the first Sunday of the year. It would be a reason for being very wary in choosing names for our children if that old remark were true: That our first tempers from example flow And borrow that example from our names. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Richard Rodda BRISTOL, March 11, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I hope to be with you on Good Friday between one and two o’clock. Then you dispose of me as you see best till Easter Monday in the afternoon; but that day I am to dine with Sir Philip Gibbes at Hilton Park. The Assistant has need in most places to have a strict eye to the leaders; but they are nothing in the Methodist constitution, but single men who are employed by the Assistant as long and as far as he pleases. The account of good Sarah Ward is remarkable. -- I am, dear Richard, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rodda, In Moore Street, Birmingham. To Mrs. Bowman BRISTOL, March 14, 1789. I have neither time nor inclination to enter into a long dispute on this or any other question. [See letter of March 4, 1786.] All I can do is, first to declare my own judgment, and then set down my reasons for it; and if your son is not satisfied therewith, I do not know any way to help it. The judgment is that there is no more harm in keeping an hot-house than a flower garden; and I judge there is no more sin in keeping a flower garden than in smelling a rose. My reason for judging both of these innocent is because neither of them is forbidden in Scripture, and it is sinful to condemn anything which Scripture does not condemn. I think, therefore, to condemn all who keep hot-houses and flower gardens is a sin both against God and their neighbors; and one of them might say, ’Why am I judged of another man’s conscience To my own Master I stand or fall.’ I am Your affectionate brother. To Certain Persons in Dublin WHITEFRIAR STRERT, DUBLIN, March 31, 1789. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- I much approve of the manner and spirit wherein you write concerning these tender points. I explained myself upon them in some measure on Sunday; I will do it more fully now. At present I have nothing to do with Dr. Coke; but I answer for myself. I do not separate from the Church, nor have any intention so to do. Neither do they that meet on Sunday noon separate from the Church any more than they did before; nay less, for they attend the church and sacrament oftener now than they did two years ago. ’But this occasions much strife.’ True; but they make the strife who do not attend the service. Let them quietly either come or stay away, and there will be no strife at all. ’But those that attend say those that do not are fallen from grace.’ No, they do not give them a bad word; but they surely will fall from grace if they do not let them alone that follow their own consciences. But you ’fear this will make way for a total separation from the Church.’ You have no ground for this fear. There can be no such separation while I live. Leave to God what may come after. But, to speak plainly, do not you separate from the Church Yea, much more than those you blame Pray, how often have you been at church since Christmas twelve times in twelve weeks And how long have you been so fond of the Church Are you fond of it at all Do not you go oftener to a Dissenting meeting than either to St. Patrick’s or your parish church My dear brethren, you and I have but a short time to stay together. My race of glory’s run, and race of shame; And I shall shortly be with those that rest. [Milton, Samson Agonistes, ll. 597-8.] Therefore, as one that loves you well and has loved you long, I advise you in the presence and in the fear of God, (1) Either quietly attend the Sunday service or quietly refrain from it; then there will be no strife at all. Now you make the noise of which you complain. (2) Make not this a pretense for being weary of well-doing. Do not for so poor a reason withdraw your subscription from the School or the preachers. What a miserable revenge would this be! Never let it be said that my friend Arthur Keene, that Mr. D’Olier or Boswell, was capable of this! From this hour let this idle strife be buried in eternal oblivion. Talk not of it any more. If it be possible, think not of it any more. Rather think, ’The Judge standeth at the door’; let us prepare to meet our God! To Harriet Lewis DUBLIN, April 2, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Considering how changeable human nature is, I shoed have thought you would have forgotten me before now. I was therefore agreeably surprised when I had the pleasure of seeing you at Dudley. [See letter of March 29, 1788.] You seemed to be just the same as you was the first time that I conversed with you at Mr. Moon’s house, [John Moon, the third preacherin the Birmingham Circuit; he died in 1801.] to be as desirous now as you was then to be not almost but altogether a Christian. But if this be your determination, you must remember you cannot be warm alone; you must needs find one if not more with whom you can converse freely on the things of God. This you may properly make matter of prayer; and sooner or later your prayer will be heard, although some of those with whom you once conversed are groin cold. But God is able to provide you with others who will not be unstable as water. It is a great blessing that He has upheld your gongs in the way and enabled you still to press on to the mark. May He stablish, strengthen, and settle you! So prays Yours affectionately. To Thomas Wride DUBLIN, April 2, 1789. DEAR TOMMY, -- I am surprised that a man who really fears God should engage himself in so bad a cause; but undoubtedly you have the better of the argument. Yet I see no prospect of convincing a man of his rank. Therefore I think it is the wisest way to let the matter drop. [Wride was again Assistant at Whitehaven. Can this refer to any dispute with the Lowthers] The publishing of a thing of this kind was only tried to stir up a nest of hornets. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Cock DUBLIN, April 7, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I cannot but say that it was some concern to me when I first heard that you was married; because I was afraid that you would be less useful than you might have been in a single life. And, indeed, I hoped that if you married at all, it would be one of our preachers; then I could have stationed him in some circuit where I should have had frequent opportunities of conversing with you. I am glad, however, that you are still happy in God. If you had married an ungodly man, it would certainly have been a sin. But it was no sin to marry a child of God--yea, though he were but a babe in Christ. And surely, if you pray mightily for him, the Lord will hear your prayer, and supply whatever is yet wanting in his faith, till he is happy and holy and perfect in love. I hope there is no shyness between you and Mr. or Mrs. Clarke. And do you converse freely with the other preachers Do you meet in band I hope you are still acquainted with Miss Lempriere and (I think the name of her friend is) Mrs. Saumarez. [Adam Clarke wrote on Jan. 13: ’Jane Cock is still well and happy. Mrs. Saumarez gains ground. Miss Lempriere is very upright but very diffident.’ See letter of Aug. 3 to Mrs. Cock.] I want you and them continually to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. O let us improve this span of life to the uttermost! Yours in tender affection. To Peard Dickinson DUBLIN, April 11, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As soon as ever Sister Dickinson is able to go abroad let her enter upon her labor of love. In things of this kind particularly delays are dangerous. Every good purpose will cool and die away if it is not as soon as possible put in execution. Only let us not undertake too much at a time. Generally one visit will be enough for one day, and that should not last above half an hour, or an hour at farthest. I wrote a few days since to Mr. Hanby concerning his baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper wherever he goes. He answers me, ’He intends to do still, for he believes it to be his duty.’ I wish Brother Creighton and Moore and Rankin and you would spend an hour together, as it is a point of the utmost importance, and consider what steps are to be taken in this matter. Can this be connived at If so, I fear it is a blow at the very root of Methodism. And if not, you see the consequence: he will join John Atlay. Consider likewise another point: ought we to suffer Dr. Coke to pick out one after another the choicest of our young preachers [Evidently for his missionary work.] Peace be with your spirits! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Lancelot Harrison DUBLIN, April 11, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- A letter which I received two or three days ago from George Whitfield [His Book Steward.] informs me that I outran my income so far last year as to be now above two hundred pounds in debt. I have therefore promised him not to draw upon him any more before the end of next month. But do you not remember the rule in the Minutes of Conference that we are not to begin the building of any preaching-house before two-thirds of the money is subscribed This rule we may not dispense with. And I am afraid this is not the case with regard to the house you are speaking of at Lincoln. I doubt, therefore, whether the time be come for your building there. But you have cause to rejoice that the work of God prospers there, as well as at poor Blighton. -- I am, etc. To Alexander Knox DUBLIN, April 11, 1789. MY DEAR ALLECK, -- You see in the public papers that I shall be with you if God permits on the 30th of the next month. If I should be called to go a longer journey before that time, I hope you would be able to say, ’Good is the will of the Lord.’ Every time we meet it is less and less probable that we should meet again in this world. But it is enough if we are counted worthy of that world and the resurrection of the dead. O let my dear Sally Knox [His sister.] think of this, for we know not how soon she may be called. Certainly I love her dearly; and shall be glad to meet her at our Lord’s right hand. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear Alleck, Yours most affectionately. To Peter Mill, Joseph Thompson, and John Stamp DUBLIN, April 11, 1789. I require you three, Peter Mill, Joseph Thompson, and John Stamp, without consulting or regarding any person whatever, to require a positive answer of Edward Coates within three weeks after the receipt of this, ’Will you or will you not settle the house at Millbourn Place, North Shields, on the Methodist plan’ If he will not do it within another week, I farther require that none of you preach in that house unless you will renounce all connexion with Your affectionate brother. I am at a point. I will be trifled with no longer. To Henry Moore NEAR LONDON, April 17, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- I answer all your letters immediately; but you do not consider the sea is now between us. I told you before, ’Send John Jenkins without delay.’ So I suppose he is gone. I left Dr. Coke’s Journal in Dublin with his daughter, to be published immediately. And undoubtedly you have printed enough of them in London to supply all the English Societies. The work of God goes on well in most parts of Ireland, particularly in the North. They increase in Dublin as much in numbers as they do in grace. Many are much alive to God. [] I am, with kind love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Zachariah Yewdall ATHONE, April 18, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear that there is so fine a prospect at Dalkeith. So is generally the way of our Lord, to try us first, and then to comfort. It is pity but James Ridall [See letter of Dec. 17, 1787.] had thoroughly settled his affairs before he attempted to travel. If that had been done, there is no doubt but he would have been useful wheresoever he went. I wish, however, Brother Dall may make a good conclusion with regard to the chapel at Dumfries. [See letter of Jan. 28.] Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Zachary, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Armstrong TULLAMORE, April 22, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You told me ’I forgot you once in not answering your letter’; but if I did, I shall not be in much danger of forgetting you again. I love you too well to forget you, and the more because I find you still looking upward and endeavoring to secure a better portion than this short-enduring world can give. I am glad you are in Athlone at this season, because peacemakers are wanted there, and I know you love making peace. I hope you will comfort your sister Rutledge. She has been sadly distressed; and a word spoken in season, how good it is I I think you will lose no opportunity of doing good to her or to any one. That you and yours may be a pattern to all is the sincere wish of, my dear sister, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. James Armstrong, Athlone. To Arthur Keene PORTARLINGTON, April 23, 1789. MY DEAR ARTHUR, -- I will not, I dare not draw the saw of controversy any longer; especially with James Deaves, [See letters of Aug. 2, 1788 (to Mrs. Ward), and May 20.] who will dispute through a stone wall. In the name of God, have done! You can do no good by disputing. But you do much harm. You hurt your own spirit. You hurt others. You blow up a flame. You damp and hinder the work of God. By talebearing you separate chief friends. You prejudice my intimate friends against me. I have not deserved it of you. Let me alone. I act according to the best of my judgment. In speaking once you did well. But it is not well to worry me thus. I wish James Deaves would mind his own affairs. If he has a mind to renounce me, let him do it quietly. If you personally have anything to say to me, well! But I have no more to say to him--that is, James Deaves behind the curtain. None but he could tear you from Your old, affectionate brother. To Samuel Bardsley CARLOW, April 26, 1789. DEAR SAMMY, -- I am glad to hear that the work of the Lord still prospers in your hands. But there needs great steadiness, or you will not be able to keep the good old Methodist discipline. Brother Rhodes is desirous to do this; and it will be right for you to strengthen his hands therein. [See letter of Jan. 7.] Let the preachers stand firm together, and then the people will be regular; but if any of you take their part against the preacher, all will be confusion. Since you desire it, you may come to the Conference. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Sam. Bardsley, At Mr. James Walker’s, In Sheffield. To Edward Coates WATERFORD, April 29, 1789. Conference is out of the question. You have used me basely and ungratefully, after I have served you between forty and fifty years; and if I had not two strings to my bow I should have been in a fine condition. Your letters are a proof of all I say concerning you. If you and the six other persons who sign your letter of the 26th instant issued out all the money whereby the house at Millbourn Place was built, you are honest men; if not, I will not call you so. One of the twelve original rules of Methodism is, ’You are to do that part of the work which I appoint’; but this cannot be unless I have a right of appointing the preachers in all the Methodist preaching-houses. [See letter of April 11 to Peter Mill.] I am old, and you apparently young; yet you know not which of us will first be called hence. I wish you all well, and am Your affectionate brother. To Rebecca Ingram WATERFORD, April 29, 1789. To receive a line from you was an unexpected pleasure. You will please to inform Mr. Brown that, as I purpose setting out from Kilfinane pretty early on Tuesday morning, May 12 shall probably be at Limerick between twelve and one. I am glad to find your love does not grow cold, nor your desires after all the mind that was in Christ. Now is the time to regain the whole image of God, wherein you was created. O be satisfied with nothing less, and you will surely receive it by simple faith! The Lord increase your faith! So prays Yours affectionately. To Walter Churchey CORK, May 4. 1789. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I am afraid Henry Floyd’s estate is unsaleable, unless he can find the writing, for I cannot. I shall not be in London before October at soonest; but if Henry Moore will revise the copy, [Moore was at City Road, near to the printer of Churchey’s Poems. See letters of March 3 and May 25 to him.] he will do almost as well as me. I hope the beginning of the work is in the press, else the book will not be printed off before Michaelmas. I wonder you do not understand mankind better, especially those wretches the great vulgar. If two in three of your subscribers stand to their word, it will be strange indeed. It was a deadly step not to secure half the money at the time of subscription. I receive the whole. I have now about sixty guineas, and hope to receive as many more. But where have you lived that you have found so many generous men It is strange that you should know more of them than I do. I am utterly against printing above five hundred copies. [Wesley’s prudence and business sagacity contrast favorably with the lawyer’s. See letters of Jan. 27 and May 25 to him.] If you and I between us can procure four hundred subscriptions, it is all we can expect. -- I am, in haste, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Churchey, Near the Hoy, Brecon. To Samual Bradburn BRISTOL, May 6, 1789. DEAR SAMMY, -- You are a compassionate man; and when you undertake a good work you do it with your might. For God’s sake, for the gospel’s sake, and for my sake, put a full stop to this vile affair, the prosecution of poor Sally Brown. [She probably met in Bower’s class. Wesley’s Diary has several entries. See Journal Index; and letter of Sept. 20, 1789.] If it is not stopped, I shall be under a necessity of excluding from our Society not only Eliz. Sharp but Joseph Bowers also. She would not dare to proceed thus without his connivance, if not encouragement. He can stop her if he will. She will not break with him. I will not enter into merits of the case at all. (That I have done already.) But I insist upon this. All of them are or were members of our Society. Therefore they were not at liberty to go to law with each other, but are under an obligation to stand to the decision of me or the Assistant. I pray, spare no pains. Put a full end to the business, that the scandal may be removed. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jonathan Crowther CORK, May 20, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- ’Sessions!’ ’elders!’ We Methodists have no such customs, neither any of the Churches of God that are under my care. I require you, Jonathan Crowther, immediately to disband that session (so called) at Glasgow. Discharge them from meeting any more. And if they will leave the Society, let them leave it. We acknowledge only preachers, stewards, and leaders among us, over whom the Assistant in each circuit presides. You ought to have kept to the Methodist plan from the first. Who had any authority to vary from it If the people of Glasgow or any other place are weary of us, we will leave them to themselves. But we are willing to continue their servants, for Christ’s sake, according to our own discipline, but no other. -- I am, dear Jonathan, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Armstrong LIMERICK, May 14, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You will do well to write me a line that I might know you had not forgotten me; I hope you never will till we come to the place where parting will be no more. I was well pleased when we were at Athlone to find you had not engaged with either of the contending parties. Indeed, they are contending about nothing, about straws, about such trifles as are not worth the mentioning. Till I came hither I was afraid there was some grievous misdemeanor on the one side or the other. And as you are friendly received by them all, who knows but you may be an instrument of good, a means of reconciling them to each other Let former things die and be forgotten. Now let my dear Sister Rutledge and you join hand and hand in putting out every spark of contention. [See letter of April 22.] So will you be more and more beloved by, my dear Jenny, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. James Armstrong, Athlone. To Mrs. Freeman CASTLEBAR, May 20, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- All this noise and confusion I impute to an artfull busy man, who has thrown wildfire among them that were quiet in the land. However, when I meet the classes, I will propose that question in each -- Who of you wishes the Sunday service to continue, and who does not [See letter of June 13, 1788.] what demonstrates the matter of this outcry to be a mere Bugbear is this: when we began the service on Sunday mornings in London, and afterwards in Bristol, no living creature ever said it was ’leaving the Church.’ This is a palpable falsehood. It would not pass in England. A man bawls out, ’Fire, fire!’ and puts people in a fright, when there is no fire at all but in his own imagination. And he will keep you in a fright while you hearken to him. [James Deaves: see letter of April 23.] Good it had been for that man if he had not been born I -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Jane Freeman, At the New Room, In Dublin. To Alexander Surer KILLASHANDRA, May 21, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It was affirmed to me that you gave one of the first occasions of disagreement by ’refusing to read the Prayers and speaking contemptuously of them.’ Conversing with so many Presbyterians in Scotland might easily lead you into such a prejudice. I have lying by me a very warm letter from one Edward Thomas, who seems ready to swallow up all that speak a word against Lawrence Kane. [Kane was Assistant at Plymouth. Thomas acknowledged his faults, and was restored to the Society. See letters of June 9 and Aug. 29.] I hear nothing from Nehemiah Janes. You are blamed for not preaching as often as you can; I hope there is no ground for this charge. [See letter of July 23, 1788.] Take care your own spirit is not sharpened! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Surer, At the Preaching-house, In Plymouth Dock. To Walter Churchey CLONES, May 25, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am afraid of delay. I doubt we shall not be able to be as good as our word, although in the last proposals I have protracted the time of delivery till the 1st of August. As you are not a stripling, I wonder you have not yet learned the difference between promise and performance. [See letters of May 4 and Aug. 26.] I allow at least five-and-twenty per cent.; and from this conviction I say to each of my subscribers (which, indeed, you cannot so decently say to yours), ’Sir, down with your money.’ I know Dr. [Ogilvie] well [Probably Dr. John Ogilvie, an extract from whose poem ’Solitude, or The Elysium of the Poets,’ in favor of Ossian, appears in Churchey’s volume.]: he is a lovely man, and an excellent poet. I commend you for inoculating the children. I believe the hand of God is in our present work; therefore it must prosper. Indeed, I love Sister Churchey; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Wride SIDARE, May 28, 1789. Nay, Tommy, nay: you are more nice than wise. I have seen worse verses than these, even in print, in the very poems of William Darney. [For Darney (who published a Collection of Hymns in Four Parts in 1751) see letter of Feb. 9, 1750.] The rhymes are not bad. Why should you damp a rising genius If he and [you] were to set your wits together, you would surely produce something! Deal very gently with the young man. I am persuaded he will take advice. You did exceeding well with regard to the house proposed to be built at Brompton. We have fresh warning. Good Brother Coates and Todd have given our preaching-house at North Shields to John Atlay and William Eels. [See letter of April 11 to Peter Mill.] So you see what we have to trust to. But you must deal exceedingly tenderly with them. Not one harsh or passionate word, or they will make their advantage of it. Above all, you should make it a matter of prayer. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Mullis NEW CHAPEL [LONDONDERRY], May 31, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You are right in your judgment that God never withdraws the light of His countenance but for some fault in us; and in order to retain that light you should carefully follow the conviction He gives you from time to time. You should likewise labor to avoid all unprofitable reasonings; then you will soon walk in the light as He is in the light. -- I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To John Bredin LONDONDERRY, June 1, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- My belief is that neither one air nor another signifies a straw. The matter of complaint lies within, not without; and if anything could remove it, it would be the taking an ounce of lime water every morning for sixteen days and ten drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of pure water every afternoon. Meantime you should walk an hour at least every day, five or ten minutes at a time; -- when it is fine, in the open air; when it rains, in the house. [See letters of Nov. 16, 1785 (to him), and Oct. 17, 1790.] It will be well if you can raise a sufficient collection to build a preaching-house in Jersey. [See letter of Nov. 5, 1788.] And why not, if you set upon it in faith Are not all things possible to him that believeth But if you do build, take care to have windows enough and two broad doors; and do not build a scarecrow of an house. Certainly, whenever you leave Jersey and Guernsey, you will do well to return to Ireland. But have a care! If you give way to discontent, it will find you in any place. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Printer of the ’Dublin Chronicle’ LONDONDERRY, June 2, 1789. SIR, -- 1. As soon as I was gone from Dublin, the Observer came forth, only with his face covered. Afterwards he came out under another name, and made a silly defense for me, that he might have the honor of answering it. His words are smoother than oil, and flow (who can doubt it) from mere love both to me and the people. 2. But what does this smooth, candid writer endeavor to prove, with all the softness and good humor imaginable Only this point (to express it in plain English), that I am a double-tongued knave, an old crafty hypocrite, who have used religion merely for a cloak, and have worn a mask for these fifty years, saying one thing and meaning another. A bold charge this; only it happens that matter of fact contradicts it from the beginning to the end. 3. In my youth I was not only a member of the Church of England, but a bigot to it, believing none but the members of it to be in a state of salvation. I began to abate of this violence in 1729. But still I was as zealous as ever, observing every point of Church discipline, and teaching all my pupils so to do. When I was abroad, I observed every rule of the Church, even at the peril of my life. I knew not what might be the consequence of repelling the first magistrate’s niece [See letters of July 5, 1737, to Thomas Causton and Mrs. Williamson (Sophia Hopkey).] from the sacrament, considering, on the one hand the power lodged in his hands, on the other the violence of his temper, shown by his declaration, ’I have drawn the sword, and I will never sheathe it till I have satisfaction.’ 4. I was exactly of the same sentiment when I returned from America. I attended St. Paul’s Church, and advised all our Society either to attend there every Sunday or at their several parish churches. In the year 1743 I published the Rules of the Society; one of which was that all the members thereof should constantly attend the church and sacrament. We had then a large Society at Newcastle-upon-Tyne; but one of the members totally left it after a few months,’ because,’ said he, ’they are mere Church-of-England men.’ 5. About the year 1744 a clergyman offered me a chapel in West Street, Seven Dials (formerly a French church), and I began to officiate there on Sunday mornings and evenings. We did the same (my brother and I alternately) soon after at the French church in Spitalfields as soon as it came into our hands. This we continued from that time; and no one in England ever thought or called it leaving the Church. It was never esteemed so by Archbishop Potter, with whom I had the happiness of conversing freely; nor by Archbishop Secker, who was throughly acquainted with every step we took; as was likewise Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of London; and that great man Bishop Lowth. Nor did any of these four venerable men ever blame me for it in all the conversations I had with them. Only Archbishop Potter once said, ’Those gentlemen are irregular; but they have done good, and I pray God to bless them.’ 6. It may be observed that all this time, if my brother or I were ill, I desired one of our other preachers, though not ordained, to preach in either of the chapels after reading part of the Church Prayers. This both my brother and I judged would endear the Church Prayers to them; whereas, if they were used wholly to extemporary prayer, they would naturally. contract a kind of contempt if not aversion to forms of prayer: so careful were we from the beginning to prevent their leaving the Church. 7. It is true Bishop Gibson once said (but it was before I had ever seen him), ’Why do not these gentlemen leave the Church’ The answer was very ready: ’Because they dare not; they do not leave the Church because they believe it is their duty to continue therein.’ 8. When the Rev. Mr. Edward Smyth came to live in Dublin, he earnestly advised me to leave the Church; meaning thereby (as all sensible men do) to renounce all connection with it, to attend the service of it no more, and to advise all our Societies to take the same steps. I judged this to be a matter of great importance, and would therefore do nothing hastily, but referred it to the body of preachers, then met in Conference. We had several meetings, in which he proposed all his reasons for it at large. They were severally considered and answered, and we all determined not to leave the Church. 9. A year ago Dr. Coke began officiating at our chapel in Dublin.- This was no more than had been done in London for between forty and fifty years. Some persons immediately began to cry out, ’This is leaving the Church, which Mr. Wesley has continually declared he would never do.’ And I declare so still. But I appeal to all the world, I appeal to common sense, I appeal to the Observer himself, could I mean hereby ’ I will not have service in church hours ’when I was doing it all the time I Could I even then deny that I had service in church hours No; but I denied, and do deny still, that this is leaving the Church, either in the sense of Bishop Gibson, or of Mr. Smyth at the Dublin Conference ! Yet by this outcry many well-meaning people were frighted wellnigh out of their senses. 10. But see the consequences of having Sunday service here. See the confusion this occasioned I Some time since, while a popular preacher was preaching at Leeds, one cried out, ’Fire! fire!’ The people took fright; some leaped over the gallery, and several legs and arms were broken. But upon whom were these consequences to be charged Not on the preacher, but on him that made the outcry. Apply this to the present case. I have kindled no more fire in Dublin than I did in London. It is the Observer and a few other mischiefmakers who fright the people out of their senses; and they must answer to God for the consequence. 11. This is my answer to them that trouble me and will not let my gray hairs go down to the grave in peace. I am not a man of duplicity: I am not an old hypocrite, a double-tongued knave. More than forty years I have frequented Ireland. I have wished to do some good there. I now tell a plain tale that ’the good which is in me may not be evil spoken of.’ I have no temporal end to serve. I seek not the honor that cometh of men. It is not for pleasure that at this time of life I travel three or four thousand miles a year. It is not for gain. No foot of land do I possess, No cottage in this wilderness; A poor wayfaring man, I lodge awhile in tents below, Or gladly wander to and fro, Till I my Canaan gain. PS.--At the desire of a friend I add a few words in answer to one or two other objections. First. When I said, ’I believe I am a scriptural bishop,’ I spoke on Lord King’s supposition that bishops and presbyters are essentially one order. Secondly. I did desire Mr. Myles to assist me in delivering the cup. Now, be this right or wrong, how does it prove the point now in question -- that I leave the Church I ask (2) What law of the Church forbids this and (3) What law of the Primitive Church Did not the priest in the Primitive Church send both the bread and wine to the sick by whom he pleased, though not ordained at all Thirdly. The Observer affirms, ’To say you will not leave the Church, meaning thereby all the true believers in England, is trifling.’ Certainly; but I do not mean so when I say, ’I will not leave the Church.’ I mean, unless I see more reason for it than I ever yet saw, I will not leave the Church of England as by law established while the breath of God is in my nostrils. To Mrs. Crosby COLERAINE, June 4, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You do well to write to me with all freedom. There does not need to be any reserve between you and me. When I broke my rule formerly in favor of Pawson, by letting him stay a third year at Bristol, I did not hear the last of it for several years. I will not, cannot, dare not, break it again, only in favor of a wife near the time of lying-in. I believe it will be expedient for all the preachers to remove from Leeds. It is a cruel thing for preachers to disparage one another. [A short sentence follows which is illegible.] . . . I am in better health than when I left Dublin.--I am, dear Sally, Your affectionate brother. To George Flamank PORTAFFERRY, June 9, 1789. MY DEAR BRETHREN, -- ’Heaviness may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.’ I hope to set out for the West immediately after the Conference, and probably I shall bring with me one or two men of peace, by whom all these misunderstandings will be removed. [See letters of May 21 and July 21 (to Richard Bunt).] In your patience meantime, possess ye your souls. And those that suffer all will surely conquer all. -- I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. George Flamank, Officer of Excise, In Plymouth. To Anne Moore RATHFRILAND, June 11, 1789. Has my dear Nancy quite forgotten me If you have, I have not forgotten you; and if you think I ever shall, you will be mistaken: I shall remember and love you till we meet in a better place. To Walter Churchey DUBLIN, June 20, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Michael [Fenwick] is an original. He tells lies innumerable, many of them plausible enough. But many talk full as plausibly as he, and they that can believe him may. I do not doubt but some part of your verse as well as prose will reach the hearts of some of the rich. Dr. Coke made two or three little alterations in the Prayer-Book without my knowledge. [The Sunday Service of the Methodists. A new edition was printed in 1788. See Green’s Bibliography, Appendix, pp. vii-ix, and Nos. 376, 390; letter also of Sept. 10, 1784.] I took particular care throughout to alter nothing merely for altering’ sake. In religion I am for as few innovations as possible. I love the old wine best. And if it were only on this account, I prefer ’which’ before ’who art in heaven.’ Mr. Howard is really an extraordinary man. [Wesley met John Howard on July 28, 1787, in Dublin: ’I think one of the greatest men in Europe.’ He called on Wesley in March 1789, but found him away on one of his journeys. See Journal, vii. 295, 472n.] God has raised him up to be a blessing to many nations. I do not doubt but there has been something more than natural in his preservation hitherto, and should not wonder if the providence of God should hereafter be still more conspicuous in his favor. About three weeks hence I expect to embark for England. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To the Publisher of the ’Dublin Chronicle’ June 20, 1789. Since Mr. Edward Smyth, [See letters of June 2 and June 25 (to Adam Clarke).] as he says, ’has me in his power,’ I hope as he is stout he will be merciful; and that he will remember the words of the honest Quaker to him that answered the Ernest Appeal, ’Canst thou not be content with laying John Wesley on his back, but thou wilt tread his guts out too’ [See letter of Nov. 4, 1758, 5 (Mr. Potter).] To Zachariah Yewdull DUBLIN, June 20, 1789. DEAR ZACHARY, -- You have chose an admirably good advocate in honest Alexander Mather. I shall blame you if you cannot plead your own cause when you have him at your elbows, especially when you know you have another friend standing behind the curtain. For with regard to circuits to be assigned, or any other assistance you may be assured of anything that is in the power of Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Yewdall, In South Wynd, In Edinburgh, P. Portpatrick. To George Holder DUBLIN, June 24, 1789. DEAR GEORGE, -- You send me an agreeable account of the work of God in the isle. If He will work who shall stay His hand I should be glad of an opportunity of seeing my friends that are with you once more; but I cannot reasonably expect it. In my last voyage the sea affected me more than ever it did before in my life; so that I perceive my voyages draw toward an end. Brother Smith may bring all the accounts to the Conference, and will be stationed in England the next year. -- I am, dear George, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Adam Clarke NEAR DUBLIN, June 25, 1789. DEAR ADAM, -- You send me good news with regard to the islands. Who can hurt us, if God is on our side Trials may come, but they are all good. I have not been so tried for many years. Every week and almost every day I am bespattered in the public papers, either by Mr. Smyth or by Mr. Mann, his curate. Smooth but bitter as wormwood are their words; and five or six of our richest members have left the Society, because (they say) ’I have left the Church.’ [See letters of June 20 (to the publisher of the Dublin Chronicle) and July 1.] Many were in tears on that occasion, many terribly frightened, and crying out, ’Oh, what will the end be’ What will it be Why, ’Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and goodwill among men.’ But meantime what is to be done What will be the most effectual means to stem this furious torrent I have just visited the classes, and find still in the Society upwards of a thousand members; and among these many as deep Christians as any I have met with in Europe, But who is able to watch over them that they may not be moved from their steadfastness I know none more proper than Adam Clarke and his wife. [He was appointed to Bristol and Thomas Rutherford to Dublin.] Indeed, it may seem hard for them to go into a strange land again. Well, you may come to me at Leeds, at the latter end of next month; and if you can show me any that are more proper, I will send them in your stead. That God may be glorified is all that is desired by, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Arthur Keene DUBLIN, June 25, 1789. Alas, Arthur, is this possible Can a few well-meaning but ill-judging men still throw dust into your eyes, and tear you away from an old, tried friend And while they cry out, Conscience! Conscience! will they deny liberty of conscience to Your affectionate brother. I am ready to talk with you alone at any time and place. Suppose Mr. D’Olier’s. To President Heath ROXANNA, NEAR WICKLOW, June 26, 1789. DEAR SIR, -- I exceedingly wanted to hear from you. I thought Mrs. Heath and you had not forgotten me, although it would not be strange if you had, as (in youth especially) ’.... thought.’ .... [Five lines erased.] If that had been the case, if you had taken no care to fulfill the engagement, I should have judged the engagement between you and Dr. Coke would have stood good. But if (as I suppose) you was able and willing to teach, did in fact teach the children, then I should judge the engagement between him and you should be let fall on both sides. To which (I will take upon me to say) Dr. Coke will very willingly consent. I would go a good way to take you and your dear family by the hand; but the price of traveling by sea is now.... When I crossed the Atlantic, a cabin passenger paid five pounds for his passage. Now they have swelled it to above twice as much. I should willingly give fifty pounds toward your passage; and Eternal Providence, exceeding thought, When none appears, can make itself a way. I am glad of the information you gave me concerning the state of things in America. I shall be better able to understand the accounts which Dr. Coke will probably give me. O what a comfort it is to think that the Lord reigneth and will order all things well! I commit you and dear Mrs. Heath (how I love her 1) to His keeping and arms. -- Dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. The Rev. Mr. Heath, At Burlington, New Jersey. To Anna and Maria Heath June 26, 1789. MY DEAR ANNA AND MARIA, -- I love to see your names, and I . . . the paper. Perhaps I may live to see those that wrote them. If not, I shall see you in a better place. -- My dear children, adieu! To Mrs. Ingram DUBLIN, June 28, 1789. MY DEAR MADAM, -- Your letter gave me much satisfaction. I am obliged to you for taking the trouble of writing. Indeed, when I saw your name, I was afraid of finding a fresh accusation; therefore I was the more agreeably surprised when I read what you had written. I shall not easily do anything that would give you pain; but whatever would be agreeable to you will be so to, [See next letter.] dear Madam, Your affectionate servant, To Rebecca Ingram DUBLIN, June 28, 1789. MY DEAR BECKY, -- I will tell you my thoughts without the least reserve. These are the rules in the Large Minutes of Conference, -- that ’no Methodist (and least of all a preacher) ought to marry a woman without the consent of her parents’; and the same thing is insisted upon in one of the sermons in the Arminian Magazine. Therefore I cannot commend Mr. Brown for saying anything to you on that head without the consent of your father. [See letters of April 9 and July 5 to her.] But I exceedingly approve of your present temper and behavior. I commend your resignation to the will of God. Keep there! Beware of murmuring; beware of fretting; beware of the sorrow which worketh death! I commend you to Him who can save you to the utmost; and am, my dear Becky, Yours. To Robert Dall DUBLIN, June 29, 1780. DEAR ROBERT, -- Why do not all you Scots direct to Dublin by Portpatrick, to save five hundred miles Brother Cole and Barber have done well: so will all whose hearts are in their work. I have referred to honest Joseph Cownley to determine what preachers should come from Scotland to the Conference. It seems to me you may come and John Barber another. Either Charles Atmore must return to Scotland, or he and I shall not agree. I was not at all satisfied at his going to England. It was using me extremely ill. I hope his future behaviour will be different and make amends for what is past. From the account you give of Jonathan Thompson there is reason to hope he will be an useful labourer in our Lord’s vineyard. We have already had some useful ones from North Britain, and I trust shall have more. Dr. Coke has raised a storm almost in every part of this kingdom by talking of ’leaving the Church.’ It would be well if they would leave these sins. -- I am, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Arthur Keene DUBLIN, July 1, 1789. If we do not meet till we reach a better world, you will suffer me to tell you, I love you dearly, and shall do so till our earthly course is run. And permit me to give you one advice more (you once valued my advice)--leave off disputing. Call off your thoughts as far as possible from all controverted points. You have one only point to attend to -- Immanuel, God with us; to secure that single point -- Christ in us, the hope of glory! What is all besides in comparison of that O let it engage your whole soul. Yet a little while and all the rest will pass away like a shadow! It is [probable] you are likely to spend a few more days upon earth when I am no more seen. But those days in comparison will vanish away like a dream when one awaketh. The wisdom from above meantime be the portion of you and yours! So prays Your ever affectionate brother. To Henry Moore DUBLIN, July 1, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- It is well you can keep out of debt. I am glad Brother Graham and the poor stewards stand their ground. I shall not easily send four children to Bristol. I can’t tell what you can do for James -----, [Name illegible.] though I take him to be an honest man. I wonder what should come into the head of Mr. Reed to send money to poor John Bull! [See letter of Sept. 30, 1787.] He is just gone [out] of prison, [now] in hopes he will find means to live. We had very hot work in Dublin for some time, occasioned by Mr. Smyth’s and Mr. Mann’s [letters] [See letter of June 25 to Adam Clarke.] in the newspapers. But I say nothing, and go straight on my way. Charles [Can this be his brother, whose views about the Church may have been quoted against him] is nothing to me. I serve God; and am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Ingram DUBLIN, July 5, 1789. MY DEAR MADAM, -- After the fair and candid account that Miss Ingram [See letter of June 28 to her.] and you had given of the transaction, there was no fear that I should be much prejudiced by anything which had occurred. I advise my dear Becky and you to say as little as possible of what is past. It will then pass away like a dream; while you both forget the things that are behind, and press towards the prize of your high calling in Christ Jesus. -- I am, dear madam, Yours most affectionately, To Rebecca Ingram DUBLIN, July 5, 1789. MY DEAR BECKY, -- You mistake me. All I mean is this: it is a general rule with us, ’No one ought to propose marriage to a woman till he has the consent of her parents.’ So you fear where no fear is. You say, ’Marriage was not proposed [See previous letter.] to’ you; and I believe you. Therefore it is your wisdom to think of past things as little as possible. You have something better to employ your thoughts. The prize and the crown are before you. Look unto Jesus! He is altogether lovely; but how little have you loved Him! Let all the springs of your happiness be in Him. -- My dear Becky, Yours very affectionately. To Arthur Keene DUBLIN, July 6, 1789. I acknowledge the hand of James Deaves in your letter. [See letter of May 20. The opposition to service in church hours continued till the time was changed from ten to two. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 452.] I cannot dispute with him, for he has ten words to my one. You have run away from me, not I from you. I stand where I have stood these fifty years. I no more leave the Church than I leave the body. But I have done. The Lord God judge between him and you and Your much injured friend. [See letter of April 28, 1790, to him.] To Henry Moore CHESTER, July 14, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- After a very agreeable voyage, wherein I was not sick a moment, [Compare letter of June 24.] I landed at Parkgate this morning. I propose spending Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at Manchester, and the next week hiding myself at Otley. Not anything which Dr. Coke has said or done, but the vile, willful misrepresentation of it, had set all Ireland in a flame. But I am in hope it is now in a great measure quenched. It has brought a flood of obloquy upon me. [See letter of July 1.] But it is all well. We now fear greater danger from honor than dishonor. God will surely exalt us if we do not exalt ourselves. I do not know that any of our clergymen can be spared from London. But I expect to see Brother Rankin, Whitfield, and you at the Conference, or at Otley a day or two before it. We shall have some points of deep importance to consider. -- I am, with love to my Nancy, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. Let T. Rankin and you write down what is on your mind. To John Dickins CHESTER, July 15, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It was a concern to me likewise that you should have so little employment in the work of God, as it was your real desire to be of use to the world before you are called to a better. Therefore I am glad to find Providence has pointed out a way wherein you may be of general use, and the more so as in some of the extracts from late authors the inattention of my corrector inserted some sentences which I had blotted out, two or three of which assert Universal Restitution. The numerous errata likewise I doubt not you will carefully correct, which sometimes spoil the sense. [See letter of Aug. 15.] Wishing you much of the favor and of the presence of God, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. John Dickins, Market Street, Philadelphia, Pa. To Henry Eames CHESTER, July 15, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- After the many proofs which you have already had both of the power and goodness of God, particularly in giving you your heart’s desire in the change wrought in several of your children, you can have no reason to doubt but that He will give you your mother also if you continue earnest in prayer. [See letter of Aug. 3, 1772.] The great hindrance to the inward work of God is Antinomianism, wherever it breaks in. I am glad you are aware of it. Show your faith by your works. Fight the good fight of faith and lay hold on eternal life. Peace be with you and yours. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Freeborn Garrettson CHESTER, July 15, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are entirely in the right. There can be no manner of doubt that it was the enemy of souls that hindered your sending me your experience. Many parts both of your inward and outward experience ought by no means to be suppressed. But if you are minded to send anything to me, you have no time to lose. [See letters of Jan. 24, 1789, and Feb. 3, 1790, to him.] Whatever you do for me you must do quickly, lest death have quicker wings than love. A great man observes that there is a threefold leading of the Spirit: some He leads by giving them on every occasion apposite texts of Scripture; some by suggesting reasons for every step they take -- the way by which He chiefly leads me; and some by impressions. But He judges the last to be the least desirable way, as it is often impossible to distinguish dark impressions from divine or even diabolical. I hope you will not long delay to write more particularly to Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore MANCHESTZR, July 17, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- I came hither yesterday, and purpose to spend most of the next week at Otley. I had forgot, when I wrote last, that our dear friend Mr. Allay was in London. If he is there still, you cannot be so unkind as to leave him behind you; so that you can only send T. Rankin and George Whitfield to bear us company at Leeds. But if he is gone to Yorkshire you may go thither to. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bardsley OTLEY, July 21, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear so good an account of the work of God at Bideford. [See next letter and that of Nov. 25.] That town had held out long and seemed to bid defiance to the gospel. But if we are not weary of well-doing we shall reap in due time. I should hardly have expected any increase of the work of God in Launceston; but probably it will be enlarged by your preaching in the Town Hall, for many will come thither who would not come to our preaching-house. As long as you and your fellow laborers converse freely together and act by united counsels the work of the Lord will prosper in your hands. And continue instant in prayer, particularly in your closet. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Richard Bunt OTLEY, July 21, 1780. Regard no one who tells you that idle tale of the Mayor and Corporation moving the Court of King’s Bench against a man for speaking such words. The whole Court would laugh a man to scorn that pretended to any such thing. And your Corporation is not so weak as to think of any such thing. If ever anything of the kind should be moved, send me word (I hope to be in Plymouth in two or three weeks [He was at Plymouth on Aug. 13.]), and I will make them sick of the King’s Bench as long as they live. [See letters of June 9, 1789, and Jan. 13, 1790.] - I am Your affectionate servant. To Mr. Richard Bunt, In Bideford, Devon. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] When John Pritchard was appointed to Northampton in 1778, he ’was much distressed to see the Antinomian ministers and doctrines carry the multitude after them.’ See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 214; and letter of February 19, 1788, to Currie. [2] Robert Armstrong was stationed in Liverpool in 1787 and desisted from traveling in 1788. He does not appear in the Minutes for 1789. [3] Garrettson had left Nova Scotia in May 1788, and was now working north of the Hudson. The Journal was sent, but the ship was lost, and it never reached Wesley. See Bangs’s Life, p. 176; and letters of July 16, 1787, and July 15, 1789, to him. [4] Medals to commemorate the Regency were being sold in the streets at the beginning of February, and on the 13th the Regency Bill passed the House of Commons. George III’s recovery rendered it unnecessary. Fox would have succeeded Pitt as Prime Minister. See Lecky’s England, v. 441-3. [5] Dull went to Dumfries in 1787. The preaching-house there is named in the Minutes of 1788 as ’to be built this year,’ and Myles states that it was built in 1788. Wesley saw it on his visit in May of that year, and describes the old preaching-house which it superseded as without windows. See letters of February 11, 1788, and June 29, 1789. [6] Wesley reached Dublin on March 29, but did not pass through Stockport. See letter of March 31. [7] Nehemiah Curnock’s mother was a Miss Whereat, of Bristol. Her father’s brother married Patience Ellison. See letter of September 7, 1777; W.H.S. vii. 153-5. [8] Wesley sat for the portrait on January 5, and says, in Journal, vii. 461: ’Mr. Romney is a painter indeed. He struck off an exact likeness at once, and did more in one hour than Sir Joshua did in ten.’ The engraver was John Spilsbury. The original is in the McFadden collection at Philadelphia. A replica of it by Mr. W. D. Hamilton is in Wesley’s Rooms at Lincoln College, Oxford. Mrs. Tighe was a Miss Fownes married to William Tigre, M.P., of Rosanna. [9] Elizabeth Reeve, of Redgrove, Suffolk, was one of Sarah Muller’s converts. She kept her brother’s house, where Miss Mallet preached. She began to speak, and Wesley asked Miss Mallet, who told him about her, to bring her to meet him at Diss. He talked with her, and encouraged her in her work. She afterwards married, and died of consumption. See Taft’s Holy Women, pp. 91-2; and letter of July 31, 1790. Had Miss Mallet been at Dr. Hunt’s of Norwich and felt moved to speak there See letters of December 25, 1788, and August 3, 1789, to her; and for Hunt, that of February 25, 1785, to Jonathan Coussins. [10] This letter is given in the Watchman for 1850, p. 311; where it is dated 1769. The right date is 1789, when Wesloy had more than two hundred preachers. Stretton says: ’In October 1785 a preacher arrived here from London sent by Mr. Wesley. His name is John McGeary, a good man and a good preacher: I hope he will prove a blessing to this place.’ He was an Irishman who had worked for two years with Asbury in America and came to England at the end of the war. Wesley had a long conversation with him on September 30, 1784, and sent him to Newfoundland the next year. He did not get on well with the lay workers, and Wesley tells Black in February 1787, that ’McGeary appears to be utterly discouraged.’ He made an unfortunate marriage, and returned to England at the close of 1788. See Journal, vii. 23; Findlay and Holdsworth’s History of Wesleyan Methodist Missions, i. 394; Wilson’s Newfoundland and its Missionaries, p. 160; letter of March 19, 1788, to William Black; and for Hoskins, who was converted in Bristol in 1746, August 10, 1780. [11] John Black, the Assistant at Enniskillen, had evidently written to Wesley. During his first round he was seized by a mob ’consisting of some of those who ought to have been the most respectable Protestant inhabitants of the district.’ They tied a rope round the preacher and dragged him several times through the nearest river. They cut off the ears of his horse, and threatened to cut off Black’s. Crookshank says: ’It is worthy of note that in a comparatively short time every trace of these guilty parties and their descendants passed into oblivion.’ Wesley had preached there unmolested in 1787, Creighton had preached there in 1781, and knew the conditions in what was described as ’a den of lions.’ Lord Enniskillen and his family had seen the great moral transformation in the district, and had been impressed by the conversion of Daniel Bradshaw, whom he had tried to draw away from the Methodists by inviting him to an entertainment at his house. Lord Enniskillen became friendly to the Methodists, as he saw how ’the once Sabbath-breaking country became a land of prayer and praise.’ See Journal, vii. 283; Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 334, 447. [12] Churchey was about to publish his large volume of poems, which Wesley permitted him to print at his own press. How much he did for his friend the following proposals will show: -- PROPOSALS For printing by Subscription Poems on Various Occasions, By Walter Churchey, Gent. CONDITIONS 1. The work will be comprised in one large Quarto volume. 2. It will be printed on a fine paper and with a good type. 3. The price is One Guinea. 4. The copy is finished and will be put into the press with all possible speed. 4 [5]. The book will be delivered about the 1st of July next. 100. Mr. Churchey is an honest attorney! Therefore he is poor, and has eight children. Give me a guinea for him, for his own sake, for God’s sake, and for the sake of JOHN WESLEY. BRISTOL, March 3, 1789. [13] Wesley states in his Journal (vi. 444) that the preachers advised him to begin his effort to persuade the trustees at Birstall to settle it on the Methodist plan, by preaching there. This he did on September 4, 1783, at 6 p.m., having dined with Mr. John Taylor at 1. The deed was altered as Wesley wished (see Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 383). A more serious trouble arose at Dewsbury, and on July 25, 1789, Wesley says, ’I lodged in Joseph Taylor’s house at Gomersal, who labors for peace, and would fain reconcile Christ and Belial.’ The Dewsbury house was lost to Methodism, and Wesley’s book steward, John Atlay, became its pastor. [14] Clarke wrote on January 13: ’My wife and her sister send their love to you, and so, I am persuaded, our little John Wesley would, were he capable.’ He asks for some intimation as to his next appointment, as news took some time and weather might prevent their crossing over for some weeks. Wesley asked him to come to the Conference in Leeds, and told him that he ought to go to Dublin. He was, however, appointed to Bristol. [15] Wesley reached Dublin on the Sunday, and went straight up to the Blew Room, where he preached on the sickness and recovery of King Hezekiah and King George. Services were allowed at the Room in church hours, save on the first Sunday of the month, when the members took the sacrament at St. Patrick’s. See Journal, vii. 481-2; and letters of May 6, 1788, and June 2, 1789. [16] Wesley ordained Hanby for Scotland in August 1785. He was now at Grantham. He wrote to James Oddie on May 21, 1789: ’Since I wrote last I have been in deep waters on account of my administering the Lord’s supper, which I think it my duty to do, and especially to those who for conscience cannot go to the Church. Mr. Wesley has written and ordered me to lay it aside. I wrote and told him if I did I should sin because I was persuaded it was my duty, and therefore I could not oblige him. Then he ordered the clergy and preachers in London to undertake me. I have received their letters, and wrote for answer I must do as I have done, and provided Mr. Wesley had given me up into their hands, they must act according to their judgment, for what I did was from a Divine conviction, etc., etc. I have for some time expected another preacher to take my place. But as he did not come, perhaps they will refer the matter till the Conference.’ Hanby says his superintendent, Joseph Taylor, ’opposes me all he can,’ and had been ordered by Wesley to remove the leaders who had been the promoters of the Sacrament. He adds: ’Our solemnities are much owned of God, and I have much employment in the sacred service.’ This letter will show what difficulty Wesley had in holding his ground as to the Church of England. Hanby was chosen President of the Conference at Bristol in 1794. See W.H.S. iv. 171-2. [17] Mrs. Fisher had come to live in Lincoln about the end of 1787, and preaching was begun there again in an old lumber-room near Gowt’s Bridge. The room was usually full. The chapel was opened in the spring of 1790. See letter of April 30, 1786. [18] In quoting this letter to Miss Hannah More (October 10, 1824) Knox says: ’My poor sister at that time made no pretensions whatever to religious strictness; but he had known her from a child, and had taken a particular liking to her lively manner and very pleasing appearance. . . . She survived Mr. Wesley about ten years, but showed nothing correspondent to his wish until within a month or two of her death. Then, without any apparent cause, except the grace of God concurring with her rapid decline, all her dispositions were so altered as to make the last weeks of her life a continued exercise of joyful hope and pious resignation.’ See Foster’s Remains of Alexander Knox, iii. 478-9. [19] This letter to the three preachers in the Newcastle Circuit brought matters to a crisis. The trustees refused to convey the place on the Conference Deed. Atlay advised them to take this action, and his colleague William Eels became their pastor. See letters of December 1788 and April 29, 1789, to Edward Coates, and W.H.S. iv. 229. [20] Some of the leaders had ’needlessly taken offense at the Assistant,’ John Dinnen, and the Society was in an uproar. Dinhen had called on Mr. R[utledge] and warned him against imbibing the same prejudice. He misunderstood and was very angry. Wesley talked to him till he was tired, but might as well have talked to the north wind. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 454; and letters of July 19, 1787, and May 14, 1789. [21] Endorsed ’Revd. Jno. Wesley, Portarlington. Answer to our Remonstrance, No. 4.’ [22] Miss Ingram was the daughter of Jacques Ingram, one of the clergymen in Limerick, who was married to a sister of Edward Smyth. On May 12 Wesley stayed with this ’lovely family, where I wanted nothing which the kingdom could afford.’ George Brown was the Assistant at Ballyconnell, and had evidently been attracted to her. See Journal, vii. 495; and letter of June 28 to her. [23] Crowther was at Dalkeith. He found that John Pawson, when stationed in Edinburgh, had ordained seven elders to superintend the work at Glasgow. They formed a court, in which the preachers presided, but had no votes. Wesley took firm steps to end the trouble which Pawson had foolishly brought upon his successors. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 581-2. [24] Wesley had five hundred communicants on March 29, and asked William Myles to assist him. The following week a long paragraph appeared in the Evening Post setting forth that the Church was in danger, and calling on the Archbishop and dignified clergy to step forward, as Myles, a layman, had done this -- the greatest innovation that had occurred for the last fifty years. The controversy went on for three months. See Arminian Magazine, 1797, p. 313, and letters of March 31 and June 20 (to the Publisher of the Dublin Chronicle). [25] John Pawson was at Leeds, and in August removed to Birstall. The other preachers, John Peacock and William Collins, also removed from Leeds. Wesley had left Dublin on April 13, and on May 5, not feeling very well, got Joseph Bradford, his traveling companion, to preach in the morning. On April 6 he writes, ’To-day and for some days following I was so overborne with letters that I had hardly time to do anything but to read and answer them.’ On June 4 he notes, ’I was fully employed in answering an heap of letters.’ [26] Henry Moore quotes these words from a letter to his wife, and adds: ’She was deeply sensible of Mr. Wesley’s kindness; but, true to her principle, she did not reply, and I was obliged to answer the letter and apologize. She thus practiced mental self-denial as well as bodily.’ See his Life, p. 238. [27] Yewdall was responsible for the debt on the new Chapel at Dalkeith. Alexander Mather lent him 20, and wrote to Wesley, who promised to be answerable for 100. Yewdall’s private diary says, ’Now there seems a way making for my escape.’ On October 10, 1788, in recording this happy result he writes: ’I once thought I must have it thrown upon my own hands, have sold it, or gone to prison, as I was ordered from the circuit without any way of deliverance from the debt’ He was stationed at Berwick, but went to Dalkeith every other month, and in 1789 was appointed to Glasgow. Mather was now at Wakefield, and Wesley himself was the friend behind the curtain. [28] On his way to Dublin in March Wesley was so ill throughout the day as to be fit for nothing. John Smith was admitted on trial in 1789, and stationed at Birmingham. Holder had replied to Wesley’s letter of February 28, giving with joy and gratitude an account of God’s blessing on the work. He was ’specially suited to the Isle of Man appointment.’ See Journal, vii. 481; Rosser’s Wesleyan Methodism in the Isle of Man, p. 118; for the voyage, compare letter of July 14. [29] Asbury says in his Journal on August 10, 1788: ’I received heavy tidings from the college. Both our teachers have left -- one for incompetency, and the other to pursue riches and honors. Had they cost us nothing, the mistake we made in employing them might be the less regretted.’ Dry Coke visited Cokesbury in May 1789, where he examined all the classes, and was more than ever delighted with the situation. He describes Heath, the President, as both the scholar, the philosopher, and the gentleman: he truly fears God, and pays a most exact and delicate attention to all the rules of the institution. See letters of December 2, 1788, and July 3, 1790 (to Heath). [30] The letter was missent to Southampton, and returned to Wesley at Moorfields for one shilling, American postage. On the back of the address is the following: [31] The Conference of 1789 met in Leeds on July 28, In 1788 Joseph Cownley and John Barber were stationed in Edinburgh. Joseph Cole and Robert Dull at Ayr and Dumfries. Charles Atmore was a valuable man for Scotland, he had been in Edinburgh in 1786-7, and was now at Colne; in 1789 he moved to Newcastle. Jonathan Thompson was received on trial at the Conference of 1789: he had been very useful as a local preacher at Ayr, and labored with great zeal in the Inverness Circuit; he died of fever in i789 at Elgin, and was buried in Joshua Keighley’s grave. See Atmore’s Memorial, p. 424. [32] This fragment of a letter appeared in W.H.S. Proceedings, viii. 96. It was probably sent to Arthur Keene, and may be dated as given here. [33] John Dickins, the only Methodist preacher in Philadelphia in 1789, began the Methodist Book Concern there with $600, which he lent it. His first volume was Wesley’s translation of Kempis’s The Christian’s Pattern. The Concern was moved to New York in 1804. Dickins, born in London and educated at Eton, was a true scholar and a powerful preacher. He died of yellow fever in 1798. [34] There is much underlying this suave reference to Allay. Wesley was not willing to have the traitor loose in London while his experienced preachers were in Leeds. If Allay stayed in town, Moore must stay also to guard against mischief. See letter of September 24, 1788; and for the Dewsbury case, which was to be discussed at Conference, August 23, 1789. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 94: 92. 1789 ======================================================================== 1789 To Ann Bolton LEEDS, July 27, 1789. MY DEAR NASCY,--Although what you propose is quite a new thing such as we have yet no precedent of, yet I do not know but it may be a means of much good. It may be worth while to make a trial for a year, especially as Brother Pescod [Joseph Pescod, the Assistant in Oxfordshire in 1788, moved to. St. Ives soon after this letter was written.] is willing himself to make the first experiment. But it would be well to do so on a regular plan, a kind of circuit, and not to ramble without any rule. Wishing you a continual power to do and suffer all the will of God, I am, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Mrs. Rose LEEDS, July 29, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER--It has pleased God to prove you for many years in the furnace of affliction. But He has always been with you in the fire that you might be purified, not consumed. You have therefore good reason to trust Him. Do not reason, but believe! Hang upon Him as a little child, and your eyes shall see His full salvation! -- I am, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Eliz. Rose, In Sheffield. To Sarah Rutter LEEDS, July 29, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I commend our sisters and you for meeting in band. It is a very excellent means for building each other up in the love and knowledge of God. Mr. Jenkins is appointed to stay with you another year, and another preacher that breathes the same spirit. You would have done well if you had wrote to me long ago, and it might have saved you much trouble. If I live till autumn, I shall see you again at St. Neots; when I hope to find you and all the family fighting the good fight of faith and laying hold on eternal life. -- I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Miss Sally Rutter, St. Neots. To Mr. ----- LEEDS, July 30, 1780. