To 1776
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | journal |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-journal-1773-to-1776-453 |
| Words | 394 |
Hick’s, at Wrestlingworth, through such roads as no chaise
could pass: So we had the pleasure of riding in a farmer's
cart. It was such a motion as I never felt before : But, to
make amends, the church was so filled as I never had seen it;
and I was enabled to speak with unusual plainness. Surely
some received the truth in the love thereof
Thur. November 1.--I gave a fair reading to Dr. Gerard’s
“Essay on Taste.” I should have wondered, but that I had
read his “Plan of Education;” wherein he advises to read
Logic last. Such an advice could never have been given but
by one that knew nothing about it. Indeed, he has hardly
a clear idea of anything. Hence it was natural for him to
produce this strange performance, wherein he talks prettily,
but quite wide of the mark, stumbling at first setting out;
for genius is no more invention, than it is sense or memory. Fri. 2.-I set out early, and about noon preached at Barnet,
to a small, serious congregation. I then went on to London. Sat. 3.-I had a long conversation with Mr. Clulow, on that
execrable Act, called the Conventicle Act. After consulting
the Act of Toleration, with that of the fourteenth of Queen
Anne, we were both clearly convinced, that it was the safest
way to license all our chapels, and all our Travelling Preachers,
not as Dissenters, but simply “Preachers of the Gospel;”
and that no Justice, or Bench of Justices, has any authority
to refuse licensing either the House or the Preachers. 404 REv. J. WESLEY’s [Nov. 1787. Sun. 4.--The congregation at the new chapel was far larger
than usual; and the number of communicants was so great, that
I was obliged to consecrate thrice. Monday, 5. In my way to
Dorking, I read Mr. Duff’s “Essay on Genius.” It is, beyond
all comparison, deeper and more judicious than Dr. G.'s Essay
on that subject. If the Doctor had seen it, (which one can
hardly doubt,) it is a wonder he would publish his Essay. Yet
I cannot approve of his method. Why does he not first define
his term, that we may know what he is talking about? I doubt,
because his own idea of it was not clear; for genius is not
imagination, any more than it is invention.