Wesley Corpus

nion, but of practice. We break with no man for his opinion. We think and let think. I cannot better express my sense of this, than it is done by a serious man in the following letter :-- “Dear Sir,--I ought to have mentioned sooner my receiving yours, concerning Mr. Edwards, of New England. Mr. Robe is of his opinion as to the thing, (the doctrine of particular redemption,) but not as to the absolute necessity of believing either the one or the other side of the question. And it is the maintaining the necessity of his side of the question, which you justly blame. For the same reason I suppose you would blame the maintaining the necessity of your side of the question. On whatsoever side of the question one be, I apprehend, this mistake of the necessity of it proceeds from what Mr. Locke calls, ‘ the association ot ideas.’ People long accustomed to explain the essential things of Chris tianity, in such a particular way, and never having observed, how they can be explained in any other, transfer their zeal for these essential things, to their own way of explication, and believe there. is a necessary connection between them, when in fact there is not. This has produced many mischiefs and animosities, among all sorts of people. I would take my ground to stand on for clearing this, on what you say in the same letter to me: ‘ Whosoever agrees with us in that account of practical religion given in The Character of a Methodist, I regard not what his other opinions are; the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Iam more assured that love is of God, than that any opinion whatsoever is so. Herein may we increase more and more.’ “T have often thought since I was favoured with that letter, how far it natively and clearly went, as to many things that occasion contentions and schisms, even among real Christians: and what, as it natively and clearly follows from this principle, our practice ought to be.