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I will take care to give a true view of the affairs of Worcester both to John Leech (as good-natured a man as lives) and Brother Kane. [Leech and Lawrence Kane were the new preachers. Leech, a zealous and successful preacher, died in 1810.] I will order J. Leech to change the stewards without delay, and to execute the orders which I gave when at Worcester. Brother Kane will show you the letter Mr. [York] wrote to me, at whose request I send him to your circuit. -- I am Your affectionate brother. (To Mrs. Knapp see page 271[Appendix]) To James Bogie LEEDS, August 1, 1789. DEAR JEMMY, -- Your division of Scotland into the three southern circuits is exceedingly well judged. [See letter of Oct. 11, 1788.] You will see by the Minutes of Conference that it is put into execution. I trust in a few months’ time to see thorough Methodist discipline both in Glasgow, Ayr, and Dumfries. And pray do not forget Greenock. I have letters thence calling for help. Let not any poor soul perish for lack of knowledge if it be in our power to prevent it. -- I am, dear Jemmy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. James Bogie, At the Preaching-house, In Glasgow. To Ann Bolton LEEDS, August 1, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I thank you for sending me so particular an account of your sister’s death. ’Right precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.’ It is well you have learned to say, ’The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!’ And you can say it even When loss of friends ordained to know, -- Next pain and guilt, the sorest ill below. [S. Wesley, jun., on Dr. Gastrell.] But why does our Lord inflict this upon us Not merely for His pleasure, but that we may be partakers of His holiness. It is true one grand means of grace is the doing the will of our Lord. But the suffering it is usually a quicker means and sinks us deeper into the abyss of love. It hath pleased God to lead you in the way of suffering from your youth up until now. For the present this is not joyous, but grievous; nevertheless it has yielded peaceable fruit. Your soul is still as a watered garden, as a field which the Lord hath blessed. Cleave to Him still with full purpose of heart. To His tender care I commend you; and am Yours affectionately. To Frances Godfrey LEEDS, August 2, 1789. It gives me pleasure, my dear Fanny, to hear that you still continue in the good way. Still press to the mark, to the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. From what you have already experienced, you know there is one happiness in the earth below and in heaven above. You know God alone can satisfy your soul either in earth or heaven. Cleave to Him with full purpose of heart. If you seek happiness in anything but Him, you must be disappointed. I hope you find satisfaction likewise in some of your Christian companions. It is a blessed thing to have fellow travelers to the New Jerusalem. If you cannot find any, you must make them; for none can travel that road alone. [Compare the advice to Wesley; ’Sir, you are to serve God and go to heaven. Remember you cannot serve Him alone; you must therefore find companions or make them: the Bible knows nothing of solitary religion.’ See Telford’s Wesley, p. 147.] Then labor to help each other on that you may be altogether Christians. Wishing you health both of body and mind, I am, my dear Fanny, Yours affectionately. To Mrs. Cock LEEDS, August 3, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am always well pleased to hear from you. When I first heard of your marriage, I was afraid of two things [See letter of April 7.]: the one was, that it would hurt your soul; the other, that it would prevent your usefulness--at least, that you would not be useful in so high a degree as otherwise you might be. But your last letter has given me much satisfaction. I now hope that your own soul has suffered no loss; and likewise that you will find many opportunities of doing good and will improve them to the uttermost. I want you to do the will of God below as angels do above. I want you to be all light, all fire, all love, and to grow up in all things into Him that is our Head; and still to love and pray for Yours affectionately. To Dr. Ford LEEDS, August 3, 1789. DEAR SIR, -- It would have been a pleasure to me to wait upon you at Melton Mowbray. [See letter of Aug. 10, 1776, to him.] But at present it cannot be, as I am engaged to be at Newark on Wednesday, at Hinxworth on Thursday, and at London on Friday. Wishing every blessing to Mrs. Ford and you.--I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother. To the Rev. Dr. Ford, Vicar of Melton Mowbray. To Harriet Lewis LEEDS, August 3, 1789. You see, my dear Harriet, the blessed effects of Unconditional Perseverance! It leads the way by easy steps, first to presumption, and then to black despair! There will be no way to recover your poor friend to a scriptural faith but by taking away that broken reed from her, and by convincing her that if she dies in her present state she will perish eternally. It will indeed be a medicine that will put her to pain: but it will be the only one that will save her soul alive. What a blessing it is, my dear Harriet, that you have been saved from this poisonous doctrine! and that you are enabled to follow after that holiness without which we cannot see the Lord! So run that you may obtain. The prize is before you. Never be weary or faint in your mind. In due time you will reap if you faint not. -- I am Yours affectionately. To Sarah Mallet LEEDS, August 3, 1789. DEAR SALLY, -- I did not receive any letter from you but that which you wrote the last month. You may be assured of my answering every letter which I receive from you, because I have a real regard for you. I love you with a tender affection. You do well, therefore, whenever you write, to unbosom your whole soul to me. You may tell me any trial you meet with, and that with all simplicity. And tell me, on the other hand, whatever manifestations of the ever-blessed Trinity you find, and whatever uncommon degree of faith or hope or love you are favored with from time to time. I hope you speak freely to Mr. Tattershall. [See letter of Dec. 15 to Miss Mallet.] He is an excellent man and deeply acquainted with the things of God. You may learn much from him, and the more because you are willing to learn; you are glad to be instructed. To do you any service that is in my power will always be a pleasure to, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Miss Sarah Mallet. To Dr. Bradshaw PLYMOUTH DOCK, August 15, 1789. DEAR SIR, -- I cannot, dare not, will not suffer Thomas Olivers to murder the Arrninian Magazine any longer. The errata are intolerable and innumerable. They shall be so no more. But he need not starve. He has the interest of some hundred pounds yearly. To which I will add thirty pounds a year quamdiu se bene gesserint. [The Act of Settlement, 1701, secured the Judges’ independence, quamdiu se bene gesserint (’as long as they behave themselves well’). Previously they had been subject to dismissal at the will of the King.] -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. To the Rev. Dr. Bradshaw, No. 137 Bishopsgate Street. To the Methodist Preachers REDRUTH, August 23, 1789. Some years since, Mr. Valton wrote to me from Yorkshire, informing me there was great want of a larger preaching-house at Dewsbury, and desiring leave to make subscriptions and collections, in order to build one. I encouraged him to make them. Money was subscribed and collected, and the house built, which the trustees promised to settle in the usual form. But when it was finished, they refused to settle it, unless a power was given them to displace any preacher they should object to. After all possible means had been used to bring them to a better mind, the case was referred to the Conference; and it was unanimously agreed to build another house as soon as possible, that the flock might not be scattered. I therefore entreat every one that wishes well to Methodism, especially to the itinerant plan, to exert himself on this important occasion, that a work so absolutely necessary may be finished as soon as possible. I say absolutely necessary; for if the trustees of houses are to displace preachers, then itinerancy is at an end. -- I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother and servant for Christ’s sake. N.B. -- Make this collection immediately. Lose not one day. To Walter Churchey ST. IVES, August 26, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I suppose George Paramore has followed your direction and entered the book at Stationers’ Hall. I have seldom entered any book there, and I have never found any inconvenience from the omission of it. Some days since I sent a list of the subscribers’ names to London, although I do not see it necessary, for what had the names of the subscribers to do with any book unpublished Is it merely to swell the book, or to do honor to the subscribers or the author I am now come to the furthest point of my Cornish journey, and shall in two or three hours turn my face toward Bristol. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Edward Thomas WINDMILL STREET, PLYMOUTH DOCK, August 29, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your letter gave me much satisfaction. I am sincerely glad that you are convinced you went too far, and I love you the better for having the courage to acknowledge it. It is now time that all which is past should be forgot, but it will be best to proceed by little and little. First, I will readmit you into the Society, then I will desire Mr. Warwick [Thomas Warwick, now Assistant at Plymouth. See letter of May 21.] after a time to give you the charge of a class, and soon after to employ you as a local preacher; and I trust you will be more useful than ever. On all occasions you will find me Your affectionate brother. To William Thom PLYMOUTH DOCK, August 30, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The case of Mr. Holmes of all others ought to have been fully discussed at the Conference. It has been mentioned, I know, once and again, but not clearly determined. Several of our brethren did not think it proper to burden ourselves with an old man and his family. Surely it is not proper for me single to overrule their judgment. I do not see what I can do. I would be willing to serve him any way I can; but I do not see what way it can be done. -- I am, with kind love to Sister Thom, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Thom, At the Preaching-house, In Sarum. To Dr. Coke BRISTOL, September 5, 1789. DEAR SIR, -- Upon serious reflection I doubt if it would not be more proper for you to go westward than northward. I surely believe it would be best for you to set out from London, so as to meet me here about Monday or Tuesday fortnight on your way to Cornwall. Then you may give Brother Dobson (to whom my love) a sermon at West Street for the poor children. [See letter of Feb. 21, 1786.] I wish you to obey ’the Powers that be’ in America; but I wish you to understand them too. I firmly believe Brother Dunn will answer your expectation. The tyrants in that house sadly want one to overlook them; and he will do it both with wisdom and tenderness. The Society begins to lift up its head again. We had a remarkably good time. -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Printer of the ’Bristol Gazette’ BRISTOL, HORSEFAIR, September 7, 1789. 1. In the reign of King James I an Act of Parliament was made prohibiting the use of that poisonous herb called hops. It does not appear that this Act has ever been repealed. But in process of time it has been forgotten, and the poisonous weed introduced again. It has continued in use ever since; and that upon a general supposition, (1) that it was very wholesome, greatly promotive of health, and (2) that malt drink would not keep without it. 2. On these suppositions the use of it has not only continued, but much increased during the present century. ’I have lived in this town’ (Whitechurch in Shropshire), said a gentleman to me sometime since, ’above forty years, and have all that time brewed much malt drink. I use just the same quantity of hops that I did forty years ago; but most of my neighbors use four times as much now as they did then.’ 3. Nearly the same has been done in other counties, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire in particular. Forty years ago, I well remember, all the ale I tasted there had a soft, sweetish taste, such as the decoction of barley will always have if not adulterated by bitter herbs. So it had two or three thousand years ago, according to the account in Ovid, who, speaking of the manner wherein Baucis entertained Jupiter, says, Bibendure Dulce dedit, tosta quod coxerat ante polenta [Metamorphoses, v. 450; of the old woman and Ceres: ’She gave her something sweet to drink which she had prepared from parched malt.’]; whereas all the ale in Yorkshire as well as in other counties is now quite harsh and bitter. 4. But may it not be asked ’whether this is not a change for the better, seeing hops are so exceeding wholesome a plant’ Are they so Why, then, do physicians almost with one voice forbid their patients the use of malt drink, particularly all that are infected with the scurvy or any distemper related to it Do not they know there is not a more powerful anti-scorbutic in the world than wort -- that is, unhopped decoction of malt What a demonstration is this that it is the addition of hops which turns this excellent medicine into poison! And who does not know that wort, unhopped malt drink, is an excellent medicine both for the gout and stone But will any physician in his senses recommend the common malt drink to one that is ill of or subject to those diseases Why not Because there is no drink that more directly tends to breed and increase both one and the other. 5. ’But whether hops are wholesome or no, are they not necessary to prevent malt drink from turning sour’ I never doubted of it for fourscore years. And there are very few that do doubt of it. It has passed for an incontestable truth ever since I was in the world. And yet it is as absolute palpable a falsehood as ever was palmed upon mankind. Any one may in a short time be convinced of this by his own senses. Make the experiment yourself. Brew any quantity of malt, add hops to one half of this, and none to the other half. Keep them in the same cellar three or six months, and the ale without hops will keep just as well as the other. I have made the experiment at London. One barrel had no hops, the other had. Both were brewed with the same malt, and exactly in the same manner. And after six months that without hops had kept just as well as the other. ’But what bitter did you infuse in the room of it’ No bitter at all. No bitter is necessary to preserve ale, any more than to preserve cider or wine. I look upon the matter of hops to be a mere humbug upon the-good people of England; indeed, as eminent an one on the whole nation as ’the man’s getting into a quart bottle’ was on the people of London. 6. ’However, are they not necessary on another account -- namely, to advance the public revenue Does not the tax upon hops bring in two or three hundred-thousand pounds yearly into the Exchequer’ Perhaps it does. And yet it may be not an advantage but a loss to the nation. So it certainly is if it breeds and increases grievous and mortal diseases, and thereby destroys every year thousands of His Majesty’s liege subjects. May not gold be bought too dear Are not one hundred thousand lives worth more than two hundred thousand pounds Each of these men, had this poison been kept out of his reach, had he lived out all his days, would probably have paid more yearly in other taxes than he paid for leave to put himself out of the world. Oh that someone had the honesty and courage to inform His Majesty of this! Would the most benevolent Prince in Europe desire or consent to barter the lives of his subjects for money Nay, but in fact, it is selling them for naught, and taking no money for them; seeing it is evident, upon the whole of the account, that nothing at all is gained thereby. For it is certain more money is lost by shortening the lives of so many men (seeing the dead pay no taxes) than all the hop tax through the nation amounts to. 7. ’But do not many physicians, most of whom are now alive, and some of them of considerable note, affirm hops to be exceeding wholesome and that both in their conversations and writings’ They certainly do; but who can imagine that they believe themselves when they talk so If they did, would they deny, would they not prescribe malt drink to their gouty or scorbutic patients But they do not; because they know, however good wort might be for them, add hops to it and it commences poison. Deny this who dare. With what face, then, can any man of character affirm them to be wholesome But, whether they are necessary for raising money or no, certainly they are not necessary for preserving drink. This will keep for six or twelve months just as well without hops as with them. 8. Yet we must not suppose that any arguments whatever, which ever were or can be used, will have any weight in this case with the planters or sellers of hops or those that are connected with them. They have a ready answer to the strongest reasons that can be advanced on this head (although they may not always see it expedient to speak out): ’Sir, by this means we get our wealth.’ And is it not easy for them to procure ingenious men to plead for them when the craft is in danger When, therefore, we make observations of this kind, all which can be expected is that a few sensible men, who are neither blinded by interests nor carried away by popular clamor, will attend to the voice of reason, and be persuaded to save their money and preserve the health of their families. To Mrs. Warwick BATH, September 10, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I know not what to do or what to say. This untoward man so perplexes me It is not my business to find houses for the preachers’ wives. I do not take it upon me. I did not order him to come to Burslem. I only permitted what I could not help. I must leave our brethren to compromise these matters among themselves. They are too hard for me. A preacher is wanted in Gloucester circuit. One of them may go thither. -- I am, with love to Brother Warwick, [Someone has written across the letter, To Mrs. Warwick concerning Michael Moorhouse. See letter of July 7, 1786.] my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To the Methodist People BRISTOL. September 11, 1789. 1. When, about fifty years ago, one and another young man offered to serve me as sons in the gospel, it was on these terms, that they would labor where I appointed; otherwise we should have stood in each other’s way. Here began itinerant preaching with us. But we were not the first itinerant preachers in England. Twelve were appointed by Queen Elizabeth to travel continually, in order to spread true religion through the kingdom; and the office and salary still continue, though their work is little attended to. Mr. Miller, late Vicar of Chipping in Lancashire, was one of them. 2. As the number of preachers increased it grew more and more difficult to fix the places where each should labor from time to time. I have often wished to transfer this work of stationing the preachers once a year to one or more of themselves. But none were willing to accept of it. So I must bear the burden till my warfare shall be accomplished. 3. When preaching-houses were built, they were vested immediately in trustees, who were to see that those preached in them whom I sent, and none else; this, we conceived, being the only way whereby itinerancy could be regularly established. But lately, after a new preaching-house had been built at Dewsbury in Yorkshire by the subscriptions and contributions of the people (the trustees alone not contributing one quarter of what it cost), they seized upon the house, and, though they had promised the contrary, positively refused to settle it on the Methodist plan, requiring that they should have a power of refusing any preacher whom they disliked. If so, I have no power of stationing the Dewsbury preachers; for the trustees may object to whom they please. And themselves, not I, are finally to judge of those objections. [See letters of Aug. 23 and Sept. 15, 1789 (to Henry Moore).] 4. Observe, here is no dispute about the right of houses at all. I have no right to any preaching-house in England. What I claim is a right of stationing the preachers. This these trustees have robbed me of in the present instance. Therefore only one of these two ways can be taken: either to sue for this house, or to build another. We prefer the latter, being the most friendly way. I beg, therefore, my brethren, for the love of God; for the love of me, your old and wellnigh worn-out servant; for the love of ancient Methodism, which, if itinerancy is interrupted, will speedily come to nothing; for the love of justice, mercy, and truth, which are all so grievously violated by the detention of this house; that you will set your shoulders to the necessary work. Be not straitened in your own bowels. We have never had such a cause before. Let not, then, unkind, unjust, fraudulent men have cause to rejoice in their bad labor. This is a common cause. Exert yourselves to the utmost. I have subscribed fifty pounds. So has Dr. Coke. The preachers have done all they could. O let them that have much give plenteously! Perhaps this is the last labor of love I may have occasion to recommend to you. Let it, then, stand as one more monument of your real gratitude to, my dear brethren, Your old, affectionate brother. To Mrs. Armstrong BRISTOL, September 15, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- The account you give of James M’Quigg is very remarkable. [J. M’Quigg was one of the preachers at Limerick. Wesley preached at Moate near Athlone, on April 2, 1748, and calls it ’the pleasantest town I have yet seen in Ireland.’] The sending him to Athlone just at this time was a signal instance of Divine Providence; and his going to Moate, where we had so long labored in vain, was in an acceptable time. Many of our friends were in dread to [hear] him! God honored him. I pray He will honor him more as long as his eye is single, seeking his happiness in God alone. You cannot tell, my dear Jenny, what good you may do by now and then speaking a word for God. Be not ashamed nor afraid to put in a word when occasion offers. Indeed, you are not called for any public work; but even in private conversation a word spoken in season how good it is! You need not be a drone; you will not want opportunities of doing good in various kinds. To hear of you or from you will always be a pleasure. -- My dear Jenny, Yours very affectionately. To Mrs. Jane Armstrong, Athlone. To Henry Moore BRISTOL, September 15, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- I am glad you delayed the making of the collection for Dewsbury. I suppose you have now my second paper, [See letter of Sept. 11.] which should be printed and sent to every Assistant. Herewith I show them more plainly what my sentiments are than I have ever done. Geo. Paramore writes to desire his brother and sister may succeed Brother and Sister Shropshire at Spiralfields. I have no objection. I refer that matter to you, who are upon the spot. All in our house are in great peace. We are a family of love. I love Sister Clarke, only not as much as my dear Nancy; and am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Nephew Samuel Wesley Near BRISTOL, September, 16, 1789. MY DEAR SAMMY, -- It gives me pleasure to hear that you have so much resolution that you go to bed at ten and rise at four o’clock. Let not the increase of cold affright you from your purposes. Bear your cross, and it will bear you. I advise you carefully to read over Kempis, the Life of Gregory Lopez and that of Mons. de Renty. They are all among my brother’s books. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate Uncle and friend. To Henry Moore BATH, September 20, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- Our friends in [Round] Court have determined to hurt Sally Brown if possible. [See letter of May 6.] Just now they have contrived to turn Mr. Marriott [William Marriott, the stock-broker, was one of Wesley’s executors.] against her, who seemed inclined to help her effectually. You know a good deal of poor Betty Sharp’s affairs. Concerning her I have referred him to you. So please [do] all you can. Pray desire Sister Ferguson [Wife of Wesley’s host in Holland. See letters of June 12 and July 20, 1783.] to direct the letter enclosed to her that was Miss Loten, and then put it into the post. On Monday, October 6, I purpose (God willing) to be at Sarum; on the Saturday following, at or before noon, at Cobham. So if two or three of you meet me there, well. [He got to Cobham at 10.30 on Oct. 8. See Journal, viii. 17d.] -- I am, with much love to Nancy, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore BRISTOL, September 22, 1789. DEAR HENRY, -- We will let Sally Brown’s affair sleep till we meet. I am afraid that pain in your back portends a fever. If so, I hope Dr. Whitehead has seen you. In autumn especially delays are dangerous. We had an epidemic deafness here. It seized me last night while I was preaching abroad at Jacob’s Wells, and lasted almost eighteen hours. To save postage I desire you to tell Mr. Rankin that I hope to be at Cobham [See previous letter.] at or before noon on Saturday se’nnight, and that I am perfectly satisfied with his letter. The point of reading Prayers at the Chapels shall be fixed if I live to see London; the design of such was sufficiently explained at the Conference. Whether I shall go straight to Oxfordshire I have not yet determined. -- I am, with kindest love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Printer of the ’Bristol Gazette’ BRISTOL, September 25, 1789. SIR, -- I am obliged to your ingenious and candid correspondent for his late remarks. He justly observes that ’unfermented Malt drink is not fit for common beverage.’ But it may be fermented without hops full as well as with them. The fermentation (to which I have no objection) is caused not by the hops but the yeast. I believe the other ingredients in porter correct the noxious quality of the hops, and make it very wholesome drink to those with whose constitution it agrees. The last paragraph of this gentleman’s letter I heartily subscribe to, and wish it were inserted in every public paper throughout the three kingdoms: ’If good malt liquor could be made without hops’ (nay, it is made; as good as any in England), ’the saving in this respect would be such as would very well enable the brewer to pay an additional duty on his beer equal to five times the annual revenue arising from hops; and the hop grounds might be converted into excellent corn land.’ This is a stroke indeed! And deserves to be well considered by all lovers of their country. [See letters of Sept. 7 and Oct. 3.] To Jonathan Brown, Isle of Man [October], 1789. DEAR JONATHAN, -- You send us welcome news of the prosperity of the work of God in the isle. A year ago, [See letter of Feb. 28.] I was afraid that our members would scarce ever again amount to four-and-twenty hundred: so they rise now above our hope. I trust now it will be your business throughly to ’purge the floor.’ Purge out all the unworthy members, and strongly exhort the rest to ’go on to perfection.’ Get as many as possible to meet in band. -- I am, with love to your wife, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Mason BRISTOL, October 3, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If, as I am informed, Mr. Gregor is a lover of King George and the present Administration, I wish you would advise all our brethren that have votes to assist him in the ensuing election. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Mason, St. Austle’s, Cornwall. To the Printer of the ’Bristol Gazette’ [See letters of Sept. 25 and Oct. 12 (to Adam Clarke).] BRISTOL, October 3, 1789. SIR, -- I am much obliged to your last correspondent also for the candor with which he writes. ’Mr. Wesley,’ he observes, ’had cautioned us against the use of hops on account of its poisonous quality. But the authority on which he grounds this is only an old obsolete Act of Parliament. He has not informed us of its mode of operation on the animal frame.’ ’Tis very true. I leave that to the gentlemen of the Faculty, for many of whom I have an high respect. Meantime I declare my own judgment, grounded not only on the Act of Parliament, but first on my own experience with regard to the gravel or stone, and secondly on the opinion of all the physicians I have heard or read that spoke on the subject. I do not apprehend that we need recur either to ’the Elements of Chemistry’ or to the College of Physicians on the head. I urge a plain matter of fact - ’that hops are pernicious.’ I did not say to all (though perhaps they may more or less) but to those that are inclined to stone, gout, or scurvy. So I judge, because I feel it to myself if I drink it two or three days together; and because so I hear from many skillful physicians; and I read in their works. I cannot but return thanks to both your correspondents for their manner of writing, worthy of gentlemen. As to the gentleman brewer of Bath that challenges me to engage him for five hundred pounds, I presume he had taken a draught of his well-hopped beverage, or he would not have been so valiant. So I wish him well; and am, sir, Your humble servant. To Elizabeth Baker SARUM, October 5, 1789. MY DEAR BETSY, -- Frequently I have been thinking of you and I thought it a long time since I heard from you. [See letters of Sept. 16, 1788, and Oct. 29, 1789.] This is always very agreeable to me, as I found much union with you ever since I saw you. I then took knowledge that you had been with Jesus and had drunk into His spirit. Ne’er let your faith forsake its hold, Nor hope decline, nor love grow cold, both in the case of Robert Humphrey and that of the poor woman you mention. You will do well to [note] everything of this kind that came [within] your notice. The merciful Lord has so done His marvelous works that they ought to be had in remembrance. These instances should certainly quicken your zeal and increase your expectation of seeing good days at Monmouth. When Dr. [Papar] came to see his friend Dr. Curtis, he found mortification on his instep, where was a black spot as large as a crown piece. The mortification was likewise begun under his knee, where was a circle .... and adjoining to it a circle as [red] as scarlet. He ordered me to rub this with a warm hand.. The parts were steeped half an hour with boiled camo[mile].. After one with a warm hand rubbed a mixture.. This was [done] twice a day. In two or three days Dr. Curtis was [well]. [Some part of the letter is missing, so that the sense is not clear.] Pray send me your Receipt for the Hyaran... Behavior to me from, my dear Betsy, Yours very affectionately. I am going to London. To Charles Atmore LONDON, October 12, 1789. DEAR CHARLES, -- It is a great blessing that God gives you and your fellow-laborers to act in full concert with each other. I hope you exhort all the believers to go on to perfection and that you take especial care of the Select Society. You do well to go on at N[orth] Shields, without taking the least notice of Edwd. Coates [Armore was Assistant in Newcastle; John Ogilvie was his colleague. Coates had separated from Wesley. See letter of April 29 to him.] or his society; only be loving and courteous to any of them when they come in your way. If you and your people have more of the life of God in yourselves than them, you infallibly will prevail. You should continually exhort them all to this. Only let us have the mind that was in Christ, and we shall want no manner of thing that is good. -- I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Adam Clarke LONDON, October 12, 1789. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I took away this by mistake, which I suppose to be the key of your bureau. I must desire you to send me a copy of those three letters on hops which I published in the Bristol Gazette. I intend to print them both in Lloyd’s Evening Post and in the Magazine. I am rather better than worse since I came to London. So to-morrow I am to set out for Norfolk, from whence I hope to return hither in nine or ten days’ time. Let us work while the day is! -- I am, with much love to Sister Clarke, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Planche NORWICH, October 16, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am glad to God that you are going to lift up the hands of the poor little company at . . . for now is the time to stir up the gift of God that is in you. You will have good work to do, but you must expect to suffer as well as to do the will of God. But be not weary of well-doing; in due time you shall reap if you faint not. Jenny Smith’s letter breathes an admirable spirit; she seems to busy by . . . to and desirous . . . to make her calling and election sure. But what is the matter with Mr. Smith He came to me at Leeds, and seemed to have little or no objection to the connection between Molly and Mr. Stamp, only he thought she was young enough, and that it would be better for them both not to be in haste. How is it, then, that his mind is so altered I hope it is not because some child of the devil offers who has much money and little grace, and so puts the poor child of God out of countenance. You will now undoubtedly have an opportunity of dropping a word to some of your young relatives and putting them in mind that there is another world. -- My dear sister, Your very affectionate brother. Addressed to Miss Bolton, In Witney, Oxfordshire. To Laurence Frost LONDON, October 23, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are a bold people! Two hundred pounds purchase money besides nine hundred pounds! But I do not use to damp any good design. Go on in the name of God. It is true your deed is clumsy enough. I am surprised that no Methodist will take my advice. I have more experience in these things than any attorney in the land. And have I not the Methodist interest as much at heart Oh, why will you alter the beautiful deed we have already why will you employ any attorney at all Only to seek a knot in a bulrush; only to puzzle the cause. Well, comfort yourselves. You will not long be troubled with Your affectionate brother. To John Grace LONDON, October 25, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I was in hope brother Smith would be of use in Londonderry; for the power of God accompanies his word, and He sends by whom He will send without asking counsel of man. You do well to be exact in morning preaching: that is the glory of the Methodists. Whenever the morning preaching is given up the glory is departed from us. If Strabane receives the gospel, we may certainly say there is nothing too hard for God; and nothing will be too hard for you if you lean upon His strength and go on hand in hand, desiring only to do and suffer His holy and acceptable will. