To the Editor of the 'London Chronicle' Editor's Introductory Notes: 1760 Date: LONDON, September 17, 1760. SIR, As you sometimes insert things of a religious nature in your paper, I shall count it a favour if you will insert this. Some years ago I published A Letter to Mr. Law, and about the same time An Address to the Clergy. Of the former Mr. Law gives the following account in his Collection of Letters lately published: To answer Mr. Wesley's letter seems to be quite needless, because there is nothing substantial or properly argumentative in it. I was once a kind of oracle to Mr. Wesley. I judged him to be much under the power of his own spirit. To this was owing the false censure which he published against the Mystics as enemies to good works. (Pages 128, 130.) His letter is such a juvenile composition of emptiness and pertness as is below the character of any man who had been serious in religion for half a month. It was not ability but necessity that put his pen into his hand. He had preached much against my books, and forbid his people the use of them; and for a cover of all this he promised from time to time to write against them; therefore an answer was to be made at all adventures. He and the Pope conceive the same reasons for condemning the mystery revealed by Jacob Behmen. Of the latter he gives this account:

The pamphlet you sent is worse than no advice at all; but infinitely beyond Mr. Wesley's Babylonish Address to the Clergy, almost all of which is empty babble, fitter for an old grammarian that was grown blear-eyed in mending dictionaries than for one who had tasted of the powers of the world to come . I leave others to judge whether an answer to that letter be quite needless or no, and whether there be anything substantial in it; but certainly there is something argumentative. The very queries relating to Jacob's Philosophy are arguments, though not in form; and perhaps most of them will be thought conclusive arguments by impartial readers. Let these likewise judge if there are not arguments in it (whether conclusive or no) relating to that entirely new system of divinity which he has revealed to the world. It is true that Mr. Law, whom I love and reverence now, was once 'a kind of oracle' to me. He thinks I am still 'under the power of' my 'own spirit,' as opposed to the Spirit of God. If I am, yet my censure of the Mystics is not at all owing to this, but to my reverence for the oracles of God, which, while I was fond of them, I regarded less and less; till at length, finding I could not follow both, I exchanged the Mystic writers for the scriptural.

It is sure, in exposing the Philosophy of Behmen, I use ridicule as well as argument; and yet I trust I have by the grace of God been in some measure 'serious in religion,' not 'half a month 'only, but ever since I was six years old, His father admitted him to the Lord's Table when he was only eight. See Stevenson's Wesley Family, p. 330. which is now about half a century. I do not know that the Pope has condemned him at all, or that he has any reason so to do. My reason is this, and no other: I think he contradicts Scripture, reason, and himself; and that he has seduced many unwary souls from the Bible way of salvation. A strong conviction of this, and a desire to guard others against that dangerous seduction, laid me under a necessity of writing that letter. I was under no other necessity; though I doubt not but Mr. Law heard I was, and very seriously believed it. I very rarely mention his books in public; nor are they in the way of one in an hundred of those whom he terms my people meaning, I suppose, the people called Methodists. I had therefore no temptation, any more than power, to forbid the use of them to the Methodists in general. Whosoever informed Mr. Law of this wanted either sense or honesty. He is so deeply displeased with the Address to the Clergy because it speaks strongly in favour of learning; but still, if this part of it is only 'fit for an old grammarian grown blear-eyed in mending dictionaries,' it will not follow that 'almost all of it is mere empty babble'; for a large part of it much more strongly insists on a single eye and a clean heart. Heathen philosophers may term this 'empty babble'; but let not Christians either account or call it so! I am, sir, Your humble servant.