To Samuel Walker Date: BRISTOL September 24, 1755 REVEREND DEAR SIR, 1. You greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely, and the more by giving me hopes of seeing your farther sentiments on so nice and important an affair. I did not delay one day to follow your advice with regard to Mr. Adam, but sent him by the very next post a copy of those papers; although I am satisfied already as to the publishing them, and have laid aside that design, the reasons you urge against the expediency of it being abundantly sufficient. But you seem a little to misapprehend what we speak of hearing predestinarian preachers. We find by long experience that this is 'deadly poison,' not in itself but to the members of our Societies. This we know to be unquestionable truth; and it is a truth necessary to be observed, nay, and strongly insisted on (though without any deign of bearing hard on any particular person), when many were enlarging on 'the poisonous doctrines' which they heard at many of their parish churches. 2. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church I readily allow; as likewise that the first and main question must be, 'Is it lawful to separate' Accordingly this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning the, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it. 3. As to the grounds on which those who plead for separation from the Church proceed, some of them have weighed the point long and deeply. They have very particularly, and with earnest and continued prayer, considered the lawfulness of it. And they allow, 'If it be lawful to abide therein, then it is not lawful to separate.' But they aver, 'It is not lawful to abide therein'; and that for the following reasons:

First. With regard to the Liturgy itself: though they allow it is in the general one of the most excellent human compositions that ever was, yet they think it is both absurd and sinful to declare such an assent and consent as is required to any merely human composition. Again: though they do not object to the use of forms, yet they dare not confine themselves to them. And in this form (The Book of Common Prayer) there are several things which they apprehend to be contrary to Scripture. Secondly. As to the laws of the Church, if they include the Canons and Decretals, both which are received as such in our Courts, they think 'the latter are the very dregs of Popery, and that many of the former, the Canons of 1603, are as grossly wicked as absurd.' And, over and above the objections which they have to several particular ones, they think '(1) that the spirit which they breathe is throughout truly Popish and antichristian; (2) that nothing can be more diabolical than the ipso-facto excommunication so often denounced therein; (3) that the whole method of executing these Canons, the process used in our Spiritual Courts, is too bad to be tolerated not in a Christian but in a Mahometan or Pagan nation.' Thirdly. With respect to the ministers, they doubt 'whether there are not many of them whom God hath not sent; inasmuch as they neither live the gospel nor teach it; neither indeed can, seeing they do not know it.' They doubt the more, 'because themselves disclaim that inward call to the ministry which is at least as necessary as the outward.' And they are not dear 'whether it be lawful to attend the ministrations of those whom God has not sent to minister.' Fourthly. The doctrines actually taught by these, and indeed by a great majority of the Church ministers, they think 'are not only wrong, but fundamentally so, and subversive of the whole gospel.' They therefore doubt 'whether it be lawful to bid them God-speed or to have any fellowship with them.' I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these arguments to my own satisfaction. So that my conclusion (which I cannot yet give up), that it is lawful to continue in the Church, stands, I know not how, almost without any premises that are able to bear its weight.

My difficulty is very much increased by one of your observations. I know the original doctrines of the Church are sound; I know her worship is (in the main) pure and scriptural. But if 'the essence of the Church of England considered as such, consists in her orders and laws' (many of which I myself can say nothing for), 'and not in her worship and doctrines' those who separate from her have a far stronger plea than I was ever sensible of. 4. At present I apprehend those, and those only, to separate from the Church who either renounce her or refuse to join in her pubic worship. As yet we have done neither; nor have we taken one step farther than we were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this that we have (1) preached abroad, (2) prayed extempore, (3) formed Societies, and (4) permitted preachers who were not episcopally ordained. And were we punished on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty rather wholly to separate from the Church than to give up any one of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop a seperation without stopping lay preachers, the case is clear - we cannot stop it at all. 5. 'But if we permit them, should we not do more Should we not appoint them rather Since our bare permission puts the matter quite out of our hands and deprives us of all our influence.' In a great measure it does; therefore to appoint them is far more expedient, if it be lawful. But is it lawful for presbyters circumstanced as we are to appoint our ministers This is the very point wherein we desire advice, being unafraid of leaning to our own understanding. It is undoubtedly 'needful,' as you observe, to come to some resolution in this point'; and the sooner the better. I therefore rejoice to hear that you think 'that this matter may be better and more inoffensively ordered; and that a method may be found which, conducted with prudence and patience, will reduce the constitution of Methodism to due order, and render the Methodists under God more instrumental to the ends of practical religion.'

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