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Green October 25, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You abound in leisure; I abound in work: it is not for me, therefore, to follow you step by step through a voluminous performance. I shall only put down a few thoughts as they occur; and may God apply them to your heart! To begin with the spirit and manner of your whole performance. I doubt it is far from right! I would not commend it if you were writing to one greatly your inferior both in years and station; what can excuse it, then, if you are the inferior in age and other respects The question is: whether we ought still to attend the ministrations of wicked ministers. Observe, I do not defend or justify them at all, as I said not a word in defense of Hophni and Phineas. You say: No, because God forbids us so to do. That I flatly deny. It is your grand mistake, on which the rest depends. ’But does not God say over and over, Hearken not, hearken not unto them’ Yes; but this does not mean refrain from the ministrations even of base, lying prophets, but merely this: Hearken not to their lies; hear them not--that is, regard them not when they speak what God hath not spoken. All the texts you heap together (and you may transcribe fifty more) mean neither more or less than this! Accordingly both the true prophets and all the Israelites did, in fact, attend their ministry still! ’But did not our Lord warn His disciples to beware of the leaven, that is false doctrine, of the Scribes and the Pharisees.’ Yes, of their false doctrine; but not to refrain from their ministrations. This neither He nor the Apostles did; they all constantly attended the Temple service as well as that of the synagogue. Yet, that God did not send the false prophets to prophesy lies is certain; but He did send them to minister before him! It is certain also that the word which they prophesied falsely did not profit the people; yet it did when they spoke or read the truth. To say wicked ministers never profit the people is to say that all the Israelites from Samuel to Christ went to hell! ’But wicked ministers do much hurt!’ True; but it does not follow that they do no good! Nay, most ministers preach that error which destroys more souls than anything besides -- namely, Phariseeism and Salvation by Works! What is practical Pharisaism The tithing Mint, Anise, and Cummin, and neglecting justice and mercy. This was the practice of the Pharisees in general; though there were a few exceptions. But who dare affirm that all or three-fourths of our clergy bear this character Nor can you say that all or one half of the English clergy preach this Pharisaism! ’No; but they teach men to seek salvation by works, and does not this destroy almost all mankind’ I answer, No: perhaps not one in ten in England, if it destroy one in an hundred: nevertheless nine-tenths of men in England have no more religion than horses, and perish through total contempt of it. Myriads more perish through drunkenness, lewdness, Sabbath-breaking, cursing and swearing, and other outward sins; thousands are destroyed by sins of omission. And when all these are deducted, the remainder supposed to seek salvation by works cannot be more than one in ten. ’But what does this expression mean’ Just this, they hope to be saved by keeping the commandments of God. This is certainly an error, but I do not say it is the most damnable error in the world! Nay, I doubt if it ever damned any one man. Take me right; I doubt if any man who sincerely strives to obey God will die before God shows him the true way of salvation! Upon the whole, what I have said these fifty years, and say now, is: first, attend the ministers Providence has allotted you, and do what they say according to scripture; but hearken not to what they say contrary to it. Secondly, God does now do good by them to the simple in heart, even by their preaching; but more in the Prayers and Lord’s. Supper. Thirdly, Messrs. Maxfield, Richards, Westall, and all my other helpers joined me in these conditions. Therefore, to renounce going to Church is, in fact, to renounce connexion with me. To conclude, I defy any man living to prove that I have contradicted myself at all in any of the writings which I have published from the year 1738 to the year 1788. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Richard Rodda WALLINGFORD, October 26, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are a man whom I can trust: whatever you do you will do it with your might. Some years since, we wanted a preaching-room at Coleford in Somemet-shire. A neighboring gentleman, Mr. Salmon, gave us ground to build on and timber for the house, and desired me to use his house as my own. He is now by wicked men reduced to want. I am informed a master for a poorhouse is wanted at Manchester. Pray inquire; and if it be so, leave no means untried to procure the place for him. Apply in my name to Brother Barlow, Byerly, D. Yates, T. Phillips, Dr. Easton, Mr. Brocklehurst, Stonehouse, and all that have a regard for me. Make all the interest you can. Leave no stone unturned. ’Join hands with God to make a good man live.’ I hope you will send me word in London that you have exerted yourself and not without a prospect of success. -- I am, dear Richard, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rodda, At the Preaching-house, In Manchester. To John Mason NEAR OXFORD, October 27, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Wherever the congregation increases we have reason to hope the work of God will increase also. [Mason was Assistant at St. Austell.] And it is certain distress is one means whereby God awakens men out of sleep. You know famine is one of God’s sore judgments, and the people should be strongly encouraged to improve by it. Suffer no leader to whisper in his class, but to speak so that all who are present may hear; otherwise how shall Each his friendly aid afford And feel his brother’s care Speak strong and home to all. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Taylor WITNEY, October 28, 1789. DEAR TOMMY, -- If I remember right, all our brethren at the Conference as well as myself approved of the proposals concerning the first and second editions of your tract. So I see no difficulty in the matter. I do not think any one envies you -- no, not John Poole himself. But you must write with better ink if you would have any one read. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. Let you and I use our eyes while we may. To Elizabeth Baker NEAR OXFORD, October 29, 1789. MY DEAR BETSY, -- You cannot easily conceive how great satisfaction I received from your affectionate letter. [See letter of Oct. 5.] I am glad you write without reserve and take knowledge that your words come from your heart. What is that sympathy that often unites our hearts to each other Perhaps the first interview. Surely it is not intended that this should cease till it is perfected in eternity. I am pleased to hear that the work of God does not decline but rather increase in Monmouth. My dear friend, stir up the gift of God that is in you. Warn every one, exhort every one! Be not weary of well-doing! In due time you shall reap if you faint not. Still let thy mind be bent, still plotting how And when and where the business may be done. Have you ever received a clear, direct witness that you was saved from inbred sin At what time In what manner And do you find it as clear as it was at first Do you feel an increase Then, I trust, your love will not lessen for, my dear Betsy, Yours most affectionately. To Adam Clarke LONDON, October 31, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have little more to say on the subject of hops. [See letter of Oct. 12.] Only I still insist upon two things: first, that they are hurtful to such and such persons; secondly, that they are not necessary to keep malt drink from turning sour. Let them beat me off this ground that can. Even irregular, ill-conducted prayer-meetings have been productive of much good. But they will be productive of much more while they are kept under proper regulations. You have reason to praise God for restoring your little one. If so, it will be time for Sister Clarke and you to break his spirit. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr.----- LONDON, October 31, 1789. I was a little surprised when I received some letters from Mr. Asbury affirming that no person in Europe knew how to direct those in America. Soon after he flatly refused to receive Mr. Whatcoat in the character I sent him. He told George Shadford, ’Mr. Wesley and I are like Caesar and Pompey: he will bear no equal, and I will bear no superior.’ And accordingly he quietly sat by until h’ls friends voted my name out of the American Minutes. This completed the matter and showed that he had no connection with me. To Mrs. Cock HINXWORTH, November 3, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- When I heard Mr. Brackenbury give the first account of you, I had a great desire of having some conversation with you, and a much greater when I read the account of your experience which you had given him. How is it with you now, my dear friend Is your soul now as much alive as ever Do you still find deep and uninterrupted communion with God, with the Three-One God, with the Father and the Son through the Spirit Do not you find anything deaden or flatten your soul Do you now rejoice evermore Do you pray without ceasing Are you always conscious of the loving presence of God Do you in everything give thanks, knowing it is the will of God concerning you in Christ Jesus Are you now as zealous of good works and as active therein as ever you was And do you now live in eternity and walk in eternity, and experience the life that is hid with Christ in God Have you one or more children With whom do you now maintain the most intimate acquaintance Do you sometimes visit our friends in Guernsey Are there any books which you have a mind to have Or is there anything else in which I can serve you This would at all times be a pleasure to Yours very affectionately. To George Baldwin LONDON, November 5, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear that you are True yokefellows by love compelled To labor on the. gospel field. [Poetical Works, v. 410.] Verily your labor shall not be in vain. Go in the name of the Lord and in the power of His might. Be instant in season, out of season, above all things exhort the believers to go on to perfection! When this is neglected the whole work of God will languish. So it will without visiting from house to house. [Baldwin was in the Gloucestershire Circuit. He died in 1810.] --I am, dear George, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Pawson LONDON, November 16, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- My health is rather increasing than decreased. I can preach once a day without any inconvenience, and sometimes twice [See Journal, viii. 17.]; only not early in the morning. But I purpose soon to make another trial. I am glad the Select Society is restored at Bitstall. This is an excellent means of recommending Christian perfection. Therefore men and devils will in every place use every art to dissolve those societies. Mr. Pawson will be useful wherever he goes; so I trust will you likewise, particularly to those that either already enjoy or are earnestly seeking perfect love. [See a reference to her in letter of Nov. 26 to Adam Clarke.] You do well strongly to insist that those who do already enjoy it cannot possibly stand still. Unless they continue to watch and pray and aspire after higher degrees of holiness, I cannot conceive not only how they can go forward but how they can keep what they have already received. Certainly, therefore, this is a point much to be insisted on, both [in] public and private, that all who have tasted of the pure [level of God should continually grow in grace, in the image of God, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.--I am, my dear sister, Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Pawson, In Bitstall, Near Leeds. To Richard Rodda LAMBETH, November 20, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I hope Sammy Bradburn’s illness will be a lasting blessing to him, and perhaps as long as he lives. I did not mean to give Billy Hunter the five pounds as a dismission. If his strength returned, he might in a few months return to his work; but I doubt whether it will return or not, [William Hunter, jun., was Rodda’s younger colleague.] whether he will ever be fit for a traveling preacher. You have done exactly right in the business of Dewsbury, which will be a warning to us for ever. So........ and may when business of the same kind. While I live no steps shall be taken toward the building any preaching-house till the trustees have given bond to settle it on our plan as soon as they are indemnified. [See letter in Jan. 1791 to him.] Peace be with you and yours. -- I am, dear Richard, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rodda. At the Preaching-house. In Manchester. To Mary Smith NEAR LONDON, November 20, 1789. Your affectionate letter, my dear Molly, gave me much satisfaction. I am glad to find that the power of God is shown in your weakness, and enables you in the trying hour to possess your soul in patience. I have [never] yet known sincere obedience to parents go unrewarded even in the present world. [See letter of Oct. 16 about John Stamp.] And I accept the remarkable length of my own life and the uncommon health I have enjoyed as a reward of my saving my father from prison and comforting my mother in her declining years. Go on, my dear maiden, you and my precious Janey, to be the support and joy of their age; chiefly by your eminent growth in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. He has given you both to taste a little of His loving-kindness, which is better than the life itself. And I am persuaded each of you can say, Wealth, honour, pleasure, and what else This short-enduring life can give, Tempt as ye wfil, my soul repels, To Christ alone resolved to live. To His tender care I commend you with all the family; and am, my dear Molly, Affectionately yours. To Miss Smith, At Mr. Smith’s, Cormmerchant’s, Newcastle-on-Tyne. To William Black LONDON, November 21, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your letter has given me great satisfaction. My fears are vanished away. I am persuaded Brother Wray, Stretton, and you will go on hand in hand, and that each of you will take an equal share in the common labor. I do so myself. I labor now just as I did twenty or forty years ago. By all means proceed by common consent, and think not of separating from the Church of England. I am more and more confirmed in the judgment which our whole Conference passed on that head in the year 1758. -- I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bardsley NORTHAMPTON, November 25, 1789. DEAR SAMMY, -- Yours of the 21st instant was sent to me hither. You have done exceedingly well to take the upper room. If need be, we will help you out. Let us have no law if it be possible to avoid it: that is the last and the worst remedy. Try every other remedy first. It is a good providence that the Mayor at Bideford is a friendly man. Prayer will avail much in all cases. Encourage our poor people to be instant in prayer. Take care of poor Michael; and do not forget, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To Hannah Ball LONDON, November 26, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I was glad to receive one more line from you--perhaps the last that I shall receive. It is now many years since I gave you advice, which God enabled you to take and to break off your connection with an ungodly man--a very uncommon instance of resolution. You have had many trials of various kinds since then; -but the Lord has delivered you out of all, and He has honored you by making you the instrument of much good for many years successively. He has given you to be of use to many unawakened and many believing souls. He now honors you by making you a partaker of His sufferings: so much the more shall you be conformed to His death and know the power of His resurrection. You are well-nigh worn out in a good cause; yet a little longer, and pain is no more. Look up, my dear friend. The prize is before us: we are on the point of meeting to part no more. In time and eternity you will be united with Your ever affectionate brother. To Adam Clarke LONDON, November 26, 1789. DEAR ADAM, -- The account you send me of the continuance of the great work of God in Jersey gives me great satisfaction. [Clarke had evidently heard good news from the Channel Islands. Miss Johnson was one of the Bristol saints.] To retain the grace of God is much more than to gain it. Hardly one in three does this. And this should be strongly and explicitly urged upon those who have tasted of perfect love. If we can prove that any of our leaders or local preachers either directly or indirectly speak against it, let him be a leader or a preacher no longer. I doubt whether he should continue in the Society; because he that could speak thus in our congregations cannot be an honest man. I wish Sister Clarke would do all that she may, but not more than she can. Betsy Ritchie, Miss Johnson, [Clarke had evidently heard good news from the Channel Islands. Miss Johnson was one of the Bristol saints.] and M. Clarke are women after my own heart. Last week I had an excellent letter from Mrs. Pawson (a glorious witness of full salvation [See letter of Nov. 15.]), showing how impossible it is to retain pure love without growing therein. Wishing every blessing to you and all the family. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jeremiah Brettell LONDON, November 27, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad you have done something for poor Dewsbury [See letter of Aug. 23.]; and when you do what you can you do enough. It is no wonder that Tommy Cooper should be sensible of so great a loss. But ’tis possible Harriet Lewis of Dudley might make it up. [Thomas Cooper was Brettell’s colleague at Wolverhampton. See letter of March 29, 1788, to Harriet Lewis.] She is a young woman of excellent spirit. She has seen affliction, and has fairly profited by it. If my life should be prolonged till spring, it will be no small satisfaction to me to see my dear Sister Brettell once more. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, dear Jerry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To George Holder NEAR LONDON, November 29, 1789. DEAR GEORGE, -- You did well to remember the case of Dewsbury House and to send what you could to Mr. Mather. [See letter of Aug. 23. Alexander Mather was the Assistant at Wakefield.] I exceedingly disapprove of your publishing anything in the Manx language. On the contrary, we should do everything in our power to abolish it from the earth, and persuade every member of our Society to learn and talk English. This would be much hindered by providing them with hymns in their own language. Therefore gently and quietly let that proposal drop. I hope you and your fellow laborers are of one heart. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, dear George, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Stedman December 1789. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, -- I will desire a friend to look over my letters in a day or two, and see if any [are] from Dr. Doddridge. I know one or two of these are printed in my Journal, the originals of which are burnt. Possibly two or three more may remain. If they are to be found, you [they] shall be at your service. How one generation goes and another comes I My grandmother Annesley lived forty years with her husband, who never was seen to smile after her death, though he lived six or seven years. [See letter of Aug. 13, 1774.] -- I am, dear sir, Your affectionate brother and servant. To the Revd. Mr. Stedman, In Salop. To Sarah Rutter LONDON, December 5, 1789. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I am glad that the little Society at St. Neots continues in peace and love. [See letters of July 29, 1789, and July 27, 1790.] I would gladly visit yours and every Society within an hundred miles of London once a year; but I am now constrained to give it up. They multiply too fast. So that there are several of them now which I can see only once in two years. I am much pleased with the account you give of yourself likewise. It seems God has dealt very graciously with you; and undoubtedly He is able and willing to supply all your wants. Gradual sanctification may increase from the time you was justified; but full deliverance from sin, I believe, is always instantaneous -- at least, I never yet knew an exception. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, my dear Sally, Yours very affectionately. To Sarah Mallet CANTERBURY, December 15, 1789. MY DEAR SALLY, -- It gives me pleasure to hear that prejudice dies away and our preachers behave in a friendly manner. What is now more wanting in order to recover your health you yourself plainly see. Be not at every one’s call. This you may quite cut off by going nowhere without the advice of Mr. Tattershall. Never continue the service above an hour at once, singing, preaching, prayer, and all. You are not to judge by your own feelings, but by the word of God. Never scream. Never speak above the natural pitch of your voice; it is disgustful to the hearers. It gives them pain, not pleasure. And it is destroying yourself. It is offering God murder for sacrifice. Only follow these three advices, and you will have a larger share in the regard of, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton LONDON, December 20, 1789. MY DEAR NANCY, -- I rejoice to hear that you still stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and it is certain you never need lose anything which God has wrought till you attain the full reward. You already find the fruit of patient suffering in being a partaker of His holiness. Go on in His name and power of His might till He says, ’Come up hither.’ You send me a pleasing account of my dear Miss Leake, who I hope will run and not tire. It is true A thousand snares her paths beset; but she has a strong Helper, and also that uncommon blessing, an experienced and faithful friend. The very first time I saw him after my return from Witney I spoke to Mr. Whitfield of her books; I am surprised [His Book Steward forgot sometimes. See letter of Dec. 13, 1790.] he has not sent them yet, and will immediately refresh his memory. Permit me, my dear friend, to caution you yet again. Be not too zealous in business, run no hazards. It is far easier to get into difficulties than to get out of them. Wishing you and our dear friend Miss Leake a continual growth in grace, my dear Nancy, Yours most affectionately. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, December 24, 1789. DEAR TOMMY, -- I thank you for your account of Jane Newland, which I trust will be of use to many. A short extract from it I shall probably send you in a day or two. A larger will be inserted in the Magazine. There is no great probability that her brother will be so foolish as to print anything on the occasion. -- I am, with love to Sister Rutherford, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Dickins LONDON, December 26, 1789. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Our own insufficiency for every good work would discourage us, were we not convinced both by Scripture and experience that all our sufficiency is of God. Therefore no doubt but He will supply seed to the sower and bread to the eater, and a blessing therewith. Brother Joliffe might have had all his urgent business done just as without...... as though he were with us. We will make everything as comfortable as we can. But it is a doubt whether any good will be done at last. I am glad Betsey Harvey [See heading to letter of April 23, 1764, to Mrs. Woodhouse.] continues with you; she may forget me, but I do not forget her. I thank you for the Magazine. What I nightly wish is that you may all keep close to the Bible. Be not wise above what is written. Enjoin nothing that the Bible does not clearly enjoin. Forbid nothing that it does not clearly forbid. It no more forbids me to call you Mr. than to call you John, and it no more enjoins me to wear a slouch’d hat than a bishop’s bonnet. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. John Dickins, Philadelphia, Pa. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Miss Rutter was awakened under a sermon which Wesley preached at St. Neots on October 28, 1788. The Conference was now sitting. The Bedford appointment for 1789 is ’William Jenkins, John Ramshaw.’ [2] The Rev. Thomas Bradshaw died on November 21, 1791, at the age of thirty-eight, and was buried in Wesley’s vault. See letter of May 29, 1780. Wesley had long chafed under the errors that crept into the Magazine, and on August 9 had chosen a new person to prepare it. James Creighton followed Olivers as ’Editor,’ and held the position till the Conference of 1792. See letters of March 24, 1757 (to Olivers), and July 15, 1789 (to John Dickins). [3] 208 was subscribed at the Conference, and 11 added by preachers not present. Every Assistant was instructed to ’make a private and public collection in his circuit for the purpose as soon as possible.’ See Journal, vii. 523; and letters of July 30, 1788, and September ii, 1789. [4] Churchey’s book, a big quarto of 858 pages, was printed by George Paramore, Worship Street, Moorfields, for the author, in 1789, and was entered at Stationers’ Hall. The price was a guinea. Many Methodist names are in the list of subscribers. Wesley told him in a letter, ’I have procured an hundred guineas, and hope to procure fifty more’ (Thomas Marriott, Methodist Magazine, 1849, p, 36). See letter of May 25. [5] This is apparently John Holmes, who became a supernumerary at the Conference in July 1790. William Holmes had been Thom’s colleague at Sarum in 1788 and moved to Redruth in 1789; that may explain his interest in the case. [6] This is the most personal letter to Dr. Coke that has been preserved. That of September 10, 1784, is really to our brethren in North America, and those of March 12 and September 5, 1786, are on public matters. This letter is of historic importance because of Wesley’s attitude towards the new Republic: ’I wish you to obey "the Powers that be" in America; but I wish you to understand them too.’ Dr. Coke had returned from his third visit to America on July 10, 1789, bringing good news ’of the great revival and the great rapidity of the work of God.’ He was in England till October 16, 1790, when he went out to the West Indies with two missionaries from Ireland. Whilst in New York on May 29, 1789, he and Asbury had signed an address of congratulation to General Washington on his appointment as President of the United States. It spoke of the ’civil and religious liberties which have been transmitted to us by the providence of God and the glorious Revolution,’ and acknowledged God as ’the Source of every blessing, and particularly of the most excellent constitution of these States, which is at present the admiration of the world, and may in future become its great exemplar for imitation.’ The Conference at Leeds in July expressed its unanimous opinion that as a subject of the English monarchy the Doctor had departed from propriety in signing the address, and that its praise of the Republican Constitution threw a sinister reflection on that of Great Britain and savored of disloyalty to the Throne. His brethren knew, of course, that no man among them was more loyal to the Throne than Coke; but they strongly resented the attitude he had taken. Coke was now preaching all over the country, and soliciting help for the missionary work, of which he was the unwearying advocate. Wesley advises him to turn to Cornwall, where he had just had a wonderful tour of services, rather than to the North; and suggests that before he came West to meet him at Bristol, Coke might give them a Sunday at West Street. Wesley’s Diary shows that he dined several times with Mr. Dobson, [] who evidently took an active interest in the School at West Street, Seven Dials, for a hundred and forty poor children, which owed its origin to a servant of Wesley’s who gave sixpence a week for a child’s education. He preached its Charity Sermons on November 25, 1787. The later reference is apparently to Thomas Dunn, who had become a preacher in 1788. He was appointed as third preacher at Scarborough in 1789 in succession to Alexander Kilham. Kilham had been ’outrageously’ treated by the steward of the Duke of Leeds when he attempted to preach in the Town Street of Seamer. The tyrannical steward had discharged one of the Duke’s workmen because he had become a Methodist, and brought several of the congregation at Seamer before the Magistrates. They were discharged without censure, and a constable who had refused to keep the peace was fined for his neglect of duty. Kilham wrote to the Duke, and there was no repetition of his steward’s offenses. In his obituary in 1802 Dunn is described as a steady, upright, good man. Coke had probably had something to do with Dunn’s appointment in 1789. This letter is in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Wilbert F. Howard, to whom it came through Mrs. Hall of Bristol, Mrs. J. M. Shum of Bath, and Mrs. G. F. White. It has been in his family since 1818. [7] This letter and those of September 25 and October 3 show Wesley’s concern for the health of the nation. His experiment in London bears witness to the pains that the veteran took to make good his position; and the spirit in which the controversy was conducted in the Bristol Gazette reflects credit on all parties. Wesley’s letters on October 12 and 31 to Adam Clarke show what importance the old evangelist attached to the correspondence. We owe the copies of the three letters to the good offices of the Rev. Charles Feneley. [8] The case of Dewsbury is explained in the headings to letters of July 30 and August 23, 1788. Wesley now extended his appeal to the Methodist people in general. [9] George Paramore was the printer of Wesley’s publications, and in his will was appointed Manager of the Conference printing-office. He was a native of Doncaster, and became a Methodist in Sheffield, where he was apprenticed to a printer. He was for thirty years a local preacher in London. He died on Christmas Day, 1812, aged fifty-seven. See Stevenson’s City Road Chapel, p. 492. [10] The letters on Hops do not seem to have been printed in the Evening Post or the Magazine. See letters of October 3 and 31. ’My sight,’ writes Wesley in the Journal on October 8, ’is so decayed that I cannot well read by candlelight, but I can write as well as ever. And my strength is much lessened, so that I cannot easily preach above twice a day; but I bless God my memory is not much decayed and my understanding is as clear as it has been these fifty years.’ [11] Mary Smith, of Newcastle, was daughter of Jenny Smith, and granddaughter of Wesley’s wife. John Stamp was admitted on trial in 1787. He was now traveling in Sunderland. They were married in 1790, and she died in 1794, when her third daughter was born. See Journal, vi. 27; Stamp’s Orphan House, pp. 119-20; and letter of November 20 to Mary Smith. [12] Mount Pleasant Chapel, Liverpool, was just about to be built. The description of ’The Conference of the People called Methodists’ as approved by Wesley and the Conference was given in the Minutes for 1788. See letter of July 29, 1786. [13] John Grace, the Assistant at Londonderry, was a very able preacher, known as ’the Walking Bible’; he died in 1811. William Smith was admitted on trial in 1789, and appears in Minutes for 1790 as second preacher at Londonderry; he died in 1839. [14] Wesley had preached in Norwich in October on 1 Samuel ii. 17. William Green, the fourth preacher, wrote him some strictures upon it which were in bad taste and marked by bitter enmity against the Church. Wesley regarded him as ’a dangerous man,’ and was not sorry when he ’took himself away.’ See Journal, viii. 18-19d; and letters of December 5, 1772, and January 6, 1790. [15] This letter shows how zealously Wesley exerted himself for an old friend. Rodda was now Assistant in Manchester, with Christopher Hopper, Samuel Bradburn, and William Hunter, jun., as his colleagueao Wesley preached on January 31, 1745, near the roadside at Coleford, twenty miles from Bristol, as the house could not contain a tenth part of the congregation. In 1754 he calls it ’our other Kingswood, where also the lions are become lambs.’ A Mr. Salmon was a member of the Holy Club at Oxford, and other Salmons are mentioned in the Journal, vi. 227n. [16] Taylor published at Hull in 1789 Ten Sermons on the Millennium, and five on what will follow (353 pp., 12 mo). His sight had suffered through the compiling of his Concordance, and he had been obliged ’to submit to spectacles.’ John Poole, who became an itinerant in 1759, was now at Tiverton; but his infirmities led him about this time to retire to Redruth, where he died in 1801. He probably pitied Taylor more than himself.’ See letter of May 14, 1782. [17] The letter to which Wesley refers was dated ’West Jersey, September 20, 1783,’ and indicates the difficulties caused by the extension of the work which led him to ordain Coke as Superintendent and Whatcoat and Vasey as elders in September, 1784. ’No person,’ Asbury writes, ’can manage the lay preachers here so well, it is thought, as one that has been at the raising of most of them. No man can make a proper change upon paper, to send one here and another [there], without knowing the circuits and the gifts of all the preachers, unless he is always out among them. My dear sir, a matter of the greatest consequence now lies before you. If you send preachers to America, let them be proper persons. We are now united; all things go on well, considering the storms and difficulties we have had to ride through. I wish men of the greatest understanding would write impartial accounts; for it would, be better for us not to have preachers than to be divided. This I know, great men that can do good may do hurt if they should take the wrong road. I have labored and suffered much to keep the people and preachers together; and if I am thought worthy to keep my place, I should be willing to labor and suffer till death for peace and union.’ Asbury wrote again on March 20, 1784: ’You know, sir, it is not easy to rule; nor am I pleased with it: I bear it as my cross, yet it seems that a necessity is laid upon me.’ Dr. Coke wrote to Wesley on August 9, 1784, about the ordinations for America: ’Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds that he saw a letter in London from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he would not receive any person deputed by you with part of the superintendency of the work invested in him, or words which evidently implied so much.’ The letters show that Asbury had not been altogether easy to deal with. See John Atkinson’s Centennial History of American Methodism, pp. 60, 72-3; and letter of September 20, 1788, to Asbury. [18] The reference to his parents in this letter is an old man’s happy memory of filial piety in days long past. [19] There had been some misunderstanding between the preachers; but Black wrote to Wesley on June 22: ’The two brothers, J. and J. M.’ (John and James Mann), ’came to see and talk with Brother Wray. All was love and harmony, and I trust nothing but peace is now found amongst us.’ See Richey’s Memoir, p. 250; and letter of March I9, 1788, to Black. [20] Bardsley was alone at Bideford; and Michael Fenwick, who was at Hexham without an appointment, was sent to help him. He seems to have known Colonel Buck, ’the reigning Mayor,’ and on December 25 saw Lord Fortescue about the rioters. See Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 592-3; and letters of July 21, 1789, and March 27, 1790, to Bardsley. [21] In 1766 Miss Ball began her diary at the time when she was ’in great exercise of mind from solicitations and inducements to change my condition in life; but the dispensations of Providence ran across my expectations, and the event has fully evinced that the sacrifice I was then enabled to make has been recompensed by a hundredfold reward in this life. After three months’ close exercise I was brought by divine assistance to resignation’s shrine with, "Father, Thy will be done!"’ On September 27, 1789, she notes in her diary: ’Since I wrote last for the most part of my time I have been wading in deep waters of affliction; but in and through all I felt my anchor was cast within the veil.... I am at present considerably refreshed by a small alleviation of my bodily complaint. She died on August 16, 1792. See Memoir, pp. 9, 172-3. [22] Thomas Stedman, who was at Cheverel, near Devizes, in 1774, removed to Shrewsbury in 1783, where he was Vicar of St. Chad’s for forty-two yearn. He died on December 5, 1825, at the age of eighty. See Methodist Magazine, 1826, p. 69; and letters of March 10 and August 13, 1774. [23] Thomas Tattershall was the Assistant at Yarmouth. Miss Mallet worked chiefly in Norfolk and Suffolk. After the Note Wesley gave her in 1787, she says, ’I have been but little opposed by preachers.’ See letters of August 3, 1789, and July 31, 1790, to her. [24] Miss Newland was born in Dublin in 1757, joined the Methodists in 1770, and spent her strength in visiting the sick at home and in hospital. She was a zealous class leader. ’Her strength, her body, her soul, were all devoted to that one point, of going about doing good to her fellow-creatures. She was always serious and solemn, and uninterruptedly enjoyed perfect love.’ For A short Account of the Life and Death of Jane Newland, of Dublin, who departed this life, October 22, 1789, see Green’s Bibliography, No. 408. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 95: 93. 1790 ======================================================================== 1790 THE CLOSE OF A GREAT CORRESPONDENCE JANUARY 2, 1790, TO FEBRUARY 24, 1791 To Edward Jackson LONDON, January 2, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is no wonder many of the Societies should be in poor condition, considering what poor care has lately been taken of them. They will soon find the difference. The books that are damaged you may give away as you judge proper. None ought to have made a collection for any place before the house at Dewsbury was built. However, do what you can, and you do enough. -- I am, with love to Sister Jackson, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Tattershall NEAR LONDON, January 6, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- Because you desire some word I write, although I have no tidings ready. I know of no preacher that is now ready to go out; and you know we can neither buy nor hire preachers. Yet I am not sorry that your small friend [William Green, his colleague. See letter of Oct. 25, 1789, to him.] has taken himself away; for he was really a dangerous man. His bitter enmity against the Church made him utterly unfit to be a Methodist preacher; and his elaborate Discourse against Going to Church was enough to confound any one that was not used to controversy. Yet I did not dare to put him away; but I am not at all sorry that he is gone away. I shall not be forward to take him again; but in any other way I would be glad to help him. I would not scruple giving him a few pounds if it would do him any good. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Tattershall, At the Preaching-house, Norwich. To Thomas McGeary LONDON, January 9, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, There is no danger of my thinking your writing troublesome. If Mr. [Funnal] thinks he did wrong in going away, and that it is a favor to receive him again, you may receive him; but he seems to me to be out of his senses. Mr. Carr has not wrote to me at all. I hope he (at least) knows when he is well. Such another place for him can hardly be found. You must be absent from the School at some times, that you may be present more effectually. But I desire you will take a little tour next month if the weather will allow. The spending a week or two now and then in the open air is the best physic in the world for you. Perfect love ούν άσχημονεϊ, is not ill-behaved or illmatured. Peace be with all your spirits !--I am, dear Tommy, Yours most affectionately. Mr. Bradily, a pious young man from Antigua, earnestly desires to be a boarder at Kingswood. I do not object. To John Mason NEAR LONDON, January 13, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As long as I live the people shall have no share in choosing either stewards or leaders among the Methodists. We have not and never had any such custom. We are no republicans, and never intend to be. It would be better for those that are so minded to go quietly away. I have been uniform both in doctrine and discipline for above these fifty years; and it is a little too late for me to turn into a new path now I am gray-headed. Neither good old Brother Pascoe [Probably the grocer at St. John’s, Cornwall, who entertained the preacher there. His brother’s wife was the mother of Methodism in Sithney. See Journal, iii. 261n; Methodist Mag., 1801, p. 483.] (God bless him!) expects it from me, nor Brother Wood, [Richard Wood, of Port Isaac. See Journal, v. 283.] nor Brother Flamank. [See letter of June 9, 1789.] If you and I should be called hence this year, we may bless God that we have not lived in vain. Come, let us have a few more strokes at Satan’s kingdom, and then we shall depart in peace! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Daniel Jackson NEAR LONDON, January 19, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You send me an agreeable account of the work of God in Stockport. Many were afraid that it would have been greatly hindered by Thomas Smith in particular. But it is plain they feared where no fear was; for our Lord took care of His own work. I am glad Tommy Farrant [Probably Thomas Tennant, Jackson’s colleague.] continues to exert himself. The more he does the more he may; for to him that hath (even what he hath) shall be given, and he shall have more abundantly.--I am, with love to Sister Jackson, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Rutherford LONDON, January 22, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- You do well to exclude all that will not regularly meet their class. I am glad you were so unanimous at the Yearly Meeting and that Brother [Erckbarn] made that excellent proposal. The sooner it is carried into execution the better. Dr. Coke hopes to visit you in summer. He is in an excellent spirit. But he must take Scotland in the way to Ireland. You send me good news indeed concerning Sister Cox. [See letter of July 31, 1785.] See the work of the Lord. She should immediately meet in a lively band. And our friends will take care that she does not want. My kind love to her and to Sister Rutherford. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Adam Clarke LONDON, January 28, 1790. DEAR ADAM, -- I often wonder at the people of Bristol. They are so honest, yet so dull; ’tis scarce possible to strike any fire into them. Only with God all things are possible. Many years ago I put the Society at Bath in a way wherein, if they had persevered, they would now have owed nothing. They were at Plymouth but thirty in number, and their debt was fourteen hundred pounds. I advised them, Let every member subscribe monthly what he can; and an hundred at the Dock promised to do the same. ’I,’ said one, ’will give a crown a month’; ’I,’ said another, ’half a crown.’ Many subscribed a shilling, sixpence, or threepence a month. And now the debt is paid. I began such a subscription in Bath; as I have done in many places with success. But they left it off in two or three weeks. Why Because I gave four guineas to prevent one that was arrested from going to jail! Good reason, was it not ’Why,’ said one and another, ’might he not have given it to me’ I am glad to hear my dear sister is in a fair way of recovery. On Monday four weeks I shall probably set out for Bristol. [He set out on March 1.] Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Valton LONDON, January 29, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Where you and Adam Clarke are it would be strange if there should be no revival. You do well to prune the circuit, and I advise to cut off all those (unless extremely poor) who do not according to our original rule contribute a shilling every quarter and a penny once a week. Many members you will lose thereby; but our gain will be greater than our loss. You should likewise rigorously insist that every one meet his class weekly without some very peculiar hindrance. I am glad you have taken a catalogue of the Society as the Minutes of the Conference require. According to that catalogue the classes should always be met that every one may be marked exactly. If it should please God that I should see another Conference at Bristol, I should willingly spend a day or two at your house. Peace be with your spirit! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Freeborn Garrettson LONDON, February 3, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Two or three weeks ago I had the pleasure of a letter from you dated August 23, 1789, giving me a comfortable account of the swift and extensive progress of the work of God in America. You likewise informed me that you had written an account of your life, and directed it should be sent to me; and I have been expecting it from day to day ever since, but have now almost given up my expectation; for unless it comes soon it will hardly overtake me in the present world. You see, time has shaken me by the hand, and death is not far behind. While we live let us work our Lord’s work betimes; and in His time He will give us our full reward. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Morrell LONDON, February 4, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You gave me a very agreeable account of the progress of the gospel in America. One would hope the time is approaching when the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord. Indeed, the amazing revolutions which have [been in] Europe [The States-General met on May 5, 1789. The Bastille was destroyed on July 14, and the Royal family put under arrest on Oct. 5. See letter of March to William Black.] seem to be the forerunners of the same grand event. The poor infidels, it is true, who know nothing of God, have no such design or thought. But the Lord sitteth above the waterfloods, the Lord remaineth a king for ever. Meantime it is expedient that the Methodists in every part of the globe should be united together as closely as possible. That we may all be one is the prayer of Your affectionate friend and brother. I have seen nothing of Brother Garrettson’s letter. [This probably refers to a letter with his Journal, which went down with the ship that was bringing it. See Bangs’s Garrettson, p. 176; and previous letter.] To William Horner LONDON, February 8, 1790. DEAR BILLY, -- I am determined there shall be no circuits in England with more than four preachers whilst I live. Four are too many if I could help it. I should have no objection to have pews at Oxford under the gallery, but not elsewhere. I wish to have our preaching-houses different from all others. Do not seek to be honorable; be content to be despised. I am glad you are all friends at Witney and that you prosper at High Wycombe. -- I am, with love to Sister Horner, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. William Horner, Preaching-house, Newing Hall, Oxford. To Adam Clarke LONDON, February 11, 1790. DEAR ADAM, -- On Monday, March 1st, I hope to set out hence; and to preach that evening and on Tuesday at half hour past six o’clock in Bath. On Thursday, if he desires it, I will dine at Mr. Durbin’s; and on Monday following begin as usual to meet the classes. I am not at all sorry that James Gore is removed from this evil world. You and I shall follow him in due time, as soon as our work is done. Many of our friends have been lately gathered into the garner as ripe shocks of wheat. Peace be with both your spirits! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Cock LONDON, February 13, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, The tender affection which I bear you makes me love to see your name at the bottom of a letter; but especially when it brings me the good news that your spirit is still rejoicing in God your Savior. My sight is so far decayed that I cannot well read a small print by candlelight; but I can write almost as well as ever I could: and it does me no harm but rather good to preach once or twice a day. I love to hear the particulars of your experience, and I had a letter a few days ago from one of our sisters in Scotland whose experience agrees much with yours; only she goes further. She speaks of being ’taken up into heaven, surrounded with the blessed Trinity, and let into God the Father.’ I commend you to His care; and am Yours most affectionately. To Joseph Benson NEAR LONDON, February 16, 1790. DEAR JOSEPH, -- On Monday se’nnight the 1st I hope to be at Bath; on the Thursday following at Bristol; on Monday the I5th I expect to be at Stroud, and on the Friday following at Birmingham. In a few days you will see the remaining part of my treatise [Was this The Rules of the Strangers’ Friend Society in Bristol, dated Bristol, March 12, 1790 See Journal, viii. 49; Miles’s Chronological History (4th edition), p. 180; Tyerman’s Wesley, iii. 253; and letter of Dec. 31, 1785, to John Gardner.] in one of the public papers. It is probable Dr. Priestley himself may be at length sated with controversy, and may choose to have a little interval between fighting and death. It may be such a contrast as you mention between the Doctor and the inspired writers may convince some gainsayers. -- I am, with love to Sister Benson, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, February 24, 1790. DEAR SIR -- Is the bailiff the same gentleman who subscribed to the chapel and let us have a lease for building If so how came his mind to be so changed But his heart is still in God’s hand. And therefore you take the very best way possible to allay the present storm by seeking Him that turneth the hearts of men as the waters. Without His help human means will not avail. It has pleased God to give me more strength than I had in the autumn; but my eyes continue weak. It is enough that we are in His hands. -- I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and brother. To Whom it may Concern LONDON, February 25, 1790. In August 1788 Mr. Atlay wrote me word, ’I must look out for another servant, for he would go to Dewsbury on September 25.’ So far was I from ’bidding him go,’ that I knew nothing of it till that hour. But I then told him, ’Go and serve them’; seeing I found he would serve me no longer. He sent me word that I had in London 13,751 18s. 5d. stock in books. [See letter of Sept. 4, 1788.] Desiring to know exactly, I employed two booksellers to take an account of my stock. The account they brought in, October 31, 1788, was: Value of stock, errors excepted, 4,827 10s. 5d. John Parsons, Thomas Scollick. Why did John Atlay so wonderfully overrate my stock Certainly to do me honor in the eyes of the world. I never approved of his going to Dewsbury; but I submitted to what I could not help. With respect to Dewsbury House, there never was any dispute about the property of preaching-houses (that was an artful misrepresentation), but merely the appointing of preachers in them. If John Atlay has a mind to throw any more dirt upon me, I do not know I shall take any pains to wipe it off. [See letter of May 12.] I have but a few days to live; and I wish to spend those in peace. To Thomas Tattershall LONDON, February 28, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- If you had given me in time a particular account of your late disorder, &c., it is highly probable I should have saved you some expense and a good deal of pain. But never imagine you and I shall be saved from reproach unless we changed our Master. Although it was determined at the Conference not to begin any other house till that at Dewsbury was finished {which is not done) I believe none will be offended at your receiving private benefactions from particular friends. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Tattershall, At the Preaching-house, In Norwich. To William Black March, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear you have some increase of the work of God in Halifax. If you take care that the brethren fall not out by the way, and that there be no jealousies or coldness between the preachers, but you all go on in peace and harmony, there will be an increase of it in every place. I have great hopes that the days of coldness and darkness are now past, and that the Sun of Righteousness is rising on Nova Scotia likewise. O stir up the gift of God that is in you, and wrestle with God in mighty prayer. He is doing great things in many parts of Europe such as have not been seen for many generations [See letter of Feb. 4.]; and the children of God expect to see greater things than these. I do not know that England was ever before in so quiet a state as it is now. It is our part to wait the openings of Divine Providence, and follow the leadings of it. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Preachers and Friends LONDON, March 1, 1790. As many persons desire to know where I am from this time till the Conference, I here set down my route, which, if God permit, I shall keep till that time. March. Monday, 15, Stroud; 16, Gloucester; 17, Worcester; 18. Stourport; 19, Birmingham. Monday, 22, Wednesbury; 23, Dudley and Wolverhampton; 24, Madeley; 25, Salop; 26, Madcloy; 27, Newcastle-under-Lyne; 28, Lane End and Burslem. Monday, 29, Congleton; 30, Macclesfield. April. Thursday, 1, Stockport; 2, Manchester. Monday, 5, Nantwich and Liverpool; 7, Warrington and Chester; 9, Wigan; 10, Bolton. Monday, 12, Blackburn; 13, Colne; 17, Keighley; 18, Haworth and Halifax. Tuesday, 20, Huddersfield; 2x, Dewsbury; 24, Wakefield; 25, Bitstall and Leeds. Tuesday, 27, Bradford; 29, Otley. May. Saturday, 1, Parkgate; 2, York; 4, Pocklington; 6, Newcastle. Monday, 10, Alnwick; 12, Dunbar; 13, Edinburgh. Tuesday, 18, Dundee; 19, Arbroath; 20, Aberdeen. N.B. -- I have not yet finally settled the rest of my plan. I probably shall if I come to York. Many persons are continually teasing me to visit more places. Now let them judge whether I have not work enough. To Friends in Trowbridge BATH, March 3, 1790. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I have only one thing in view -- to keep all the Methodists in Great Britain one connected people. But this can’t be done unless the Conference, not the trustees, appoint all their preachers. Therefore the bond I recommend to the proprietors of all the unsettled preaching-houses is in this form: ’The condition of this obligation is such that if A, B, C, D, &c., the proprietors of the preaching-house in Trowbridge lately built for the use of the Methodists, do give a bond to settle the said house on seven trustees chosen by Mr. Wesley as soon as the present debt on it is paid, then this bond is void: otherwise it shall remain in full force.’ Long writings I abhor. This is neither too long nor too short. Any of you that writes a fair hand may write this if on properly stamped paper without any lawyer. -- I am, my dear brethren, Your affectionate brother. To George Sykes BRISTOL, March 13, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have particular reason to bless God for the good spirit wherein you found and left your father. [See letter of April 8.] This is the Lord’s doing, and is undoubtedly the effect of prayer. But I am sorry he is not weary of pain, otherwise he would have applied the bruised or baked onions. I know no instance yet wherein they failed to ease if not take away the pain. I have much hope that your father’s visit to Mr. Linder’s will cut up all misunderstandings by the roots. We are all in peace here; and I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jasper Winscom BRISTOL, March 13, 1790. DEAR JASPER, The account of Thomas Whitwood [A young man in the Isle of Wight who died suddenly while shouting, which awful providence was followed by an outpouring of the Spirit on the Society and congregation.] is very remarkable, and the story is well told; and God has done much honor to him by the happy effects which have been consequent upon his death. [A young man in the Isle of Wight who died suddenly while shouting, which awful providence was followed by an outpouring of the Spirit on the Society and congregation.] I am in no haste at all concerning building without having paid some more of our debts. I am likewise in no haste to multiply preachers or to divide circuits. Most of our circuits are too small rather than too large. I wish we had no circuit with fewer than three preachers in it or less than four hundred miles’ riding in four weeks. Certainly no circuit shall be divided before the Conference. If we do not take care we shall all degenerate into milksops. Soldiers of Christ, arise! --I am, dear Jasper, Yours affectionately. To Mr. J. Winscom, At the Preaching-house, In Sarum. To Henry Moore BRISTOL, March 14, 1790. DEAR HENRY, -- I have received the parcel by the coach. I quite approve of your sending the note to all our Assistants, and hope it will have a good effect. I would do anything that is in my power toward the extirpation of that trade which is a scandal not only to Christianity but humanity. [Slavery in the abolition of which Wesley took the keenest interest. See letter of Oct. 11, 1787.] It will require both time and thought and much patience to bring into execution the other design which we see at a distance. We go on well in this circuit; and no wonder, since John Valton and Adam Clarke and Miss Johnson are here. -- I am, with kind love to Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Smith BIRMINGHAM, March 21, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I was not sorry that you are discharged from the Army, seeing it was not by your own act and deed, but rather by a stroke of Divine Providence; and I doubt not but it will be to the glory of God. The question was, What part of the vineyard would it be best for you to labor in I cannot in reason consent to your being long confined in the Londonderry Circuit. Is there any particular part of Ireland which you would prefer to others Or would you rather spend some time in England You may speak freely to Your affectionate brother. To Charles Atmore MADELEY, March 24, 1790. DEAR CHARLES, -- I am glad you have set up Sunday schools at Newcastle. This is one of the best institutions which have been seen in Europe for some centuries, and will do more and more good, provided the teachers and inspectors do their duties. Nothing can prevent the success of this blessed work but the neglect of the instruments. Therefore be sure to watch them with all care that they may not grow weary of well-doing. I shall be at Darlington, if God permit, on Tuesday and Wednesday, May 4, 5; on Thursday, at Durham, to preach at twelve o’clock; and at Newcastle between four and five in the afternoon. Peace be with you all, and yours.--I am, dear Charles, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Adam Clarke MADELEY, March 25, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have done exceeding well in making the friends to understand the case of that young woman. I wonder she would be so open; surely she was constrained to reveal her own secrets. It seems now as plain as plain can be that this animal magnetism [See letter of April 14.] is diabolical from the beginning to the end. At first I supposed it was only a cheat; but afterwards Satan struck in, and cheated the spectators, who had not skill to discern when the natural part ended and the preternatural began. Go on with faith and prayer to brave and detect all these depths of Satan. Peace be with your spirits! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Bardsley NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME, March 27, 1790. DEAR SAMMY, -- Take particular care that neither Michael Fenwick nor any other give any just offense, and especially that they offend not God; then He will make your enemies be at peace with you. If I remember well, I did write to the Mayor of Bideford; and I expect that makes him more quiet. [See letter of Nov. 25, 1789.] By meekness, gentleness, and patience, with faith and prayer, you will prevail at Torrington also. You have only to go on calmly and steadily, and God will arise and maintain His own cause. Only let us labor to have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Dr. Pretyman Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln () [March 1790.] MY LORD, -- I am a dying man, having already one foot in the grave. Humanly speaking, I cannot long creep upon the earth, being now nearer ninety than eighty years of age. But I cannot die in peace before I have discharged this office of Christian love to your Lordship. I write without ceremony, as neither hoping nor fearing anything from your Lordship or from any man living. And I ask, in the name and in the presence of Him to whom both you and I are shortly to give an account, why do you trouble those that are quiet in the land those that fear God and work righteousness Does your Lordship know what the Methodists are that many thousands of them are zealous members of the Church of England, and strongly attached not only to His Majesty but to his present Ministry Why should your Lordship, setting religion out of the question, throw away such a body of respectable friends Is it for their religious sentiments Alas, my Lord! is this a time to persecute any man for conscience’ sake I beseech you, my Lord, do as you would be done to. You are a man of sense; you are a man of learning; nay, I verily believe (what is of infinitely more value), you are a man of piety. Then think, and let think. I pray God to bless you with the choicest of His blessings. -- I am, my Lord, &c. To Peter Garforth MANCHESTER, April 2, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It would give me pleasure to see you anywhere, and particularly at Skipton. But I am afraid it will not be in my power. Since my last illness I cannot preach so often as I used to do. But let us do what we can, and our Lord be well pleased. -- I am Your affectionate brother. Mr. Garforth, At Skipton-in-Craven, Yorkshire. To Peard Dickinson NEAR STOCKPORT, April 2, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The settling in a new house must needs be attended with some hurry and inconvenience. [Dickinson lived near City Road Chapel. See letters of April 29, 1788, and April 28, 1790 (to Sarah Wesley).] But the conveniences on the other hand will more than [avail] if you are careful to make your full use of them. I hope you will be resolute as to your time of going to bed and rising in the morning; that I may have one curate at least who will join me herein in setting a pattern to the flock. And I pray you fight against slowness, not only in reading Prayers, but in all things great and small. Ne res omnes tardi gelideque ministrat. [Apparently his adaptation of Horace’s Ars Poetica, line 171: quod res oranes tirnide gelideque rninistrat.] Be lively! Be quick! Bestir yourself! In everything make haste, though without hurry. I am glad you attend the children. Your labor will not be in vain. My health rather increases than decreases. I think the summer will either kill or cure me. All is good. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Tattershall MANCHESTER, April [3], 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- So you have reason to acknowledge that God has not forgotten to be gracious. If you can build preaching-houses without increasing the General Debt, it is well; but otherwise it will eat us up. But I have no more to do with these matters. I have appointed a Building Committee, and shall leave to them everything pertaining to building for the time to come. In all these parts of the kingdom there is a fair measure of the work of God. There will be so everywhere if the preachers are holy and zealous men. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Tattershall, At the Preaching-house, In Norwich. To Thomas Taylor MANCHESTER, April 4, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- I did not approve of Dr. Coke’s making collections either in yours or any other circuit. I told him so, and I am not well pleased with his doing it. It was very ill done. It is exceeding probable that sea-bathing will be of use to Brother Simpson; especially if he be temperate in all things, particularly in that which one hardly knows how to name. [William Simpson was Taylor’s colleague in Hull.] I do not know what you mean concerning talking ’about the Church.’ I advise all our brethren that have been brought up in the Church to continue there; and there I leave the matter. The Methodists are to spread life among all denominations; which they will do till they form a separate sect. -- I am, with love to Sister Taylor, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Printer LIVERPOOL, April 8, 1790. SIR, -- It is a melancholy consideration that there is no country in Europe, or perhaps in the habitable world, where the horrid crime of self-murder is so common as it is in England! One reason of this may be that the English in general are more ungodly and more impatient than other nations. Indeed, we have laws against it, and officers with juries are appointed to inquire into every fact of the kind. And these are to give in their verdict upon oath whether the self-murderer was sane or insane. If he is brought in insane, he is excused, and the law does not affect him. By this means it is totally eluded; for the juries constantly bring him in insane. So the law is not of the least effect, though the farce of a trial still continues. This morning I asked a coroner, ’Sir, did you ever know a jury bring in the deceased felo-de-se’ He answered, ’No, sir; and it is a pity they should.’ What, then, is the law good for If all self-murderers are mad, what need of any trial concerning them But it is plain our ancestors did not think so, or those laws had never been made. It is true every self-murderer is mad in some sense, but not in that sense which the law intends. This fact does not prove him mad in the eye of the law. The question is, Was he mad in other respects If not, every juror is perjured who does not bring him infelo-de-se. But how can this vile abuse of the law be prevented and this execrable crime effectually discouraged By a very easy method. We read in ancient history that at a certain period many of the women in Sparta murdered themselves. This fury increasing, a law was made that the body of every woman that killed herself should be exposed naked in the streets. The fury ceased at once. Only let a law be made and rigorously executed that the body of every self-murderer, lord or peasant, shall be hanged in chains, and the English fury will cease at once. [The letter appeared in a London paper.] To George. Sykes LIVERPOOL, April 8, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- What says our Lord ’Let the dead bury their dead; but preach thou the gospel.’ O refuse not Him that speaketh, but take up thy cross and follow Him! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BOLTON, April 11, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Persons may judge I am not so well as I was once because I seldom preach early in the morning. But I have been no otherwise indisposed than by the heat and dryness of my mouth, which usually begins between one and two and ends between seven and eight. [See letter of June 1 to Henry Moore.] In other respects I am no worse but rather better than I was six months ago. How much care must we take of these houses of clay that they sink not into the dust before the time! All the advice which the art of man can give, my sister will hear from Dr. Whitehead. But, indeed, in most chronical cases vain is the help of man! Our steward, Mr. Taylor, [Edward Taylor. See Journal, viii, 115d, 126d; and for the Charity School at West Street, Seven Dials, Telford’s Two West End Chapels, p. 72.] is one of the School Stewards. If you tell him I desire it, he will have that girl admitted into West Street School. I am glad Sammy is diligent in study. It will save him from many temptations; and if he strictly follows the method of Kingswood School, he will profit much. Peace be with all your spirits.--I am, my dear Sally, Ever yours. To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Maryhone, London. To Adam Clarke MANCHESTER, April 14, 1790. DEAR ADAM, -- You have done exceeding well in searching this diabolical matter to the bottom and in arming our innocent members of the Society against that plausible delusion. I am glad you have at length succeeded in plucking honest Mr. Durbin out of the net. I have now hopes that his poor daughter will be delivered and will live to be a comfort to him. I wish you would write a particular account of your own state of health to Dr. Whitehead; and follow his advice with regard to every point, except the leaving off of preaching. I think, if I had taken this advice many years since, I should not have been a living man. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Anne Cutler WALTON, April 15, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- There is something in the dealings of God with your soul which is out of the common way. But I have known several whom he has been pleased to lead exactly in the same way, and particularly in manifesting to them distinctly the three Persons of the ever-blessed Trinity. You may tell all your experience to me at any time; but you will need to be cautious in speaking to others, for they would not understand what you say. Go on in the name of God and the power of His might. Pray for the whole spirit of humility; and I beg you would write and speak without reserve to, dear Nanny, Yours affectionately. To Mr. Andrews HALIFAX, April 20, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- John Atlay goes on with flying colors, telling all that will give him the hearing how cruelly he has been used by me and the preachers after having faithfully served me so many years. He does not much concern himself about truth, but affirms whatever he thinks will serve his cause. But it is enough that He who is higher than the highest regards it, and will in due time cause His power to be known. I am glad to hear that the work of God prospers in your circuit. So it does here, notwithstanding all the pains such small friends take to hinder it. In due time God will command all these things to work together for good. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Andrews, near Hertford. To the care of Mr. Whitfield, New Chapel, London. To William Smith WAKEFIELD, April 23, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Your reasons are good. I entirely agree with your judgment. Considering the kindness which your friends in Londonderry have shown, it would not be advisable for you to be removed from them immediately. You had better remain with them another year. [See letter of March 21.] I will therefore write to Dr. Coke that it may be so. But O beware of thinking too highly of yourself. You walk on slippery ground. May God keep you humble. -- I am, Your affectionate brother. To Henry Moore PARKGATE, April 25, 1790. I thank you, my dear Harry, for giving me another proof that you are a man to be depended on. You keep your love and you keep your integrity even among weathercocks, But who was it that turned Dr. Coke from east to west and (much more strange!) Dr. Hamilton But how is the fact Is the Society in Dublin quiet or no Is contention forgot or does it continue Are a majority of the people for retaining or for abolishing the eleven o’clock service [See letters of May 6, x788, and May 12, 1790.] Surely Dr. Coke is not well in his senses. I have wrote a loving but plain letter to Arthur Keene [See next letter, and that of July 6, 1789.] (without saying a word of the forenoon service) to this effect: ’You would not have been justified in removing such a friend as me even if I had turned Papist or Mahometan.’ -- I am, with kind love to Nancy, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Arthur Keene PARKGATE, LEEDS, April 28, 1790. DEAR ARTHUR, -- Many years you and I loved as brethren. We were united by no common ties. We took sweet counsel together and walked to the house of God as friends. On a sudden you renounced all intercourse with me, because, you said, I had left the Church. Alas! what a cause! Are such friends as I was to be thrown away for such a reason as this Truly I think such a step would not have been justifiable if I had turned Papist or Mahometan, much less for my turning Presbyterian, if it only had been so. And to your example chiefly was owing the unjust, unkind behavior which I met with from many when I was in Dublin last! Well, I cannot help it; I am to be guided by my own conscience, not that of another man! Many a weary journey have I had to Ireland; I seem now to be fairly discharged. May the peace of God be with you and yours! I do not depend on seeing you any more till we meet in the world of spirits. Dear Arthur, adieu! To Arthur Keene, Esq., Dublin. To his Niece Sarah Wesley PARKGATE, April 28, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Now if you was but sitting at my elbow you would see one of the pleasantest spots in the world. A round, clear fishpond is at a small distance surrounded by a smooth, green meadow which has a gently rising hill on one side and is surrounded with trees. After breakfast we are going to Miss Ritchie at Otley, [He had breakfast at 8, and reached Otley at 10.15. He got back to London on Oct. 2. See Journal, viii. 62, 100-1.] who will not be sorry to hear I have been writing to you. I shall now soon be moving northward; but must shorten my journey through Scotland as the work increases on all sides. If I am brought back into England, I shall then be able to judge whether I can take London in my way to Bristol. But I doubt I shall not be able to reach it before my usual time (if I live), the beginning of October. I am glad to find you have not forgotten your way to the City Road. You should always look on our house as one of your homes; and when you are there, you will not forget Mrs. Dickinson--no, nor poor George Whitfield. There is a little knot of people that love you well. What a blessing it is to have a few sincere friends! Surely they that fear the Lord can want no manner of thing that is good! I wish Charles and Sammy [See next letter and that of June 12.] could find their way thither. Well, the time is coming when we shall meet and part no more. My kind love attends you all.--I am, my dear Sally, Ever yours. Miss Ritchie writes: Your dear Uncle gives me leave to add a few lines to the other side; therefore I cannot omit this opportunity of wishing my dear Miss Wesley multiplied blessings while visiting our dear City Road friends. My kind love awaits them, your aunt, [Mrs. Hall.] &c. Oh that the spirit of the Lord may be poured out upon you all! I love my London friends, and rejoice in hope of soon spending a happy eternity with them and all who by patient continuance in well doing seek for honor, immortality, eternal life. Let us, my dear sister, be all for God, and His love shall change, renew, and sanctify. May much of the inward kingdom, the spiritual kingdom, faith... [Pieces torn away.] And may you walk in the corn[fort]... [Pieces torn away.] -- My dear friend, Yours affecy., ELIZ. RITCHIE. To his Nephew Samuel Wesley OTLEY April 29, 1790. DEAR SAMMY, -- For some days you have been much upon my mind. I have been pained concerning you, and have been afraid lest I should feel, when it was too late, that I had been wanting in affection to you. For ought I to see you in want of anything and not strive to supply your want What do you want not clothes or books or money. If you did, I should soon supply you. But I fear you want (what you least of all suspect), the greatest thing of all -- religion. I do not mean external religion, but the religion of the heart; the religion which Kempis, Pascal, Fnelon enjoyed: that life of God in the soul of man, the walking with God and having fellowship with the Father and the Son. When you contracted a prejudice in favor of the Church of Rome, I did not regard your embracing such and such opinions (were they right or wrong), but your being cut off from those instructions which you then especially needed. Had you attentively read but a small part of my writing (which Providence recommended to your attention by your near relation to me), or had you so diligently attended my ministry as you ought to have done, you would have known more of that religion than you do now: Christ in you the hope of glory, Christ reigning in your heart and subduing all things to Himself. And I lament that fatal step, your relinquishing those places of worship where alone this religion is inculcated, I care not a rush for your being called a Papist or Protestant. But I am grieved at your being an heathen. Certain it is that the general religion both of Protestants and Catholics is no better than refined heathenism. O Sammy, you are called to something better than this 1 You are called to know and love the God of glory, to live in eternity, to walk in eternity, and to live the life which is hid with Christ in God. Hearken to the advice of one that stands on the edge of eternity. In spite of prejudice, go and hear that word which is able to save your soul. Give God your heart. Consider these, my dear Sammy, as probably the dying words of Your affectionate Uncle. To Thomas Wride DARLINGTON, May 5. 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- It was a little thing to me, when I was able to ride on horseback, to strike a few miles out of my way. But that time is past. All I can do now is to visit the chief Societies. I hope to see our friends in Weardale and Barnard Castle, and I believe that will be as much as I must attempt. I hope you have now got quit of your queer, arch expressions in preaching, and that you speak as plain and dull as one of us. [Wride was now in the Dales. See letter in Dec. 1786 to Bradburn.] -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore ALNWICK, May 12, 1790. DEAR HENRY, -- I think of the Dublin affair [See letter of April 25. Rutherford was the Assistant in Dublin.] just as you do. But it seems our small friends have half converted T. Rutherford. That bill was for the share of a lottery ticket. The remaining money you may pay to George Whitfield. Good John Atlay has just published a curious paper, in which he flatly affirms that ’Mr. Charles Wesley wrote those verses in his room after we had relinquished Dewsbury House on that occasion.’ I want, therefore, Brother Sammy Brad-burn to clear up this matter, which he may do, especially by certifying the day which was appointed for meeting at Mr. Hunter’s, where they sang those very verses. Should not this certificate be as strong and as explicit as may be, that if possible it may stop the mouth of the blatant beast [See Spenser’s Faerie Queene, Book vi, canto xii.] Love to dear Sammy and you; but let this be done without delay. -- I am, my dear Henry, Ever yours. To George Holder ABERDEEN, May 24, 1790. DEAR GEORGE, -- I have no objection to your being in an English circuit next year, [He was appointed to the Dales Circuit in 1790.] as Brother Brown is staying another in the island; which I suppose may be supplied by three preachers this year, as it was the last. When the wit told the world of my being in the water at Portsmouth, I was three or four hundred miles from it. Be zealous for God, and you will all see the fruit of your labor. -- I am, dear George, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Adam Clarke DUMFRIES, June, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, The great question is, What can be done for Adam Clarke [See next letter and that of April 14.]~ Now, will you save his life Look round; consider if there be any circuit where he can have much rest and little work; or shall he and you spend September in my rooms at Kingswood, on condition that he shall preach but twice a week and ride to the Hot Wells every day I think he must do this, or die; and I do not want him (neither do you) to run away from us in haste. You need not object that this will be attended with some expense; if it be, we can make that matter easy. I am apt to think this will be the best way. In the meantime let him do as much as he can, and no more. It is probable I shall stay with you a little longer, as my strength does not much decline. I traveled yesterday near fourscore miles and preached in the evening without any pain. The Lord does what pleases Him. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear sister, Yours most affectionately. To Henry Moore DUMFRIES, June 1, 1790. DEAR HENRY, -- So I am upon the borders of England again. My sight is much as it was; but I doubt I shall not recover my strength till I use that noble medicine [See letter of April 11.] preaching in the morning. But where can we put poor Adam Clarke He must not preach himself to death; and what circuit is he equal to, where he can have rest as well as labor The best place I can think of at present is Leeds. [Clarke went to Dublin. See letter of July 31 to John King.] The dying words of the Prince of Orange are much upon my mind: ’Lord, have mercy upon the people!’ [William the Silent, assassinated 1584.] I never saw so much likelihood of doing good in Scotland as there is now if all our preachers here would be Methodists indeed. My dear Henry, love me as well as you can. -- I am, dear Henry, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Cock NEWCASTLE, June 6, 1790. My DEAR SISTER, -- To hear from you is always a pleasure to me; though it is a pleasure mixed with concern when I hear of your weakness or sickness. Only I know the Lord loveth whom He chasteneth. But of what kind is your illness Perhaps I might be enabled to tell you how to remove it. And if you can recover your health, you ought; for health is a great blessing. In August last my strength failed almost at once, and my sight in a great measure went from me. But all is well: I can still write almost as easily as ever, and I can read in a clear fight; and I think, if I could not read or write at all, I could still say something for God. [See letter of July 3 to Mr. Heath.] When you have more strength, tell me more of the work of God, whether in yourself or those round about you. And ought you not to let me know if you are in any temporal distress For everything that concerns you, concerns, my dear Jenny, Yours most affectionately. First addressed-- To Mrs. Jane Cock, St. Heller, Isle of Jersey. Then-- To Mrs. Jane Cock, St. Maws, Cornwall. To Peard Dickinson DURHAM, June 12, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am exceedingly pleased that you have made a little tour to Portsmouth and the adjoining places; and cannot doubt but it has been a blessing to many there as well as to your own soul. I seem to remember that I had a letter from you some time since; but I do not remember whether I answered it or not. If the good impressions which Sammy Wesley frequently feels could be changed, he would probably be a real Christian. You should contrive to see him as often as you can. Who knows but you may save a soul alive. [See letter of April 28 to Sarah Wesley.] To take a little journey (were it but for a week) now and then would be of service both to your mind and body. -- I am, with kind love to Betsy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Black SUNDERLAND, June 14, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You did well to send me an account of your little Societies. Here is a good beginning, though it is as yet in many places a day of small things, and although it does not please God to carry on His work so rapidly with you as in some of the provinces. But one soul is worth all the merchandise in the world; and, whoever gets money, do you win souls. Never was there throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland so great a thirst for the pure word of God as there is at this day. The same we find in the little islands of Man, Wight, Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney in the Western Ocean. In the Isle of Man alone (thirty miles long) the Societies contain about four-and-twenty hundred members. I have just now finished my route through Scotland, where I never had such congregations before. So it pleases God to give me a little more to do before He calls me hence. What has become of Brother Scurr, Dodson, and our other Yorkshire friends Some of them doubtless are gone into a farther country; but some I suppose remain. I doubt you do not keep up a constant intercourse with each other. Love as brethren -- I am, dear William, Your affectionate friend and brother. To John Dickins WHITBY, June 19, I790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- This morning I received yours of April 9, with Mr. Asbury’s bill enclosed. I was surprised when Lady Huntingdon absolutely forbade any preacher in her Connection to marry. All can say in that respect is, ’If thou mayst be free, use it rather.’ I married because I needed a home, in order to recover my health; and I did recover it. But I did not seek happiness thereby, and I did not find it. We know this may be found in the knowledge and enjoyment and service of God, whether in a married or Single state. But whenever we deny ourselves and take up the cross for His sake, the happier we shall be both here and in eternity. Let us work on likewise, and in His time He will give us a full reward. -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To the Rev. John Dickins, Philadelphia. To William Thom MALTON, June 21, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I concur in the judgment of my brother that the using of the form of prayer will tend to unite our people to the Church [Charles Wesley’s view. The fourth Sunday they were to take the Sacrament at Church.] rather than to separate them from it, especially if you earnestly insist on their going to church every fourth Sunday. I am very indifferent concerning the preaching-house, and shall not concern myself about it any more. I have lost 10 by it already, although to no purpose. If anything more is done concerning it, it must be done by the people at Sarum themselves. I am, with love to Sister Thom, dear Billy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Dr. Pretyman Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln HULL, June 26, 1790. MY LORD, -- It may seem strange that one who is not acquainted with your Lordship should trouble you with a letter. But I am constrained to do it; I believe it is my duty both to God and your Lordship. And I must speak plain; having nothing to hope or fear in this world, which I am on the point of leaving. The Methodists in general, my Lord, are members of the Church of England. They hold all her doctrines, attend her service, and partake of her sacraments. They do not willingly do harm to any one, but do what good they can to all. To encourage each other herein they frequently spend an hour together in prayer and mutual exhortation. Permit me then to ask, Cui bono, ’For what reasonable end,’ would your Lordship drive these people out of the Church Are they not as quiet, as inoffensive, nay as pious, as any of their neighbors except perhaps here and there an hairbrained man who knows not what he is about. Do you ask, ’Who drives them out of the Church’ Your Lordship does; and that in the most cruel manner -- yea, and the most disingenuous manner. They desire a license to worship God after their own conscience. Your Lordship refuses it, and then punishes them for not having a license! So your Lordship leaves them only this alternative, ’Leave the Church or starve.’ And is it a Christian, yea a Protestant bishop, that so persecutes his own flock I say, persecutes; for it is persecution to all intents and purposes. You do not burn them indeed, but you starve them. And how small is the difference! And your Lordship does this under color of a vile, execrable law, not a whir better than that de haeretico cornburendo. [Concerning the burning of heretics.] So persecution, which is banished out of France, is again countenanced in England! O my Lord, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, for pity’s sake suffer the poor people to enjoy their religious as well as civil liberty! I am on the brink of eternity I Perhaps so is your Lordship too! How soon may you also be called to give an account of your stewardship to the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls! May He enable both you and me to do it with joy! So prays, my Lord, Your Lordship’s dutiful son and servant. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] Thomas McGeary, M.A., was Head Master of Kingswood School from 1783 to 1794, when he opened a school at Keynsham, Bristol. William Cart was a master from 1789 to 1790. [2] This letter gives a most interesting view of Wesley’s mode of dealing with debt. Compare letter of August 15. [3] Garrettson was finishing a letter with which he was going to send another copy of his Journal when he heard of Wesley’s death. He therefore published it in America. See letter of July 15, 1789. [4] Thomas Morrell, one of the American preachers, was personally acquainted with General Washington. He and John Dickins arranged and were present at the interview in which Asbury and Coke presented a congratulatory address to him on his being appointed President of the United States. Coke’s action in this matter was severely criticized in the British Conference. See Buckiey’s The Methodists, p. 265, and letter of September 5, 1789. [5] Horner, who became a Methodist preacher in 1770, was Assistant at Oxford, with John Cricket and Richard Reece as his colleagues. John Murlin was a supernumerary. Witney and High Wycombe were in the circuit. Horner’s daughter married Joseph Fletcher, another Methodist preacher; and their youngest son was the Rev. George Fletcher, sometime Governor of Richmond College. [6] James Gore was a supernumerary in Bristol. Clarke told Bracken-bury on February 12 that he had passed away about eight days previously. ’A little before he died he said to me, "Brother Clarke, I am going, and you will not be long after."’ Happily for the cause of religion and learning Clarke lived till 1832. The Minutes of 1790 say that Gore ’was a young man of good understanding, great sweetness of temper, and eminent piety; and his end was glorious.’ He probably died of consumption. [7] Brackenbury had retired from the Channel Islands, but had recently visited them to settle some difficulties raised by a litigious bailiff, who had formerly been friendly to the work. See Raithby Hall, p. 50; and letter of June 26, 1788. [8] Towards the close of 1789 Black wrote that the membership in Nova Scotia was 575, upwards of 400 of whom profess faith. Since his last letter thirty had been added. They had ’hard work, preaching to a dead, hardened, ignorant people’ in Halifax; ’but God is now giving us to see the fruit of our labors.’ [9] To this plan the following postscripts were added by another hand: ’Those persons who have occasion to write to Mr. Wesley are requested to direct their letters according to this plan, and not to London.’ ’Our friends here earnestly desire that Mr. Wesley may be remembered in prayer, especially at the next Quarterly Fast, that his strength may be continued, and, if it please God, increased also.’ A similar plan was issued for the return journey from Aberdeen (May 22-8) to Bristol (July 17). See W.H.S. if. 215-16. [10] Winscom has written on this letter: ’I can witness, agreeable to this letter, that Mr. Wesley fully intended to reform the circuits, putting several of them together, so that the preachers would be obliged to ride on homeback as formerly, which he believed would .contribute much to their bodily and spiritual health.’ The Saturn circuit included Swanage, Blandford, Salisbury, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth, and Chichester. It was divided at Conference into the Salisbury and the Portsmouth Circuits. [11] Smith had been a bandmaster in the Army, and the Society in Londonderry, recognizing his ability, paid 50 to procure his discharge. He was received on trial as a preacher in July 1790, and appointed to Londonderry. He proved a very able and successful minister, and died in 1839. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, ii. 17; and letter of April 23. [12] One Sunday early in 1790 Atmore, the Assistant at Newcastle, was greatly distressed as he returned from preaching at Byker to see the number of children playing about. He resolved to establish a Sunday school, and mentioned this to some friends in Newcastle next day. A meeting was held at the Orphan House that week, and the School was opened on Sunday mornings, with 70 teachers, and 1,012 children enrolled. See Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 118. [13] Sir George Pretyman Tomline, Senior Wrangler, tutor and Secretary to the younger Pitt, was Bishop of Lincoln and Dean of St. Paul’s 1787-1820, and Bishop of Winchester 1820-. Whitehead and Moore say this letter was written a few months before that ’to a Member of Parliament’ (William Wilberforce) in July, 1790. See letter of June 26. [14] Thomas Garforth died in 1789; see letter of August 9, 1783 His brother Peter enlarged the Woodhouse Chapel to seat 400 at his own expense. [15] Sykes, born at Sheffield in 1761 of well-to-do parents, was a class-leader in Nottingham who wished to become a traveling preacher; but his father threatened to disinherit him if he did. He wrote to Wesley, who sent him this reply. In April 1790 he took up work at Nottingham in the place of Thomas Vasey, who had gone to America, and at the Conference in July was admitted on trial. He adopted Calvinistic views, and in 1818 became an Independent pastor at Rillington, where he died. See letter of March 13. [16] On the back of this letter, in neat lady’s handwriting, appears the following: How many virtues does misery obscure, How many talents does it crush! Surely old age can only be terrible to the happy -- To those whom youth had crowned with joys And time deprives of them! What can it take from me but wretched days. sad prospects, Unkind friends, and variety of disappointment [17] Clarke had slept in a damp bed at Trowbridge and had never lost his cough. Bristol was a laborious circuit, and Wesley expressed a fear when he saw him at the beginning of the year that he would not live long. Life with him that year was little better than a protracted martyrdom. See Etheridge’s Olarke, p. 118; and letter of June 1 to Mrs. Clarke. Durbin and his daughter seem to have been misled by the impostor whom Clarke had unmasked. See letter of March 25, 1790; and for Durbin, that of May 3, 1786. [18] Miss Cutler, one of Bramwell’s converts, was born at Preston in 1759. She had told Wesley her experience when he visited Preston on April 14; and this was his reply. She attended to his advice and became very useful as a preacher. She died in 1794. See letter of August 8, 1788, to Lady Maxwell. [19] This letter, addressed in the writing of Miss Ritchie to ’Mr. Saml. Wesley, Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London’ was endorsed by Samuel Wesley, ’From the Rev. John Wesley, April 29, 1790.’ See letter of August 19, 1784, to him. [20] Endorsed ’Mr. Wesley, Durham. Reed. Wed., June 16; ansd. Friday 18.’ [21] Black had sent a circumstantial report of the work in Nova Scotia. This is Wesley’s reply: ’to which the tremulousness of age has given so chaotic an appearance as to have rendered it a task of considerable difficulty to decipher it.’ See Richey’s Memoir, p. 255. [22] The Methodists were in a difficult position, as this letter shows. Acting on legal advice, the greater number of the preachers and chapels were licensed according to the Toleration Act; but attempts were made to refuse licenses to the Methodists unless they declared themselves Dissenters. Spies and informers were busy, and in a few cases heavy penalties were inflicted. The case which led Wesley to write to Dr. Pretyman Tomline is described in the letter in July to William Wilberforce. See Moore’s Wesley, ii. 381-6; the next letter, and that in March 60 the Bishop of Lincoln. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 96: 94. 1790 ======================================================================== 1790 To the Rev. Mr. Heath EPWORTH, July 3, 1790. DEAR SIR, -- I was concerned at not hearing anything of or from you for so long a season; but was not surprised, as I have been so frequently forgotten by my friends. And yet I thought Mrs. Heath and my dear children would remember me during the short time that I have to stay upon earth. This is not likely to be long. In August last [See letter of June 6.] my strength and my sight failed me nearly at once; but they have been restored in some degree, so that my work (blessed be God) is not hindered.... If I live to see Dr. Coke (who is now in Ireland) we must have an laircissement on this head. I should be exceedingly glad to have another sight of you and your dear family. If I see him, I will talk about it with Dr. Coke. As he sent you out I really think he should bring you back. I will advance fifty pounds for you all to employ as you think best. [Coke was President of the Irish Conference, which met in Dublin on July 2. See letter of June 25, 1789.] The peace of God rest upon you and yours! --I am, dear sir, Your ever affectionate friend and brother. To John King EPWORTH, July 3, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Mr. Mather said nothing to me about you; nor did Brother Hopkins say anything more than you heard. Have a care of evil surmising. If you can provide preaching for the Sundays during the Conference, you may come to Bristol. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. King, At the Preaching-house, In Stockton-upon-Tees. To his Niece Sarah Wesley LONDON, July 13, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY, -- As my friends would take no denial I stole two or three days to see them, only by adding an hundred and fifty miles to my journey. If my life is prolonged till October, I hope we shall meet then. If not, we shall meet in a better place. It is remarkable that you should be at that gentleman’s house. I do not remember I ever saw him but once. That was when I was at Temple Church, and he was laughing and making sport most of the time. [Mr. L-----. See letter of July 31 to her.] If you had covered the wound with white paper wetted with spittle, it would have stuck on till you was well. ’Perhaps it might still. But if not, the coal poultice will cure you in a few days. Pound common coal at fire; sift it through a sieve; mix this powder with warm water; put this poultice, half an inch thick, into a linen between on the sore, changing it every four-and-twenty hours. But you will have need of patience. -- I am, my dear Sally, Yours most affectionately. To Mrs. Cock NEAR BRISTOL, July 22, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I have reason to bless God that I can still see a little; so that I can as yet go on in my business: and it is enough if we are enabled either to do or to suffer His holy and acceptable will. It is no wonder if among yourselves there arise men speaking perverse things. Wherever our Lord sows His good seed Satan will endeavor to sow his tares also; and they are suffered, the tares and the wheat, to grow up together for a season, to exercise our faith and patience. I hope Mr. Stevens will be more and more useful among you, as his eye is single; therefore there can be no objection to his continuing with you a little longer. [William Stevens was appointed to Portsmouth in 1790; he died in 1813.] I am always glad to hear a little of your experience; and, indeed, the more the better. Wishing you and yours every blessing, I remain, Yours most affectionately. To Sarah Rutter BRISTOL, July 27, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I thank you for forwarding me the account of your brother’s death. There is something in it very remarkable. You do well in taking care of the lambs of the flock. See that you never be weary of that labor of love. [See letters of Dec. 5, 1789, and Oct. 18, 1790.] Mr. Jenkins will stay with you another year. I hope you can now give God your whole heart. O let not your sisters stay behind you. -- I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To William Robarts BRISTOL, July 28, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad you have at last done with temporal business. I believe you was called to better things long ago. To-morrow se’nnight I hope to set out for Wales, where I purpose, God willing, to spend about three weeks and then about a month in and near Bristol. [The Conference had begun in Bristol on July 27. Wesley left for Wales on August 5, got back to Bristol on the 21st, and left on Sept. 27.] You will then be able to inform me where you purpose to settle. O work while the day is! Perhaps it will be short with you as well as with, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To John King BRISTOL, July 31, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is well if anything can restore Brother Clarke’s health. He seems to be nearly worn out as well as me. If anything can give him a new constitution, it will be a long journey. Therefore, when he strangely consented to go to Dublin, I could not say anything either for it or against it. And I did not know whether the thing were not from God when I saw both him and his wife so thoroughly willing to give up all. Indeed, designing and crafty men have blown up such a flame in Dublin as none can quench but a man of faith and love. If I should live, I do not purpose he should stay there any longer than a year. But who knows what a year may [bring] forth It may carry both me and you and them into a better world! Therefore let us live to-day! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Sarah Mallet BRISTOL, July 31, 1790. DEAR SALLY, -- I do not remember the receiving of any letter from you which I have not answered. I should be afraid my silence might give you pain; and that I would not do on any account. I am glad you have broken off that intercourse which could not but be a snare to you. Nothing is more profitable to us than to cut off a right hand or pluck out a right eye. If you go on in the work to which God has called you, you will frequently have occasion for that. You will have trials upon trials. But what then Is not His grace sufficient for you And has He not in every temptation made a way for you to escape that you might be able to bear it Let not your hands hang down; God is on your side. And if you are reproached for His name’s sake, happy are you; and the spirit of glory and of God shall rest upon you. If you have a desire to have any books, let me know, and I will give orders to the Assistant. [See letters of Dec. 15, 1789, and Dec. 13, 1790.] It is well that you are acquainted with our sister [Elizabeth Reeve. See letters of Feb. 21, 1789, and Dec. 13, 1790.] that likewise is sometimes employed in the same labor of love; Providence has marked you out for friends to each other, and there should be no reserve between you. Pour all your thoughts and troubles and temptations into each other’s bosom. God will often comfort and strengthen you by each other! May His peace continually abide with you both! -- I am, my dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISTOL, July 31, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY, -- If your hurt is not yet healed, [See letter of July 13.] apply thereupon the poultice of powdered coal prescribed in the Primitive Prysick. In a few days it will cure any sore on a human body. I scarce ever knew it fail. The two grand medicines for a sin-sick soul are pain and pleasure. We hope [that] is most proper in any particular case. God is certainly the best Judge; and we may safely say, I’ll trust my great Physician’s skill; What He prescribes can ne’er be ill. As Mr. L----- was at [Temple Church] too distant for me to see his behavior, I am in hopes there was a mistake, and that the case was really such as he describes it. The rather because I do not remember there was anything tending to move laughter either in the subject or the sermon. Mr. Henderson [Richard Henderson, of Hunham. See letter of Sept. 9, 1765.] has been ill for a long time and is far from well now. I saw him yesterday and he seems to have himself small hopes of recovery. I should be glad [to meet] any of the Miss Mores [Hannah More and her sisters, who were her friends. Charles Wesley and Wilberforce first met at Miss More’s. See Telford’s C. Wsslay, pp. 266, 280.]; but I doubt my conversation would not suit them, I have little relish for anything which does not [concern] the upper world. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, my dear Sally, Your ever affectionate Uncle. To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London. To William Wilberforce BRISTOL, July 1790. Last month a few people met together in Lincolnshire to pray and praise God in a friend’s house. There was no preaching at all. Two neighboring Justices fined the man of the house twenty pounds. I suppose he was not worth twenty shillings. Upon this his household goods were distrained and sold to pay the fine. He appealed to the Quarter Sessions; but all the Justices averred the Methodists could have no relief from the Act of Toleration because they went to church, and that so long as they did so the Conventicle Act should be executed upon them. Last Sunday, when one of our preachers was beginning to speak to a quiet congregation, a neighboring Justice sent a constable to seize him, though he was licensed, and would not release him till he had paid twenty pounds, telling him his license was good for nothing because he was a Churchman. Now, sir, what can the Methodists do They are liable to be ruined by the Conventicle Act, and they have no relief from the Act of Toleration! If this is not oppression, what is Where, then, is English liberty the liberty of Christians yea, of every rational creature, who as such has a right to worship God according to his own conscience But, waiving the question of right and wrong, what prudence is there in oppressing such a body of loyal subjects If these good magistrates could drive them not only out of Somersetshire but out of England, who would be gainers thereby Not His Majesty, whom we honor and love; not his Ministers, whom we love and serve for his sake. Do they wish to throw away so many thousand friends, who are now bound to them by stronger ties than that of interest If you will speak a word to Mr. Pitt on that head, you will oblige, &c. To Mrs. Armstrong BRISTOL, August 4, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- A few days ago I was thinking much of you, probably at the very time you was writing. I was wishing to hear something of you or from you, so that your letter came exactly in time. It gives me pleasure to find that your heart is still tending to its center. Cheerfulness is a great blessing; but it is exceeding liable to be carried to an extreme, especially where it is a natural liveliness of temper, which I believe is your case. I have often loved you for it, especially as it was joined with softness and not harshness. But I thought it was apt to betray you into levity either of spirit or of conversation; whereas we can hardly grow without deep and steady seriousness. My sight is no worse than it was some months since, and my strength is considerably increased. It is not impossible I may live till spring; and if I do so, I am likely to see Ireland once more. The hope of seeing one that loves me (as I am persuaded Jenny Armstrong does) would be no small inducement to my undertaking a voyage, although the sea affected me the last time more than it ever did before. [See letter of June 24, 1789.] However, receive at least this token of real affection from, my dear Jenny, Yours in wider love. To Jane Armstrong, Athlone. To Thomas Roberts HAVERFORDWEST, August 13, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- Now I shall make a trial of you whether I can confide in you or no. Since I came hither I have been much concerned. This is the most important circuit in all Wales; but it has been vilely neglected by the Assistant, whom, therefore, I can trust no more. I can trust you even in so critical a case. I desire, therefore, that, whoever opposes, you will set out immediately, and come hither as soon as ever you can. I wish you could meet me at Cardiff or Cowbridge. You will see by the printed plan when I shall be at either of those places. If you have not notice enough to do this, meet me to-morrow se’nnight at the New Passage, unless you can get a passage by the weekly boat to Swansea. If it be possible, do not fail. It may be this may be the beginning of a lasting friendship between you and, dear Tommy, Yours, &c. To Sarah Baker HAVERFORDWEST, August 14, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- I will endeavor to be at Cowbridge [See letter of Oct. 27, 1784, to her.] on Thursday the 19th instant before two o’clock. My design was to have dined at Mr. [Flaxman’s]; but I now purpose to wait upon Mrs. Paynton. I am glad to hear Betsy is with you; and am, dear Sally, Yours very affectionately. To William Mears PEMBROKE, August 15, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It is my desire that all things be done to the satisfaction of all parties. [Mears was a useful local preacher in Rochester. Compare letter of Oct. 29, 1786.] If therefore it be more convenient, let Brother Pritchard’s family [John Pritchard was at Chatham and Charles Boon at Canterbury in 1790.] and Sister Boon lodge at Chatham house. Why have you not set on foot a weekly subscription in order to lessen your debt Have neither the preachers nor the people any spirit Who begins I will give two shillings and sixpence a week (for a year), if all of you together will make up twenty shillings. -- I am, dear Billy, Your affectionate brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley NEAR COWBRIDGE, August 18, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY,--I always mildly reprove the profane person or (what is worse) the profane gentlemen; and many of them will receive it civilly if not thankfully. They all know (captains as well as common men) that swearing is not necessary; and even now we have captains of our men-of-war who do not swear at all. The captain of the ship [’The Samuel, Captain Percy’ (Journal, i. 413).] wherein I came from America did not swear at all; and never was man better obeyed. You have certainly need for thankfulness as well as patience, and you should be sure to take as much exercise every day as you can bear. I wish you would desire George Whitfield to send you the chamber-horse [For indoor exercise. See letters of July 17, 1785, and March 13, 1788.] out of my dining-room, which you should use half an hour at least daily. If I live to see London, I think I must take you to Twicken-ham. Surely Mr. Galloway owes to the world a true account of the American revolution. All the question is whether it should be published during his life. What says my brother - When loss of friends ordained to know, Next pain and guilt the sorest ill below. [S. Wesley, Jun., on Dr. Gastrell.] But this you did not take into the question. Neither that-- Let each his friendly aid afford, And feel his brother’s care. Perpetual cheerfulness is the temper of a Christian, which is far enough from Stoicism. Real Christians know it is their duty to maintain this, which .is in one sense to rejoice evermore. I think Sammy and you should converse frequently and freely together. He might help you, and you might help him. I take him to have a mind capable of friendship, and hope if I live to be more acquainted with him. The gentleman you mention just called upon me, but did not stay, as I had company with me. To-morrow I hope to be at Bristol. -- I am, my dear Sally, Most affectionately yours. To James Creighton COWBRIDGE, August 19, 1790. DEAR SIR, -- The proposal concerning a lecture for the instruction of the preachers, full counsel must mature. If I live to return to London, we may then consider it at large. When we meet we may talk largely on the subject, and weigh what may be said for and against it. I have often advised those who wrote me accounts of lives and deaths, ’Write enough; I can shorten your accounts as I please.’ Few people know what part of this is material. You and I must determine this. Do not scruple to speak to Mr. Dickinson concerning the funerals, which I will confirm in due time. And speak twice or thrice in public of coming punctually at the time; telling ’otherwise we will not stay for you.’ Mr. Peacock [John Peacock in the Grimsby Circuit.] may have what books he pleases either for himself or for the poor. Peace be with you and yours! I hope to be at Bristol on Saturday; and am, dear sir, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Rev. Mr. Creighton, At the New Chapel, Moorfields, London. To Joseph Burgess BRISTOL, August 22, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You are called to do all the good you can for the present in Ireland. Your staying there a little longer may be a blessing to many souls. I believe we can easily procure another preacher to supply your place at Liverpool for a month or two; so you need be in no pain upon that account. A little difficulty in setting out is a good omen. Wishing all happiness to you and yours, I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate brother. To Jasper Winscom BRISTOL, August 28, 1790. DEAR JASPER, -- I do not see how you can be spared from your own circuit till another is procured to take your place. [Winstom had been Assistant in the Isle of Wight, and was now appointed to Oxfordshire.] Neither do I conceive how Sarum Circuit can bear the expense of another preacher. I am wellnigh tired of it. I have had more trouble with this circuit than with ten circuits besides. You did exceeding well in adjusting matters at Whitchurch; but I am sorry for poor Sister Haime. [John Haime, Wesley’s soldier preacher, died at Whirchurch on Aug. 18, 1784. See letter in March 1744 to him.] I am sure she was a good woman once. I do not understand what you mean as to Winton. How did William Thom raise them eight pounds [William Thom had been Assistant at Saturn.] And on what account did you pay six pounds -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. ----- BRISTOL, September 2, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I hope it will be found that your wife’s tendon is not broken but only sprained. I cannot make any alteration in the plan of my journey, which gives me about as much work as I can do. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Adam Clarke BRISTOL, September 9, 1790. DEAR ADAM, -- Did not the terrible weather that you had at sea make you forget your fatigue by land Come, set one against the other, and you have no great reason to complain of your journey. You will have need of all the courage and prudence which God has given you. Indeed, you will want constant supplies of both. Very gently and very steadily you should proceed between the rocks on either hand. In the great revival at London my first difficulty was to bring in temper those who opposed the work, and my next to check and regulate the extravagances of those that promoted it. And this was far the hardest part of the work, for many of them would bear no check at all. But I followed one rule, though with all calmness: ’You must either bend or break.’ Meantime, while you act exactly right, expect to be blamed by both sides. I will give you a few direction: (1) See that no prayer-meeting continue later than nine at night, particularly on Sunday. Let the house be emptied before the clock strikes nine. (2) Let there be no exhortation at any prayer-meeting. (3) Beware of jealousy or judging another. (4) Never think a man is an enemy to the work because he reproves irregularities. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury BRISTOL, September 15, 1790. DEAR SIR, -- Your letter gave me great satisfaction. I wanted to hear where and how you were; and am glad to find you are better in bodily health, and not weary and faint in your mind. [See letters of Nov. 7, 1788, and Dec. 7, 1790, to him.] My body seems nearly to have done its work and to be almost worn out. Last month my strength was nearly gone, and I could have sat almost still from morning to night. [The Diary shows that he was far from idle, despite his weakness. See Journal, viii. 83-90 (Diary for Aug.), 94.] But, blessed be God, I crept about a little and made shift to preach once a day. On Monday I ventured a little further; and after I had preached three times (once in the open air) I found my strength so restored that I could have preached again without inconvenience. I am glad Brother D----- has more light with regard to full sanctification. [Was this William Dieuside, in Guernsey] This doctrine is the grand depositum which God has lodged with the people called Methodists; and for the sake of propagating this chiefly He appeared to have raised us up. I congratulate you upon sitting loose to all below, steadfast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. Moderate riding on horseback, chiefly in the South of England, would improve your health. If you choose to accompany me in any of my little journeys on this side Christmas, whenever you was tired you might go into my carriage. I am not so ready a writer as I was once; but I bless God I can scrawl a little--enough to assure you that I am, dear sir; Your affectionate friend and brother. To his Niece Sarah Wesley BRISSTOL, September 27, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY, -- Will it not be best for you to spend a little time at Margate [She went there. See next letter.] as soon as possible I hope to be in town on Saturday, October 3. And before the end of October you should be at the City Road, if not [already gone] to Twickenham. I believe sea-bathing will brace your nerves; but I pray [you not to drink] sea-water. [See letter of Sept. 8, 1788.] If you look into the Primitive Physick, you will see what] is the diet-drink [In the Primitive Physick under the head of ’Scorbutick Sores’ is given a drink to be taken ’fasting and at four in the afternoon.’ This is probably the ’diet-drink’ to which he refers. It is called ’a diet-drink’ in the later editions. See W.H.S. iv. 72.] therein prescribed for scorbutic sores; though your disorder is not come so far, I expect it would thoroughly purify your blood in a month’s time. I shall be right glad to see Mr. Galloway. [For Joseph Galloway, see letter of Aug. 18.] A few such acquaintance as him and Miss Galloway I wish you to have. I wish you was likewise acquainted with that lovely woman Mrs. Wolff [Mrs. Wolff, of Balham. From their house Wesley went home to City Road to die.]; ’the perfect pattern of true womanhood.’ Peace be with all your spirits ! -- My dear Sally, adieu! To Miss Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone, London. To his Niece Sarah Wesley LONDON, October 5, 1790. DEAR SALLY, -- I am glad you are situated so comfortably. Mrs. Whitcomb does really fear God, and I hope before you leave her house will know what it is to love Him. Providence has not sent you to spend a little time in Margate merely on your own account. [See previous letter.] Before you leave it she with several others shall have reason to praise God that you came. See that you lose no time. A word spoken in season, how good is it! Warn every one and exhort every one, if by any means you may save some. ’In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand; for thou knowest not which shall prosper.’ Say not, ’I can do nothing, I am slow of speech.’ True; but who made the tongue You have seen Sister Boon, a loving, simple-hearted woman. [Wife of Charles Boon, now at Canterbury. She was probably living at Chatham. See letter of Aug. 15.] Be a follower of her, as she is of Christ. Why should you not meet in her class I think you will not be ashamed. Is it not a good opportunity of coming a little nearer to them that love you well Let me have the comfort of one relation at least that will be an assistant to me in the blessed work of God. I must visit other places before I come into Kent, as well as visit the classes in London; so that I cannot be at Margate till the latter end of next month. If you stay there till then, you will see me, otherwise probably in London. Everywhere you will be welcome to, my dear Sally, Your affectionate Uncle. To Joseph Sutcliffe COLCHESTER, October 12, 1790. DEAR JOSEPH, -- I have heavy news to tell you, perhaps [to] try all the resignation which you have. After long weighing the matter in my mind, I cannot think of a preacher more proper to save Mr. Brackenbury’s life [See letter of Sept. 15.] and prevent his preaching himself to death (which he has almost done already) than Joseph Sutcliffe. I must [ask] you to go as soon as possible by Southampton to the Isle of Jersey. [Evidently to take the place of John Bredin. See letter of Jan. 3, 1791.] You will find a most hearty welcome both from him and from all the people. Understand it will be a cross; but I believe it will be a blessed one. I have wrote this morning for another to come and supply your place in Oxfordshire. -- I am, dear Joseph, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Taylor NORWICH, October 14, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- It is a pity that good and useful man should be torn away from the people. But we know no way to help it. So ’what can’t be cured must be endured.’ According to your account, Brother Shaw [Thomas Shaw, his colleague in Hull, was ’remarkable for dis- interestedness and zeal’; he died in 1801.] and his wife have seventeen pounds a year. My judgment is, and yours was, that . . . out of the common stock. But I think one that has as much or more already cannot honestly demand or receive anything out of it. Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Jasper Robinson NORWICH, October 17, 1790. DEAR JASPER, -- Surely never was there more need than there is at present, that you should all continue instant in prayer. If God is for us, who can be against us But I am afraid lest God should be angry with us. It should be with us a time of much self-examination. Every member of our Society should weigh himself in the balances of the Sanctuary, and try whether his walk is acceptable before God. All the world can do us no hurt unless God has a controversy with us. I know nothing of Bro. Ramshaw’s changing with Bro. Evans unless they and you desire it. -- I am, dear Jasper, Your affectionate friend and brother, To George Snowden NORWICH, October 17, 1790. DEAR GEORGE, -- I have sent John Bredin word that he is to return to Ireland and be a superannuated preacher. He is not able to act as a traveling preacher. His shattered constitution will not admit of it. [See letter of June 1, 1789.] I never thought of appointing him for the Bath Circuit. It was he himself that desired it. Now, George, be zealous! Warn every one and exhort every one, that by all means you may save some. Everywhere restore either preaching or prayer-meeting in the morning. The more we deny ourselves the more we grow in grace. Let Sister Snowden also stir up the gift of God that is in her; no preacher’s wife should be useless. -- I am, dear George, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. George Snowden, At the Preaching-house, In Bath. To Sarah Rutter NORWICH, October 18, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You gave me a very agreeable account of the state of our friends at St. Neots. I did not doubt, but if you yourself stirred up the gift of God which was in you, God would give a blessing thereto, and you soon would see the fruit of your labor. You have good encouragement to proceed. Still thus make use of the faith and talents which God hath given you, and He will give you more faith and more fruit; for there is no end of His mercies. I want to spend a little time with you at St. Neots. When I am able to fix the day, Mr. Bradford will send you a line beforehand. Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Mr. York LONDON, October 22, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I think you know I would refuse you nothing which I could allow with a clear conscience. But I cannot, I dare not consent to the violation of that rule which was fixed in the late Conference: ’No preacher is to preach three times in a day to the same congregation.’ It is neither good for his body nor soul. -- I am, my dear brother, Your affectionate brother. To Mr. York, In Stourport, Near Kidderminster. To James Macdonald LONDON, October 23, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have great reason to praise God for the late glorious work at and near Newry. And I make no doubt but it will continue, yea and increase, if the subjects of it continue to walk humbly and closely with God. Exhort all our brethren steadily to wait upon God in the appointed means of prayer and fasting. The latter of which has been almost. universally neglected by the Methodists both in England and Ireland. But it is a true remark of Kempis, ’The more thou deniest thyself, the more thou wilt grow in grace.’ -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Thomas Roberts LONDON, October 23, 1790. DEAR TOMMY, -- ’Tis well if you do not bring upon yourself more trouble than you are aware of by going out of the circuit before all things are thoroughly settled therein. However let it be so, if you can provide tolerably well for it in your absence. You have great [need] to make haste back; for a circuit does ill without its assistant. [Wesley had sent him to Carmarthen, though he was stationed at Bristol. See letters of Aug. 13, 1790, and Feb. 8, 1791.] -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Roberts, At the Preaching-house belonging To the Rev. Mr. Wesley in Carmarthen. To his Niece Sarah Wesley HINXWORTH, October 27, 1790. MY DEAR SALLY, -- I am glad you have found benefit at Margate; and am persuaded the sea and the journey together will help you, not only as to your particular complaint but as to your health in general. On Saturday I am to return to London, and to remain a fortnight before I begin my next journey. So you should contrive to be with us when you can. You know you are always welcome. I [stay] here to write two or three lines before I set out for Bedford, [He left Hinxworth at twelve that morning for Bedford.] lest you should fear your letter had miscarried. -- Dear Sally, adieu! To Adam Clarke BEDFORD, October 28, 1790. DEAR ADAM, -- I am glad my letter had so good an effect. I dearly love our precious Society in Dublin and cannot but be highly sensible of anything that gives them disturbance. I am glad our leaders have adopted that excellent method of regularly changing the classes. Wherever this has been done, it has been a means of quickening both the leaders and the people. I wish this custom could be effectually introduced. You did well to prevent all irregular and turbulent prayer-meetings, [See letter of Sept. 9] and at all hazards to keep the meetings of the Society private. Poor Mr. Smyth is now used just as he used me. He must either bend or break. Although you cannot solicit any of Bethesda to join with us, yet neither can you refuse them when they offer themselves. You do well to show all possible courtesy to Mr. Wm. Smyth and his family [See letter of June 16, 1788.] as long as the Society in Dublin numbers upwards of a thousand you will have no reason to complain. Do not make too free with opium. I believe the remedy in the Primitive Physick (a dram of salts of tartar and a dram of cochineal in a large quantity of toast and water) might warm your bowels. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Adam Clarke, At the New Room, In Dublin. To Samuel Bardsley NEAR LONDON, October 29, 1790. DEAR SAMMY, -- The person that was appointed to come down to Bideford has been prevented from coming by want of health. And I believe it was well: it has confirmed me in a resolution which I had formed before -- not to send more preachers into any circuit than that circuit can provide for. We are almost ruined by not observing this rule. I will observe it better for the time to come. -- I am, dear Sammy, Your affectionate brother. To George Holder LONDON, October 30, 1790. DEAR GEORGE, -- The Assistant in every circuit (not the leaders) is to determine how each Preacher is to travel. If Jonathan Hern [His colleague in the Dales Circuit. See letter of Nov. 8.] will not or cannot take his turn with his fellow laborers, I must send another that will. I do not like dividing circuits. Could not three or more of the northern places be added to the Sunderland or Newcastle circuits, in order to lessen yours and bring it into a six weeks’ circuit Pray send me the manner of your traveling through your circuit. I think I shall order it better. -- I am, with love to Sister Holder, dear George, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Samuel Wood [October, 1790.] DEAR BROTHER, -- I have delivered my opinion upon this subject in one of the sermons in the Arminian Magazine, and I again say that though a parent has not a positive authority yet he has a negative i.e., though a child is not obliged to marry whom its parent pleases, yet it ought not to marry whom he forbids, especially a daughter; and when a marriage has been contrary to a religious and prudent parent’s opinion and counsel, I have rarely known it to be a happy one. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Ann Bolton HIGH WYCOMBE, November 4, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- The more I consider your case, the more I am convinced that you are in the school of God and that the Lord loveth whom He chasteneth. From the time you omitted meeting your class or band you grieved the Holy Spirit of God, and He gave a commission to Satan to buffet you I nor will that commission ever be revoked till you begin to meet again. Why, were you not a mother in Israel a repairer of the waste places a guide to the blind a healer of the sick a lifter up of the hands which hung down Wherever you came, God was with you and shone upon your path. Many daughters had done virtuously; but thou excelledst them all. Woman, remember the faith! In the name of God, set out again and do the first works! I exhort you for my sake (who tenderly love you), for God’s sake, for the sake of your own soul, begin again without delay. The day after you receive this go and meet a class or a band. Sick or well, go! If you cannot speak a word, go; and God will go with you. You sink under the sin of omission! My friend, my sister, go! Go, whether you can or not. Break through! Take up your cross. I say again, do the first works; and God will restore your first love! and you will be a comfort, not a grief, to Yours most affectionately. To John Valton LONDON, November 6, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- When you went into the West I was fully persuaded our Lord would go with you and prosper your labor. And I make no doubt He will fulfill in you all the good pleasure of His goodness and all the work of God with power. You do not know the Cornish yet. Many of them have little sense and a great inclination to criticize. Rob. Empringham is a sound though not a bright preacher. Brother Leggat’s far from a contemptible one. If they use the preachers I send thus, they shall. If Jno. Bredin goes for some months, who will keep him I will have no demand made on the Conference. -- I am, with kind love to Sister Valton, Ever yours. To Mr. Valton, At the New Room, Bristol. To George Holder LONDON, November 8, 1790. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- If you and your wife strengthen each other’s hands in God, then you will surely receive a blessing from Him. But [it] is not abundance of money or any creature that can [make] us happy without Him. ’Delight ye in the Lord and He will give you your heart’s desire.’ It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading. A reading people will always be a knowing people. A people who talk much will know little. Press this upon them with your might; and you will soon see the fruit of your labors. I wish [every] circuit in England had three preachers, neither more nor less. This is worth thinking of. The Dales Circuit is too large. Five or six might be taken out of it, and given to Sunderland, Newcastle, and Alnwick. [The preachers in the Dales for 1790-1 were George Holder, Jonathan Hern, John Wittam; William Blaghorne, supernumerary. See letter of Oct. 30.] Peace be with your spirit! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mrs. Cock LONDON, November 9, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- How unsearchable are the counsels of God! How little are we able to account for His ways! When I saw the wonderful manner wherein He had dealt with you from your early years, when I talked with you in Jersey, and when I conversed more largely with you in Guernsey, I thought He was preparing you for a large sphere of action. Surely you was not then designed to be shut up in a little cottage and fully taken up with domestic cares! I was in hopes of seeing all the graces which He had given you employed in far other things. However, although I cannot deny that you are now acting in a lower sphere than was originally designed you, yet I trust you still enjoy communion with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. I hope you are still sensible wherever you go of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity, and that you continually enjoy that loving-kindness which is better than life itself. I wish you would inform me of your present outward and inward state. Have you all things that are needful for the body Do your brethren and sisters treat you with tender affection or with coldness Are the preachers free and loving to you Is your soul as much alive as ever Are the consolations of the Holy One small with you, or are they as frequent and as plentiful as ever Write as particularly as you can to Yours most affectionately. To the Custom House CITY ROAD, November 14, 1790. GENTLEMEN, -- Two or three days ago Mr. Ireland sent me as a present two dozen of French claret, which I am ordered to drink during my present weakness. At the White Swan it was seized. Beg it may be restored to Your obedient servant. Whatever duty comes due I will see duly paid. To Richard Whatcoat [November, 1790.] The work (of the Lord) in Virginia far exceeds anything I have heard or read of since the primitive times! There seems to be a general expectation of great things in the Church of God throughout our Connection in these kingdoms. You, my brother, I trust, are all alive to bring sinners to Jesus Christ, and to spend and be spent in the glorious cause of the Anointed. O ’tis worth living for! Give my love to the preachers in your district. Your brother in Christ. To Adam Clarke LONDON, November 26, 1790. DEAR ADAM, -- The account you send me of the continuance of the great work of God in Jersey gives me great satisfaction. To retain the grace of God is much more than to gain it: hardly one in three does this. And this should be strongly and explicitly urged on all who have tasted of perfect love. If we can prove that any of our Local Preachers or Leaders, either directly or indirectly, speak against it, let him be a Local Preacher or Leader no longer. I doubt whether he shall continue in the Society. Because he that can speak thus in our congregations cannot be an honest man. I wish Sister Clarke to do what she can, but no more than she can. Betsy Ritchie, Miss Johnson, and M. Clarke are women after my own heart. Last week I had an excellent letter from Mrs. Pawson (a glorious witness of full salvation), showing how impossible it is to retain pure love without growing therein. Wishing you every blessing to you and all the family.--I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Carr Brackenbury LONDON, December 7, 1790. DEAR SIR,--It gave me pleasure to see your letter dated Portsmouth, and to hear that your health is better. I hope you will be able to spend a little time with us here. And if you choose to lodge in my house, I have a room at your service; and we have a family which I can recommend to all England as adorning the doctrine of God our Savior. -- I am, dear sir, Your very affectionate friend and brother. To Sarah Mallet NEAR LONDON, December 13, 1790. DEAR SALLY,--I am glad you put me in mind of the books. Brother George Whitfield had quite forgotten them. I will refresh his memory. Tell me of anything you want, and I love you too well to let you want long. Some time ago it seems you had suffered that word to slip out of your mind, ’My child, if thou wilt serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for temptation.’ Particularly if thou wilt exhort others to serve Him then expect a flood of temptation. That which you mention is common to man; but when Satan attacks us so violently, he provokes to jealousy One that is stronger than he. I am glad that you have been at and about Diss, and there is a good understanding between you and your sister. [Elizabeth Reeve. See letter of July 31.] Let that be the only contention between you, which shall be most zealous and most humble. I was well pleased when together to find that you could speak to me without reserve, as I trust you will always do. For has not God given me to you for a tender guard of your youth And I believe you will find few that will watch over you more tenderly than, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Ann Bolton LONDON, December 15, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- There can be no possible reason to doubt concerning the happiness of that child. He did fear God, and according to his circumstances work righteousness. This is the essence of religion, according to St. Peter. His soul, therefore, was ’darkly safe with God,’ although he was only under the Jewish dispensation. When the Son of Man shall come in His glory and assign every man his own reward, that reward will undoubtedly be proportioned (1) to our inward holiness, our likeness to God; (2) to our works; and (3) to our sufferings. Therefore whatever you suffer in time you will be an unspeakable gainer in eternity. Many of your sufferings, perhaps the greatest part, are now past. But your joy is to come! Look up, my dear friend, look up! and see your crown before you! A little longer, and you shall drink of the rivers of pleasure that flow at God’s right hand for evermore. Adieu! To Mrs. Charles Wesley WEST STREET, December 20, 1790. MY DEAR SISTER, -- As I do not have much money before-hand, I have not at present an hundred pounds in possession. [See letter of Dec. 21, 1788.] But I have desired Mr. Whitfield to gather up so much as soon as possible. I hope he will be able to do it in a week or two; and then you will be welcome to that or any other help that is in the power of Your affectionate brother. To Mrs. Wesley, In Chesterfield Street, Marybone. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] This letter has special interest as the last Wesley wrote from his native place. He attended church the next day, where there were live times as many present and ten times as many at the Lord’s table as usual; and after the afternoon service he preached in the marketplace ’to such a congregation as was never seen at Epworth before.’ See Journal, viii. 78-9. [2] Wesley’s last Conference began in Bristol on the day this letter was written. George Rutter had died of consumption on April 20 in his twenty-fourth year. For his sister’s account of him, see Arminian Magazine, 1792, pp. 238-40. [3] Clarke told Brackenbury on May 22, ’My health is much worse. I am obliged to make use of the doctor, which is the last shift.’ Several of the preachers advised his appointment to Dublin; but Wesley hesitated on account of Clarke’s health. He was at last persuaded to consent. See Life by his Son, i. 277; Dunn’s Clarke, p. 77. [4] Moore says Wesley ’stated the case to a Member of Parliament, a real friend to religious liberty.’ It was probably to William Wilberforce, who was not only a friend of liberty but intimate with Pitt. Dr. Whitehead had some doubt whether ’Somersetshire’ was not inserted in the last paragraph for ’Lincolnshire,’ and his suggestion is followed when the letter appears in Wesley’s Works. But Henry Moore writes: ’It was in Somersetshire Mr. Andrew Inglis was fined thus during the Bristol Conference in the year 1790. The lawyer at the head of this persecution boasted that he would drive Methodism out of Somersetshire. "Yes," said Mr. Wesley, "when he drives God out of it." There were evidently two cases, one of which was in Lincolnshire. The other case was that of one of the preachers, Andrew Inglis, the Assistant at Sheffield, who preached abroad on his way to the Conference in Bristol, and the clerical Magistrate fined him 20, as the Act directs. It was in vain that he pleaded being a native of Scoff and, a Presbyterian, and a licensed preacher. The Magistrate, knowing what was being done in Lincolnshire, felt disposed, how contrary soever it might be to law, to play the same game. Inglis’s case before Conference was worse, because he had paid the fine out of the public collections! The preachers regarded his timidity with great displeasure; as having dishonored himself, and all our former sufferers. Dr. Coke in particular was much moved and said, ’I envy the situation in which you then stood, being ready to go to prison for the Lord’s work.’ See Moore’s Wesley, ii. 383n; Sutcliffe’s manuscript History of Methodism, p. 1194; and letter of June 26. [5] Thomas Roberts, a young preacher, had just been appointed to Bristol. John M’Kersey at Pembroke had neglected his duty. He is second preacher at Hexham in 1791. Roberts and Henry Moore met Wesley at Newport on August 21. See Journal, viii. 88d; and letters of February 12, 1789, and October 23, 1790, to him. [6] Wesley says in his Journal for November 13, 1779: ’I had the pleasure of an hour’s conversation with Mr. G., one of the members of the first Congress in America. He unfolded a strange tale indeed! How has poor King George been betrayed on every side!’ Galloway published letters criticizing the conduct of the war by General Howe. Wesley told a friend in 1781 that he saw not the least trace of the scurrility with which he had been charged by Sir William Howe ’in anything Mr. G. has published. He is above it. He is no "venal instrument of calumny"; he abhors calumny as he does rebellion.’ Wesley met him at Charles Wesley’s house on January 3, 1783, and dined with him on February 24, 1789. He wished Miss Wesley to know Mr. and Miss Galloway; and on February 21, 1791, took her and Miss Ritchie to dine with Galloway at Twickenham. It was ’the first and last visit to that pleasing family and lovely place.’ See Journal, vi. 261-2, 385d, vii. 471d, viii. 134; Dic. of Nat. Biog.; W.H.S. iv. 114-15, ix. 5-9; and letters of June 8, 1780, and September 17, 1790. [7] Wesley had spent some time in training his preachers, and had been well rewarded for his labor. Creighton evidently wished that something more should be done. [8] Burgess had been admitted on trial and appointed to Liverpool. He had been a soldier in Ireland, became an earnest Methodist, and entertained Wesley several times. His son was a very useful Methodist preacher. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 457. [9] Clarke wrote from Dublin on September 5, reporting their safe arrival. ’Our journey by land was long and fatiguing, particularly to my dear wife and children. Blessed be God, they are now in a measure recovered.’ Thomas Rutherford had been ill, and things had got somewhat irregular. Prayer-meetings were continued at unreasonable length, ’hardly ever breaking up before ten or eleven o’clock, and frequently continued to twelve and one; and in these meetings some have taken on them to give exhortations of half an hour and sometimes forty-five minutes in length.’ He finds some have a very jealous spirit, and wishes to move with caution and under Wesley’s directions. See Dunn’s Clarke, pp. 77-9; and letter of October 28. [10] This letter is addressed to ’Mrs. Sutcliffe, for Rev. Jos. Sutcliffe, Oxon’; and endorsed, ’Venerable John Wesley’s, four months before his death.’ Joseph Sutcliffe, M.A., was born at Baildon in Yorkshire, and became an itinerant when twenty-four. He was an attractive preacher, and was ’distinguished by a heavenly mind,’ and ’favored with real genius.’ He published A Commentary on the Old and New Testament (two volumes, 1834) and many other works. He died May 14, 1856, aged ninety-four. [11] Jasper Robinson was Assistant at Grimshy, with James Evans as his colleague. John Ramshaw was at Epworth. [12] Wesley visited St. Neots on October 28, preached, and met the Society. ’S[-----]’ may mean a conversation with Miss Rutter. See Journal, viii. 110d; and letters of July 27, 1790, and February 17, 1791. [13] Wesley did not dream of the service which James Macdonald (then his Assistant at Newry) and his descendants were to render to Methodism and to the wider world of art, literature, and politics. Macdonald became one of Wesley’s preachers in 1784, served for six years as Assistant Editor of the Methodist Magazine, and lived to see a son in the ministry who became the father of Lady Burne-Jones, Lady Poynter, Mrs. Kipling, Mrs. Baldwin, and the Rev. F. W. Macdonald. His grandsons Rudyard Kipling and Stanley Baldwin (twice Prime Minister) carry on a unique succession. James Macdonald’s Letters, edited by his grandson, still bear witness to his ability and his lofty character. ’I would not forget,’ he wrote, ’that moral worth alone is current coin in eternity.’ See letter of January 18, 1791, to him. [14] Thomas Wride wrote from Barnard Castle on August 10 that he had heard he was appointed to Bideford, near four hundred miles away. Neither he nor his wife was fit for so long a journey, and he requested that the appointment might be changed. Having received no instructions on August 26, he asked for directions to be sent to him to Charles Harrison at Welburn, near Castle Howard, Yorks. [15] Wood was admitted on trial as a preacher in 1789 and appointed to Coleraine. His theological attainments, sound judgment, and eminent ability in maturer years, amply justified his youthful promise. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 446; and Journal, vii. 73, for Wesley’s advice to him about preaching in 1785 when he was a youth of seventeen. [16] Valton had been on a preaching-tour in Cornwall during August, September, and October. ’The visit was very refreshing both to them and to him. The ground was new, and it seemed as if he could hardly leave it.’ Robert Empringham and Thomas Leggat (who began to travel in 1788) were in the St. Ives Circuit. Leggat went to Helston with Valton, who says high words passed between two of the principal persons at St. Ives, which made it a very uncomfortable time. See Wesley’s Veterans, vi. 110-11; W.H.S. viii. 191-2. [17] James Ireland, a wealthy merchant, lived at Brislington, near Bristol, where in 1789 Wesley says, ’I could willingly spend some time here; but I have none to spare’; and where he paid a visit on August 27, 1790. He was Fletcher’s intimate friend, of whom he wrote, ’Such a soul I never knew; such a great man, in every sense of the word.’ See Journal, viii. II, 89. This letter seems to have been returned to the dying man; and across it a Government official curtly wrote, ’No. M.W.’ For the treatment of Fletcher, see letter of December 31, 1785. [18] Methodism had not only unfurled its banner in Virginia, but planted it in almost every country east of the Alleghanies, and was bearing it successfully to the heights of the western mountains. See Stevens’s American Methodism, chap. xiv.; Phcebus’s Whatcoat, p. 76; and letter of July 17, 1788. [19] Brackenbury’s health was still very feeble, and he had fixed his residence at Portsmouth. He was staying in Wesley’s house next year at the time of the patriarch’s death. See letter of September 15. [20] ’There is another letter, from Mr. Wesley to this young woman, a few days only before his death; but as it is written by another hand I have not published it.’ Alas I See Taft’s Holy Women, p. 90. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 97: 95. 1791 ======================================================================== 1791 To Richard Rodda LONDON [January]. 1791. DEAR RICHARD, -- It was madness to make that matter up. I would rather have thrown it into Chancery. [See letter of Nov. 20, 1789, to him.] Charles Bond is determined, it is plain, to sell the Methodists for a wife. I do not see how you can help it. Sammy and you have done your pain. His blood is not upon your head. [Samuel Bradburn was Rodda’s colleague. Bond, fourth preacher in the Manchester Circuit, was stationed at Coventry in 1791, at Norwich in 1791, and in 1793 ’desisted from traveling.’ See letter of July 7, 1786.] Perhaps greater consequences than yet appear may follow from the dissentions at Mr. Bayley’s chapel. [Dr. Cornelius Bayley. See letter of Oct. 12, 1778.] However, it is your duty to go straight forward, breathing nothing but peace and love. I do not depend upon taking any more journeys. But if my life is prolonged I shall probably be at Manchester about the usual time. Peace be with you all! -- I am, dear brother, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Rodda, At the Preaching-house, In Manchester. To John Fry CITY ROAD, January 1, 1791. MY FRIEND, -- The sum of what I said to you and to Dr. Hamilton was this: ’I will revise that part of the Ecclesiastical History; and if I am convinced any of it is wrong, I will openly retract it.’ I have revised it again and again, but I am not convinced that any part of it is wrong; on the contrary, I am fully persuaded it is all the naked truth. What the Quakers (so called) are or do now is nothing to the purpose, I am thoroughly persuaded they were exactly such as they are described in this History. Your present summary exactly answers the account Barclay’s Apology given in the 135th page of the History. O be content! I love you well; do not constrain me to speak. I do not want to say anything of George Fox; but I hope he was stark mad when he wrote that medley of nonsense, blasphemy, and scurrility styled his ’Great Mystery.’ But I love and esteem you and many of the present Quakers; and am Your real friend. To Adam Clarke LONDON, January 3, 1791. DEAR ADAM, -- I suppose the account sent to Mr. Mather concerning your running so much in debt was not sent out of love. I am glad you have cleared up the matter. So let it die and be forgot. But you startle me when you talk of grieving so much for the death of an infant. [His eldest girl died on Dec. 16, and he was suffering from rheumatic affection in the head. See letter of Jan. 18 to Mrs. Clarke.] This was certainly a proof of inordinate affection; and if you love them thus all your children will die. How did Mr. De Renty behave when he supposed his wife to be dying This is a pattern for a Christian. Be firm and duly attend St. Patrick’s once a month. But you forgot to send me your thoughts on Magnetism. [See letters of April 14, 1790, and Feb. 9, 1791.] John Bredin is a weak brother. Let him not complain. He behaved ill both at Jersey and Guernsey. Pray let him behave well now; the past will be forgotten. -- I am, dear Adam, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Clarke, At the New Room, Dublin. PS. by James Rogers I hope you received my second letter about poor Simmonds, or rather that of the stewards from Plymouth Dock, as I was sorry their former letter must have reached you too long before I had it in my power to contradict it. It is wonderful how this report of your starving for want, &c., &c., in Dublin had arisen in the manner it seems to have been told our friend Mather. But I told Mr. Wesley at the time I was confident it was a mistake. It is well if some who thought, nay, often said: ’If such and such left us, the work of God as to temporals in Dublin must decline.’ I say it is well if these are not the inventors of it. But, blessed be God, He will never be at loss for means to carry on His own work. My wife joins in much love to you and yours, and all friends.--I am yours, etc., etc. JAMES ROGERS. To Thomas Taylor LONDON, January 6, 1791. DEAR TOMMY, -- With regard to the powerful workings of the Spirit, I think those words of our Lord are chiefly to be understood: ’The wind bloweth where it listeth; Thou hearest the sound thereof’ (thou art sure of the fact), ’but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth.’ Make your Yearly Subscription when you see best, only take care it does not interfere with any other subscription. The tract of Archbishop King has been particularly admired by many persons of excellent sense. I do not admire it so much as they do; but I like it well. Yet I have corrected far better tract on the subject, probably the last I shall have to publish. Indeed, I hope I shall not live to be useless. I wish you and yours many happy years; and am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Ann Bolton LONDON, January 12, 1791. MY DEAR NANCY, -- I thank you for your welcome present, and rejoice to hear that your health is better. What is it which is good for us that our Lord will not give if we can but trust in Him These last four days I have had better health than I had for several months before. Only my sight continues much as it was. But good is the work of the Lord! -- I am, my dear Nancy, Affectionately yours. To Edward Lewly LONDON, January 12, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHR, -- I do not believe any single person in your Select Society scruples saying, Every moment, Lord, I need The merit of thy death. This is clearly determined in the Thoughts upon Christian Perfection. But who expects common people to speak accurately And how easy is it to entangle them in their talk! I am afraid some have done this already. A man that is not a thorough friend to Christian Perfection will easily puzzle others, and thereby weaken if not destroy any Select Society. I doubt this has been the case with you. That Society was in a lively state and well united together when I was last at Birmingham. My health has been better for a few days than it has been for several months. Peace be with all your spirits! I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Edward Lewly, Birmingham. To Henry Anderson NEAR LONDON, January 13, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- The speaking to a congregation in the name of Christ is a thing of no small importance. You are therefore in the right, before you undertake it, to consider the matter well. Indeed, it may not be improper to speak a little now when opportunity offers. But I do not advise you to give yourself up to the work till you are proposed and approved at the next Conference.--I am Your friend and brother. To Mr. Henry Anderson, At Kilham, Near Malton, Yorkshire. To Mrs. Adam Clarke LONDON, January 18, 1791. MY DEAR SISTER, -- Before this time I hope God has heard the prayers and given Brother Clarke a little more ease. I should suspect a dropsy in the brain, which, though formerly judged incurable, has lately been cured. Both Brother Clarke and you have large proofs that whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth. [See letters of Jan. 3 and Feb. 9.] He knoweth the way whence you go; when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold. I wonder at the folly of Mr. V. Surely he is a very weak man. But I shall judge better when I see his performances. Peace be multiplied again! -- I am, my dear sister, Ever yours. To James Macdonald LONDON, January 18, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am glad to hear that the work of God is so prosperous at Newry. Continue to seek Him by fasting, and you shall see still greater things than these. Take care to keep as exact an account as you can of everything that occurs. The verses are worthy to be inserted in the Arminian Magazine. I should be glad to be acquainted with the author of them; but I hardly think either she or you will see me any more in this world. [See letter of Oct. 23, 1790.] Your affectionate friend and brother. To Robert Dull LONDON, January 19, 1791. DEAR ROBERT, -- Certainly Calvinism is the direct antidote to Methodism -- that is, heart religion, and I think it would not be amiss if you presented, where you see proper, the Dialogue between a Predestinarian and his Friend. I am glad you have wrote to Joseph Cole. His visit to Melrose will not be in vain. And it is a good omen that God has provided you with an able curate. Although my health is better now for several days than it has been for several months, yet I much doubt whether I shall attempt to cross the sea any more; my last voyage discomposed me so much. But if I cannot reach Ireland, I am in hope my strength will suffice for visiting Scotland. Probably we shall have a little conference at Edinburgh in spring. -- I am, with love to Sister Dall, dear Robert, Your affectionate friend and brother. To William Torrie LONDON, January 19, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER TORRIE, -- I wish John Philips well, and do not wish to hinder his doing all the good he can. Therefore I commend you for dealing so tenderly with him, and advise you to do so still, even if he should speak unkindly either to you or of you. But I will not blame you either for preaching in the morning or for meeting a class. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Greathead LONDON, January 22, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I am half blind and half lame; but by the help of God I creep on still. You have great reason to thank Him for the blessings He hath given you from your youth up until now. Undoubtedly many of these were sent, as you observe, in answer to the prayers of your good mother. Now, do all the good you can to your poor neighbors. A word spoken in season, how good is it. Wishing you and yours all happiness, I am Your affectionate brother. To John Booth LONDON, January 29, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You give me a very agreeable account of the progress of the work of God in your circuit. As to the poor self-conceited enthusiasts in Keighley, it seems best that you should never name them in public, but when occasion offers strike at the root of their errors by clearly proving the truth which they deny; and whenever you meet with any of them in private, then speak and spare not. Whenever you have opportunity of speaking to believers, urge them to go on to perfection. Spare no pains; and God, our own God, shall give you His blessing! -- I am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. John Booth, At the Preaching-house, In Keighley, Yorkskire. To Thomas Broadbent LONDON, January 29, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- You have great reason to praise God that He gives a blessing to your labors. So He will more and more if you do not entangle yourself with the affairs of this life. If you seek your happiness in God alone, you will never be disappointed: if in anything else, you surely will; for all creatures are broken cisterns. Let your eye be single. Seek one thing--to save your own soul and those that hear you. -- I am, dear Tommy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Alice Cambridge LONDON, January 31, 1791, MY DEAR SISTER, -- I received your letter an hour ago. I thank you for writing so largely and so freely; do so always to me as your friend, as one that loves you well. Mr. Barber has the glory of God at heart; and so have his fellow laborers. [Thomas Barber had evidently come from Carlow to Bandon.] Give them all honor, and obey them in all things as far as conscience permits. But it will not permit you to be silent when God commands you to speak: yet I would have you give as little offense as possible; and therefore I would advise you not to speak at any place where a preacher is speaking at the same time, lest you should draw away his hearers. Also avoid the first appearance of pride or magnifying yourself. If you want books or anything, let me know; I have your happiness much at heart. During the little time I have to stay on earth pray for Your affectionate brother. To Ezekiel Cooper, of Philadelphia NEAR LONDON, February 1, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- Those that desire to write or say anything to me have no time to lose; for time has shaken me by the hand and death is not far behind. But I have reason to be thankful for the time that is past: I felt few of the infirmities of old age for fourscore and six years. It was not till a year and a half ago that my strength and my sight failed. And still I am enabled to scrawl a little, and to creep, though I cannot run. Probably I should not be able to do so much did not many of you assist me by your prayers. I have given a distinct account of the work of God which has been wrought in Britain and Ireland for more than half a century. We want some of you to give us a connected relation of what our Lord has been doing in America from the time that Richard Boardman accepted the invitation and left his country to serve you. See that you never give place to one thought of separating from your brethren in Europe. Lose no opportunity of declaring to all men that the Methodists are one people in all the world; and that it is their full determination so to continue, Though mountains rise, and oceans roll, To sever us in vain. To the care of our common Lord I commit you; and am Your affectionate friend and brother. To Henry Moore LONDON, February 6, 1791. MY DEAR HENRY, -- So good Mr. Easterbrook has got the start of us. Let us follow him as he followed Christ. Let the service begin at [ten or eleven] if the leaders think it best. I hope to be in Bath the first Monday in March (to-morrow three weeks); and am, with love to my dear Nancy, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Mr. Henry Moore, At the New Room, Bristol. To Mr. York LONDON, February 6, 1791. DEAR SIR,--On Wednesday, March the 17th, I purpose, if God permit, to come from Gloucester to Worcester; and on Thursday, the 18th to Stourport. If our friends at Worcester are displeased, we cannot help it. Wishing you and yours all happiness, I am, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. February 28. This morning I found this in my bureau. To Mr. York, At Stourport. To Thomas Roberts LONDON, February 8, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, [See letter of Oct. 23, 1790.] --Who was it opposed your reducing the preachers in the circuit to two and on what pretense We must needs reduce all our expenses everywhere as far as possible. You must never leave off till you carry this point and constitute bands in each large Society. When the lecture begins at Carmarthen, it will then be time enough to prevent any ill effects of it. I am glad to hear your journey home has not been in vain. My best wishes attend my friends at Traison and Langwair. [Trecwn and Llwynygwair. See Journal, vii. 426-7.] --I am, dear Tommy, Yours, &c. To Adam Clarke LONDON, February 9, 1791. DEAR ADAM, --You have great reason to bless God for giving you strength according to your day. [See letter of Jan. 18.] He has indeed supported you in a wonderful manner under these complicated afflictions. You may well say, ’I will put my trust in the Lord as long as I live.’ I will desire Dr. Whitehead to consider your case and give you his thoughts upon it. I am not afraid of your doing too little, but too much. I am in continual danger of this. Do a little at a time, that you may do more. My love to Sister Cookman and Boyle [See letters of March 28, 1777, and May 2, 1787; and Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, i. 428.]; but it is a doubt with me whether I shall cross the seas any more. What preacher was it who first omitted meeting the Select Society I wonder it did not destroy the work! You have done right in setting up the Strangers’ (Friend) Society. It is an excellent institution. I am quite at a loss concerning Mr. Madan. I know not what to think of him. Send me your best thoughts concerning him. Let not the excluded preachers by any means creep in again. In any wise, write, and send me your thoughts on Animal Magnetism. [See letter of Jan. 3.] I set my face against that device of Satan. Two of our preachers here are in that Satanic delusion; but if they persist to defend it, I must drop them. I know its principles full well. With much love to your wife, I am, my dear Adam, Your affectionate brother. To Thomas Taylor LONDON, February 13, 1791. DEAR TOMMY, -- The doubt is whether the remedy would not propagate the diseases by making many people curious to understand it who never thought of it before. Remember the madman’s words, Kill your enemies Kill a fool’s head of your own. They will die of themselves if you let them alone. I take knowledge that you have been Dissenter. Several clergymen at this day do good both to the cause of God in general and to the Methodist in particular -- and they that hurt us do it not as clergymen but as Calvinist clergymen. I will not blame any of my preachers for mildly warning our people of them. Unstable Methodists will always be subject to the temptation of sermon-hunting. I do not advise our people to go to the Low Church. [The Low Church in Hull.] I shall write no plan till I know how my strength turns out; perhaps I may do it when I come to Bristol. [This letter was dictated. See letter of Feb. 18.] Peace be with you and yours! -- I am, dear Tommy, Yours affectionately. To Sarah Rutter NEAR LONDON, February 17, 1791. MY DEAR SISTER, -- You have abundant reason to praise God, not on your own account only, for enabling you to enter into the rest that remaineth for the people of God, but likewise on the account of your companions on whom He hath poured the dew of His blessing. You have cause particularly to rejoice over the little ones. [See letter of Oct. 18, 1790.] Surely this is a token for good both to this and to the rising generation. I have ordered some Hymns and other little books to be sent down, which you win [use] as you see good. Be zealous! Be active l Time is short l Peace be with all your spirits! -- I am, dear Sally, Yours affectionately. To Francis Wrigley LONDON, February 18, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As yet I cannot at all judge whether I shall be able to take my usual turn or not! I am a little stronger than I was, but not much, and my sight is rather better than worse. Probably in a month you may have a determinate answer from, dear Francis, Your affectionate friend and brother. To Susanna Knapp LONDON, February 19, 1791. MY DEAR SUKY, -- As the state of my health is exceeding wavering and waxes worse, I cannot yet lay down any plans for my future journeys. [See previous letter.] Indeed, I purpose, if God permit, to set out for Bristol on the 28th instant; but how much further I shall be able to go I cannot yet determine. If I am pretty well, I hope to be at Worcester about the 22rid of March. To find you and yours in health of body and mind will be a great pleasure to, my dear Suky, Yours affectionately. To John Ogilvie LONDON, February 21, 1791. MY DEAR BROTHER, -- I have not been well for a few days; but I am now by the blessing of God much recovered. It should be matter of great thankfulness that your wife and you were both enabled to give that lovely child to God. We are well assured that He does all things well--all things for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. It is not improbable that I may look upon you in the spring. [Ogilvie was second preacher at Alnwick.] Peace be with your spirits! -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Walter Churchey LONDON, February 22, 1791. My DEAR BROTHER, -- I have the MSS. I have not seen Mr. Cowper. [See letter of Dec. 6, 1788.] Next week I hope to be at Bristol. -- I am Your affectionate brother. To Mr. Churchey, Near Hay, Brecon. To William Wilberforce BALAM, February 24, 1791. DEAR SIR, -- Unless the divine power has raised you up to be as Athanasius contra mundum, [’Athanasius against the world.’] I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villainy, which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you Are all of them together stronger than God O be not weary of well doing I Go on, in the name of God and in the power of His might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it. Reading this morning a tract wrote by a poor African, I was particularly struck by that circumstance, that a man who has a black skin, being wronged or outraged by a white man, can have no redress; it being a law in all our Colonies that the oath of a black against a white goes for nothing. What villainy is this! That He who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things is the prayer of, dear sir, Your affectionate servant. Editor’s Introductory Notes [1] In A Concise Ecclesiastical History, Vol. IV., chap. iv., is a history of the Quakers which says their first association was ’composed mostly of persons that seemed to be disordered in their brains; and hence they committed many enormities which the modem Quakers neither justify nor approve. For the greatest part of them were riotous and tumultuous in the highest degree.’ Wesley had evidently talked the matter over with his Quaker friend John Fry and Dr. Hamilton. See letter of February 10, 1748. [2] The first part of An Essay on the Liberty of Moral Agents, extracted from a late author, appeared in the Arminian Magazine for January 1791, with a prefatory note by Wesley dated May 3, 1790: ’I do not remember to have ever seen a more strong and beautiful treatise on moral liberty than the following; which I therefore earnestly recommend to the consideration of all those who desire to vindicate the ways of God with man.’ It ran through five monthly numbers. For Dr. King’s book, see letter of December 11, 1730. [3] This is the last letter of a long and tender correspondence. Adam Clarke had one hundred of Wesley’s letters to her. Miss Bolton married Mr. Conibeer in 1792. See Bulmer’s Memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Mortimer (2nd ed.), pp. 341, 358. [4] Anderson had been working for three years in the villages around Pocklington, and felt that he ought to become an itinerant. The preachers in the circuit advised him to write to Wesley. In 1791 ’Henry Anderson of the Pocklington Circuit’ is the last in ’A List of the Preachers that were received on trial at this Conference, but were not immediately wanted.’ In December he was sent to Northampton, and did valuable service. He died at Hull in 1843. See Methodist Magazine, 1847, pp. 521-7. [5] Robert Dull was at Kelso. Joseph Cole was stationed in Edinburgh, where an artist painted him walking with Wesley and Hamilton. His preaching was marked by simplicity, spirituality, energy, and unction; and his recollections of Wesley awoke the deepest feelings of veneration and delight, of gratitude and praise. For the Dialogue, which was printed in 1741, see Works, x. 259-66; Green’s Bibliography, No. 24. [6] Torrie was born near Forres in the North of Scotland. He ran away from home when a boy and enlisted. When serving with his regiment in the Channel Islands he became an adherent of Wesley’s. He was afterwards master gunner at Charlemont Fort, where he started a free school for poor children, which he conducted in his spare time and at his own expense. He declined a commission, as he could not afford it, and at the same time carry on his school, which he continued until compelled by old age to give it up. He died on June 11, 1840, at the age of eighty-three. He had a stroke two and a half years earlier while giving out his text (Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6) in Moy Wesleyan Chapel. [7] Thomas Greathead was a draper at Sheerness, His grandson, of the same name, died at Caversham, Natal. [8] A note on the back of the letter says: ’This was given me by Mr. Booth, preacher, to keep in my museam (sic.) as the last letter but one Mr. Wesley wrote.’ That description is not correct, as the following letters show. [9] Broadbent was at this time Wesley’s Assistant at Bury. In 1792 he was appointed to King’s Lynn. He became a supernumerary at Thetford in 1798, ceased to be a preacher in 1799, and appears to have become a merchant in King’s Lynn. [10] Alice Cambridge joined the Methodists in Bandon soon after the death of her mother in 1780, and was very zealous in inviting friends and neighbors to the services. She had begun to pray and exhort with much success; but many judged her work irregular. She therefore wrote to Wesley for advice. She became a most popular and useful evangelist. See Crookshank’s Methodism in Ireland, ii. 400. [11] This was the last letter from Wesley to the United States. Cooper was appointed Editor and General Book Steward in 1798, so that he was in a position to carry out Wesley’s suggestion. [12] Joseph Easterbrook was vicar of Temple Church, Bristol. A funeral sermon was preached for him by Henry Moore. See Journal, viii. 47; and letter of March 20, 1768. [13] Thomas Jackson wrote in 1831: ’The memorandum at the bottom of this letter in all probability was the last line Mr. Wesley ever wrote. It bears the date of February 28, and he died on the 2nd of March, only two days afterwards. The original letter, as a curiosity, was bequeathed to the late Rev. Samuel Bradbum; and is now in the possession of his daughter, Miss Eliza Weaver Bradburn, by whose permission it was transcribed.’ [14] The signature only of this letter is in Wesley’s handwriting, and that is tremulous. [15] The signature only of this letter is in Wesley’s handwriting. See next letter and that of February 13. [16] Miss Knapp had written to Wesley on February 16, ’We are sorry to find by your last that your strength so visibly fails you; and that we are put off this year, like the last, with one night only.’ She hoped that Wesley might be able to spare a second night to his eager friends. The visit was never paid. Miss Knapp came up to London on her old friend’s death: ’I reached London just time enough for the funeral; and soon after I had breakfasted (for I was there about seven o’clock in the morning) went to the chapel where our dear and honored father lay. We had but a transient view of him, being obliged to pass by so quick by reason of the vast number of people behind and before us; but it was the most affecting sight my eyes ever saw. The number of people that went to see the remains of our much-lamented friend is incredible. I heard there was one day supposed to be ten thousand.’ She attended a love-feast at City Road Chapel, where a letter was read from Dr. Coke, ’which contained a most wonderful account of the success of the gospel in America.’ At a friend’s house she was at tea with Miss Bolton and Miss Ritchie, who was at Camberwell for the benefit of her health, ’much impaired by her close attention on Mr. Wesley while ill.’ Miss Knapp never married. She died on October 4, 1855, and was laid in the room once sacred to Wesley, where hundreds of sorrowing friends from Worcester came to gaze upon one who had won the love and esteem of all. Her portrait is still treasured; with regular features, sparkling eyes, she wears a high Quaker cap, and a white kerchief crossed over her breast. A facsimile of this letter is given in the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine for 1904, p. 594. [17] The signature of this letter is Wesley’s; the rest is in another hand. [18] Wesley’s Diary for February 22 shows that Miss Ritchie read to him before breakfast the life of a negro slave, Gustavus Vassa, to which he had been one of the subscribers. He read it in his chaise on the way to Leatherhead, where he preached his last sermon in the house of Mr. Belson, and apparently on the Thursday morning as they drove to Balham from Mickleham, where he had spent the night at the Vicarage of the Rev. Thomas Roger Filewood, who held the living from 1771-1802. He arrived at 4.30 and took tea and supper there. He had visited him and Mr. Belson on January 26 on his last visit to Dorking. Vassa, born in Africa in 1745, was kidnapped and sold for a slave in Barbados. In 1757 his master sent him to England, and on the voyage the captain named him ’Gustavus Vasa.’ He was baptized in St. Margaret’s, Westminster, in 1759, and had many adventures in our Navy and in the West Indies. The statement in his book (ii. 77, that no black man’s testimony is admitted in the West Indies against any white man whatever made a great impression on Wesley. Professor Coupland says this letter (which is docketed by Wilberforce, ’John Wesley, his last words. Slave trade’) echoed Wilberforce’s own inmost convictions. ’In the same spirit in which the old crusader put off his amour the young crusader girded his on.’ A few days before the Abolition debate in 1791 he writes: ’May I look to Him for wisdom and strength and the power of persuasion. And ascribe to Him all the praise if I succeed; and if I fail, say from the heart, "Thy will be done."’ On April 20 the Commons rejected Wilberforce’s motion by 163 votes to 88; though Pitt, Fox, and Burke spoke in its layout, and it was not till 1807 that the great victory was won. See Journal, viii. 127-8; Wilberforce: A Narrative, p. 141; and letter to Granville Sharp on October 11, 1787. ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/the-letters-of-john-wesley/ ========================================================================